Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Scientific Untruths about global warming The political and academic financial corruption of science - UN IPCC, Climate Science, Climate Change, Corruption

1. Scientific Untruths about global warming
The political and academic financial corruption of science

Jump to:
Care – core – cure. One little letter makes all the difference. To really care, before promoting a cure, understand the core.
You share our inherent human care for Earth and want to stop pollution. Yet efforts to clean Earth seem bogged in confusion from wildly contradictory predictions of 'climate crisis'. Supposed experts openly disagree yet we're told there's universal agreement humans are causing 'the end of life as we know it'. That turmoil triggers a mixture of 'climate alarm', fear, guilt, anger, hopelessness, apathy or doubt.
Nature imageWe can rediscover clarity, hope and support for Earth by understanding how alarm and confusion were created and how that actually increases pollution. You may think global warming is as serious as pollution and worry that questioning alarm will enable pollution. Yet they're different. We need be even more concerned about climate alarm because when buried by ignorance other core problems grow.
When we're willing to re-evaluate what we've been told we replace fear, guilt and external control with reality, hope and freedom. Appreciating Nature's integrity brings security and hope for all peoples and our planet. We need to let Earth speak.
Discover climate reality and environmental credibility in five steps to freedom and care. First, explore alarm by understanding what proponents of alarm are saying. Then listen to Earth speak through real-world science in section 2 - Science Facts & Futility. Then assess for yourself the impacts of what government politicians are advising - economically, morally and in terms of personal freedom and national sovereignty.
Understanding will bring reassurance on climate for personal peace and security.
Throughout this web site, red text represents the money trail. Discover for yourself who's eyeing your money.
For quick skimming, sub-headings convey simple summaries. Reading the text as needed provides deeper understanding. Check the links for verification or more information.
Should our environmental and energy policies be determined by lobbyists and special interest groups or by science? Explore this site to discover an answer for yourself and then take informed action.

Key facts:

A summary of UN IPCC and Australian corruption of climate science is available here.
Nature imageNot 4,000 scientists, just five reviewers of unknown qualifications.
The government admits its climate policy is based on reports by the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC. The UN IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd repeatedly stated that 4,000 scientists claim global warming was caused by human production of carbon dioxide, CO2. Yet IPCC figures themselves reveal only five (5) UN IPCC reviewers endorsed the claim - and there's doubt they were even scientists. That's a blatant falsity from the top of the UN's climate body spread by the very top of the Australian government. Refer to McLean's workgiving access to UN data on UN IPCC reporting processes. And towww.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
In its latest report (2007) the UN IPCC's sole chapter claiming detection of warming and human causation has no evidence. It contains no specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence for its false claim. It disguises its reliance on unvalidated computer models whose projections proven completely wrong. Buried separately in the report, Table 2.11 admits that 13 of 16 factors driving radiative forcing factors have low or very low levels of confidence. One factor is claimed to have a high level of understanding yet real-world science shows that is false.
Each of the UN IPCC's four reports (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007) relies on a falsity. That falsity was then the basis of the UN IPCC's worldwide media campaign inciting unfounded fear.
5,587 references not peer-reviewed. The UN IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri repeatedly publicly claims that UN IPCC reports rely on 100% peer-reviewed science yet the 2007 report cited and relied on 5,587 references not peer-reviewed, including hikers' anecdotes, newspaper stories and political activists' campaign material. That's another blatant falsity from the top of the UN's climate body.
UN IPCC peer-review processes have been corrupted, at times completely bypassed and even prevented. IPCC reports have not been scientifically peer-reviewed. UN IPCC reports rely on data specifically kept from scientific review and public scrutiny. Prominent UN IPCC 'scientists' prevented peer-review. That automatically disqualifies their material from being considered scientific because it has not been verified and cannot be verified.
All three (3) temperature databases used by the UN IPCC are ground-based and proven to be corrupted, misleading and inaccurate. Despite their core forecast of higher atmospheric temperatures, prominent UN IPCC officials refuse to use reliable atmospheric data measurements that show no net warming and no ongoing warming.
The UN's climate body deliberately omitted 90,000 reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels taken in the last 180 years. These show recent past atmospheric CO2 levels up to 40% above current levels.
The UN IPCC, Al Gore and prominent Australian academics gloss over real-world scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause.

Documented UN IPCC corruption of climate science

Nature imageDownload 'Summary Findings' to discover UN corruption of climate science for yourself. The first six pages highlight the direct corruption. Skim them by reading the orange highlights. Then, as needed, read the detail.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/Notes for web site.pdf 
If your browser has difficulty opening some of that document's links longer than one line in length, please use links presented at the bottom of this page.
A timeline of climate fraud* is available at:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_part 1.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional material/climategate references.pdf
* Dictionary definition of fraud: presenting something as it is not to secure unfair gain.
John McLean's reports reveal that only five reviewers endorsed the UN IPCC's core claim of global warming. His reports cannot be sensibly refuted since they merely present UN IPCC data on UN IPCC reporting processes. That data was obtained from the UN IPCC itself when it feared the use of Freedom of Information laws to demand its information.
www.conscious.com.au and find McLean
The UN's history of corrupting climate science began with corruptions by the United Nations Environmental Program, UNEP.
UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray (PhD, Cambridge) has around 60 years real-world experience in science, including the last 21 years in climate. He has reviewed all four UN IPCC reports - 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007.
The UN IPCC's own data reveal that he has provided by far the most comprehensive and detailed reviews of the UN IPCC's chapter 9 and its whole report. His reviews are provided atwww.conscious.com.au.
Dr Gray exposed the lack of credible evidence of significant warming. His reviews reveal that the UN IPCC has no real-world evidence for its claim that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.
Despite his enormously significant comments they were not even acknowledged by the UN IPCC chapter Review Editors, including Australia's David Karoly. That is unlike true scientific peer-review in which authors are accountable for explaining their response to each reviewer's comments. Not so in the UN IPCC.
He reveals that the UN IPCC downplays the known importance of solar cycles and El Nino Southern Oscillation Index as drivers of Earth's climate and global temperature.
Gray lives on his retirement pensions and, like McLean, has no financial interests in global warming. A declaration of interests is provided at:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional material/Personal declaration of interests.pdf
Based on his 21 years of experience with the UN IPCC Gray has written about the UN IPCC's corruption of science:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/gray documents/SpinningThe Climate.pdf
Here's his article exposing the UN IPCC's corruption of language to falsely imply evidence that the UN IPCC does not have. The UN IPCC's core claim of human causation of warming are baseless and false:
Here's an interview with Dr Gray explaining the UN IPCC has no evidence for its core claim.
UN IPCC falsities and unscientific practices are summarized on pages 9 to 14 of 'Thriving with Nature & Humanity':
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/dead elephants.pdf

Blatant politicisation of UN 'climate science'

Nature imageThe UN IPCC's political Summary for Policy Makers was written and given to national governments and media before the science chapters were written. UN IPCC guidelines state that where there is conflict between the science report and the summary for policy makers, the summary takes precedence. Thus science reports are modified to reflect the political summaries. As Professor Ball writes on page 125 of Slaying the Sky Dragon, quote:
"It started it early. The main report is then reviewed to make sure it 'aligns' with the summary. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures. "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter."
On pages 126-127 of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' Ball provides an example, quote:
"Chapter 8 didn't have specific evidence of a human signal. The original draft submitted by Santer read,
"Finally we have come to the most difficult question of all: "When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?" In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in the Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, "We do not know."
This was changed by Santer to accommodate the SPM to read,
"The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate." 26 Notice this is "statistical evidence" not actual evidence, but is part of the growing desire to 'blame' humans.
Compare it with the comment in the 1990 IPCC report.
"...it is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to (an) enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available."
By the time of the 2001 report the politics and hysteria had risen to a level that demanded a clear signal. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence."
[End of Ball's quote]
Viscount Monckton exposes the same issue:
Canadian Donna Laframboise exposes more unscientific corruption. Donna documents unscientific UN IPCC practices in a book entitled "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert":
Laframboise is yet another confirming the UN's blatant politicisation of science for political purposes:
Even UN IPCC Lead Authors admit to the UN IPCC's political motives:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/dead elephants.pdf Pages 3-7 and 11.
'The Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary provides interviews of UN IPCC scientists, including Lead Authors. 'The Deniers' by Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon interviews leading UN IPCC scientists exposing UN IPCC corruption. These include Christopher Landsea and Paul Reiter international experts on storms and insect-borne diseases respectively.
Exposing a prominent newspaper spreading unfounded claims of human causation of global warming and climate alarm:
In its 2007 report, the UN IPCC's sole chapter claiming human warming and attributing it to human production of CO2 (chapter 9) contains no evidence for its claim. In fabricating the report, the Lead Authors contradicted UN IPCC guidelines.
McLean (see above for links) states that the science Working Group One's (WG1) sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide (chapter 9) had two (2) co-coordinating Lead Authors, seven lead authors and 44 contributing authors.
85% of the authors of the sole chapter attributing warming to humans were not appointed by the IPCC but merely by the 9 appointed authors. UN IPCC data itself confirms that they formed a tightly knit cabal lacking independence and accountability.
Nature imageChapter 9's Lead Authors breached UN IPCC guidelines by selecting authors from a very narrow background. According to UN IPCC guidelines, Lead Authors are responsible for ensuring a wide-range of authors from diverse backgrounds worldwide. Yet this core chapter was written by a tightly knit cabal. There is overwhelming influence from four (4) institutes huddled around the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the core of the Climategate scandal. They are dominated by computer modelers and present no real-world evidence for their claim of human warming.They appear enmeshed in conflicts of financial interest.
Refer to Peter Bobroff's summary of the InterAcademy Council's review of the UN IPCC.
The authors of chapter 9 rely immensely on their own papers for their conclusions that contradict real-world science.
The 2007 report's chapter 9 was apparently built on the equivalent sole chapter in the 2001 report - chapter 12. David Karoly was Lead Author of chapter 12 in 2001 and yet was allowed to be Review Editor of chapter 9 in 2007.
The tightly knit cabal of authors who wrote the UN IPCC 2007 report's sole chapter (9) claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide were so closely inter-related that independence was lost.
Refer to Wegman himself who investigated UN IPCC processes for the USA Congress. For succinct summaries including quotes from Wegman refer to Ball below and to McLean's work above.
Ball's chapter 11 of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' by an international team of authors led by John O'Sullivan.
'Scientists' at the core of the UN IPCC's temperature fabrications have refused to allow access to data. That should immediately disqualify their claims as unfounded. According to Climategate e-mails, principal 'scientists' have threatened to destroy, misrepresent or hide data rather than allow it to be investigated. When this occurred in the face of Freedom of Information laws and involved breaches of the law, people saw there's something fishy.
When 'scientists' breach scientific process, their work is no longer scientific. It is unscientific and needs to be discarded. That universities protect and condone such behaviour and misrepresentation destroys faith in academia and exposes likely systemic corruption. Are universities driven by fear of losing government research grants?
University support for unscientific behaviour by scientists misrepresenting science is occurring in Australia. That is abuse of science, corruption of policy and waste of taxpayer funds. When academics and/or their university benefit, is it not fraud?
* Dictionary definition of fraud: presenting something as it is not to secure unfair gain.

The so-called 'settled science' was settled before IPCC science started

Nature imageAt the United Nations Environmental Program's (UNEP's) 1980 conference in Villach, Austria, government scientists from around the world refused to sign the UN's claim of global warming due to human production of CO2stating 'no evidence'.
For it's next conference in 1985, the UN learned its lesson: it selected delegates who signed its claim, despite no evidence. The conference produced a report reportedly written mostly by one man, Bert Bolin. He was prominent in the UN Environmental Program's corrupted climate campaign.
On March 24, 1988, 'Dagens Nyheter' Sweden's largest daily newspaper published an article written by Swede Bert Bolin and Mans Lonnroth. In the article entitled 'Introduce a tax on carbon dioxide' (Infor skat pa koldioxid) he said, without supporting evidence, quote:"Continued release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide is an ecological experiment which is ethically indefensible. A specific tax on carbon dioxide needs to be considered."
See original article in Swedish • English translation
Bolin's article introduced many false scares that became a standard part of climate alarm propaganda - sea levels, irreversible catastrophic temperature rise, ...
Later in 1988, UNEP co-sponsored formation of the UN IPCC. Bert Bolin was appointed the UN IPCC's first Chairman. It produced its first report in 1990, reportedly based on Bolin's report of UNEP's 1985 Villach, Austria climate conference that lacked any real-world evidence of human warming.

UN climate corruption started with UNEP in the 1970's

Maurice Strong was appointed UNEP's first Secretary General, in 1972.
McLean shows UNEP laid the foundation and template for political distortion of climate and science. Using quotes from senior UNEP and UN IPCC officials, McLean reveals how UNEP's misrepresentations were later honed and extended by the UN IPCC.
Professor Tim Ball provides a comprehensive yet succinct summary of the UN's corruption of climate science in chapter 9 of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon'.
Deepen understanding by checking the references for yourself and visitingwww.conscious.com.au. Note McLean's work that presents UN IPCC data on its own reporting processes. The data was obtained from the UN IPCC itself.
A summary of key findings by the InterAcademy Council's review of the UN IPCC.
Some beneficiaries of this corruption driving unfounded climate alarm are listed on page 40 of 'Thriving with Nature & Humanity'
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf
To give the corruption of science and politics a life of its own the original bureaucrats in the UN merely needed to create systems to align behaviours. Then, once people are engaged they can tend to justify their actions. Then they become enmeshed in the system and unconsciously justify their actions. That's the human condition.
Once established, all that's needed is for people to fear the withdrawal of grants or research or to see an opportunity to move along in a new and seemingly exciting field. The lure of money assists bankers. The lure of power and fear of rejection lures politicians.
It is significant that many of the scientists and lay people standing up to the government and the UN are retired.
Aligning beneficiaries with their self-interests combines with lack of data to produce flexible positions. It started 1974's supposed forecast imminent, irreversible catastrophic global cooling blamed on particulates from burning fuels containing carbon.
After 1976's so-called 'Great Pacific Climate Shift' when global atmospheric temperatures rose slightly in one year (see this web site's Section 2, The Science & Futility) global cooling morphed into global warming due to human production of carbon dioxide from fuels containing carbon.
With subtle repetition, global warming due to human CO2 production was twisted intoglobal warming due to carbon. That was later morphed into climate change due to carbon and enabled any weather event to be touted as proof. That is now morphing intoclimate disruption due to carbon. All this occurred using subtle propaganda without any supporting real-world evidence.
Prominent academics fail to provide real-world evidence yet collect government funding. Are they polluting science? Decide for yourself
All eight of Australia's publicly prominent academics promoting human causation of global warming failed to provide real-world evidence of their claim. They are:
- Professor Tim Flannery, BA English, MSc, PhD on evolution of macropods
- Professor Ross Garnaut, economist
- Professor Matthew England, mathematician and computer modeler
- Professor Andy Pitman, computer modeler
- Professor Will Steffen, chemical engineer, PhD inorganic chemistry
- Professor Kurt Lambeck, geophysicist
- Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, biologist
- Professor David Karoly, meteorologist, UN IPCC Lead Author (2001), Review Editor (2007), writer of draft Summary for Policy Makers (2007).
All eight receive funds directly from the government or are employees of institutions receiving government grants. All refused requests to disclose their funding.
All prominently publicly advocate humans caused global warming. One leads the push for artificially raising energy prices. Two are paid members of the government's Climate Commission, including the Chief Commissioner. Three others are members, presumably paid, of the Climate Commission's Science Advisory Panel.
All receive government funding or are employed by institutes funded by government to research global warming. Yet none can provide any specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused global warming.
Nature imageIn their responses to Malcolm Roberts' requests for real-world evidence of human causation of global warming, Professors Karoly, Flannery, England, Pitman, Steffen and Hoegh-Guldberg have failed to provide any evidence.
Garnaut and Lambeeck have not replied to Roberts' requests sent by Registered Post (with Delivery Confirmation) followed by e-mail.
Why is the most prominent spreading falsities in his own field of meteorology? Professor David Karoly has been a UN IPCC Lead Author of the UN IPCC 2001 report's sole chapter (chapter 12) claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide. In doing so he apparently contravened the UN IPCC's own guidelines for Lead Authors (Refer above to McLean's work presenting UN IPCC data on its own reporting processes).
David Karoly was a Review Editor of the equivalent sole chapter (9) in the following 2007 report even though it reportedly built upon the 2001 report's equivalent sole chapter (12).
He drafted the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. Yet since November 2009 his responses to Malcolm Roberts' requests for specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence of human warming have failed to provide any evidence. Why?
Even though he is a meteorologist, his public statements broadcast by ABC-TV contain alarming falsities contradicting weather data. A copy of an e-mail to him is available at:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/Karoly E-mail January, 2011.pdf
From Professor England's responses it's easy to conclude that he does not understand the difference between supposition and empirical evidence.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/E-mail reply.pdf
Nor does Professor England seem to understand cause-and-effect. Why?

Professor Flannery examined by a doctor

Nature imageProfessor Flannery has twice been publicly challenged by Malcolm Roberts to provide evidence of human causation of global warming. Twice he failed.
Dr Wes Allen has released what is the first known detailed review of Tim Flannery's book 'The Weather Makers'. Dr Allen's review reveals that 307 statements in Tim Flannery's book created 577 problems. These have been classified into *:
- Baseless extreme (comments) - 14
- Baseless dogmatic - 103
- Suspect source - 51
- Half-truth - 85
- No uncertainty - 48
- Misrepresentations - 7
- Misinterpretation - 26
- Exaggeration - 78
- Factual error - 70
- Confusing/Silly - 43
- Contradictory - 31
- Failed predictions - 11
- Mistakes - 10
*Some statements earn more than one category
Grand total of problems: 577
To see Dr Allen's complete analysis you can download Dr Allen's spreadsheet analysis of 'The Weather Makers'.
Yet on the basis of 'The Weather Makers', Professor Flannery scared many young adults into climate alarm, garnered his 2007 award 'Australian of the Year', rocketed to fame, launched a publishing career, became a darling of the media and especially the government's ABC network and scuttled the government on climate in 2007, an election year.
With few exceptions his falsities have never been publicly scrutinised by major politicians or journalists.
To discover and assess for yourself, Dr Allen's book entitled 'The Weather Makers Re-Examined' is available from Irenic Publications.
Some of Professor Flannery's many contradictions and apparent conflicts of interest have been publicly exposed. For example:
Over a period of 18 months, Tim Flannery's public descriptions of coal changed from 'antique''carbon catastrophe' as "dangerous as asbestos and nuclear power" and "as expensive as solar panels" yet a "cost-effective and a solution that cannot be questioned". September 22, 2008, ABC-TV, quote: "The world is going to need coal - particularly China and India" two significant markets for Australian coal. Is this scientific logic?
Later Tim Flannery returned to advocating the banning of coal fired power stations. He did this while rambling on many topics and outing the prominent government minister widely mentioned as being a sceptic on human causation of global warming, Martin Ferguson.
This appears to be use of the Delphi technique gone mad.
Tim Flannery caught telling lies? Caught by his own mischievousness in his own trap? You decide: simply by maintaining detailed records, popular radio host Ray Hadlee makes a monkey out of Tim Flannery.

More academics doctoring climate science?

Nature imageProfessor Ross Garnaut (economist) has been prominently advocating that artificial increases in energy prices be imposed on people. Yet his 2008 Garnaut Review's chapter 2 on the science admits there is no evidence of human causation. He still has no scientific evidence yet recommends increasing prices.
A copy of Roberts' letter to him is available at:
Professor Garnaut failed to respond to the request sent him by Registered Post and e-mail. Yet his team in the Department of Climate Change revealed remarkable ignorance of science in its reply stating that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yet science is about facts not opinion.
Professors Steffen (Executive Director of the Australian National University Climate Change Institute) and Lambeck (President of the Australian Academy of Science) have failed to respond to Registered Post letters and e-mails requesting evidence.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/Steffen2011January25.pdf
Four scientists have challenged a presentation by Professor Steffen:
At the Climate Commission meeting in Ipswich on Thursday, April 7th, 2011 he tried to answer a request from Malcolm Roberts for specific real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused global warming. He failed to provide any causal relationship. In response to a clarifying question Professor Steffen confirmed he presented ground-based temperatures - rather than atmospheric. He used Michael Mann's discredited 'hockey stick temperature graph' in his presentation.
Referring to his sixth slide depicting European and North American temperatures, note the critique by Professor Vincent Courtillot:
Comments by the Inter-Academy Council (IAS), UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray and many scientists confirm that there is no scientific or statistical basis for Professor Steffen's eighth (last) slide's conclusion that, quote: "It is very likely that human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, have caused most of this warming."
Without substantiation, at Ipswich he later verbally claimed 95% confidence, implying a level of certainty that is unfounded and contradicted by the IAS, scientists and statisticians.
In response to a question on his fifth slide showing atmospheric CO2 levels, he avoided Roberts' request to discuss the ocean's impact on prominent seasonal variation in CO2levels.
He failed to prove that human production of carbon dioxide caused warming. He contradicted the real-world science by claiming correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature over many recent decades.
Nature imageIn answer to a separate question from the audience and in reference to the Oregon petition list containing over 31,000 scientists who signed a petition refuting the Kyoto protocol, Professor Wil Steffen said, quote: "I know a little bit about this petition. It's been going around for quite a while. You need to differentiate types of scientists, for example I'm not competent to comment on aero-science or inorganic (in organic????) chemistry or something like that. That's further ???? afield. So if you go through that list of 31 thousand scientists I couldn't recognise any that I recognise as publishing in the range of literature that covers climate science. So the issue there is that list really doesn't carry any weight at all in the credible scientific community. They don't publish, they don't go to the conferences we do, they're not (interjection) – would you let me finish - so I think the issue there is that the credibility of the scientists involved, you earn that, you keep that by publishing in the peer-review literature. That's the quality control mechanism that we use in any area of science uses. So that is not in my view a good criteria to judge what the scientific community says. You must simply go into the literature in the field to understand it."
Perhaps Wil Steffen needs to do some checking. The petitioners include:
Professor Frederick Seitz, Professor Fred Singer, Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Paul Reiter, Dr Vincent Gray. These were found easily and quickly by searching for names of some well-known climate scientists.
Perhaps Wil Steffen could consult this list of over 1,000 dissenting scientists that includes many UN IPCC scientists:
Perhaps Professor Steffen could check for himself the work of McLean and Laframboise who use UN IPCC data to expose the UN IPCC's corruption, bypassing and prevention of peer-review.
Yet, funded by the government, Professors Flannery and Steffen used the Climate Commission to engage in a contrivance, not a conversation.

Professor Karoly broadcasts falsities

Professor KarolyProfessor Karoly similarly falsely claimed a lack of dissenting scientists. In doing so he helped fabricate in Australia the false notion of a scientific consensus. Please refer to item 5.8 in e-mail to Professor Karoly on January 25, 2011. It's available at:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/Karoly E-mail January, 2011.pdf
Professor Karoly was a UN IPCC Lead Author (2001) and Review Editor (2007) of the UN IPCC's sole chapter on detection of warming and attribution to human production of CO2. He drafted the UN IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policymakers later given to national governments and media. Its influence on media and on public opinion and political agenda was strong. How did he not know such basic information? Why is he publicly broadcasting falsities?
All eight of these academics advocating human causation of warming have failed to provide evidence. Yet all are paid by the government and publicly advocate global warming caused by human production of carbon dioxide.
Professor Hoegh-Guldberg (biologist) has been publicly spreading falsities. My complaint to the University of Queensland for his falsities broadcast as an employee of the University included my annotated transcript of his ABC-TV broadcast. It is available at:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/ABC transcripta.pdf
Note the real-world data on sea levels as measured and published by the Queensland government's Maritime Safety Queensland. It shows that during the last 15 years Australian sea level rose at the rate of 0.3 mm per year. Over a hundred years that would be 3.0 centimetres, around one inch.
He has repeatedly failed to provide real-world evidence of his claim that global humans caused warming.
Recently, a Canadian web site exposed his financial links to Greenpeace activist funding. The site lists nine chapters in the UN IPCC's 2007 report that based their findings on his work.
Yet five (5) of these professors are involved with the government's Climate Commission - Tim Flannery as Chief Commissioner on a salary of reportedly $180,000 for a part time job expected to last eight months, Will Steffen as Commissioner and David Karoly, Matthew England and Andy Pitman as members of the Climate Commission's Science Advisory Panel. A sixth, economist Ross Garnaut is the government's prominent analyst, reviewer and advocate on science and economics of global warming.

The backlash starts on universities falsely promoting or condoning climate falsities

Repercussion on universities has started. Two wealthy donors have advised the University of Queensland Senate that they have stopped donating to UQ science and advised their wealthy colleagues against donating to UQ science. Their decision was based on what they see as the poor standard of science and UQ's promotion of falsities on global warming.
Universities involved in falsely spreading global warming falsities are facing a backlash.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_part 1.pdf page 4.

Misled or misleading?

Many scientists were unfortunately misled by supposedly credible organisations that collected and corrupted global temperature data from ground based measuring stations. 'Climategate e-mails' showed examples of manipulation and withholding of data to fabricate the hypothesis that humans caused warming.
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf
In November, 2011 a second batch of leaked emails from prominent UN IPCC 'scientists' revealed yet more corruption of the UN IPCC's supposed 'science':
Some eminent scientists have publicly admitted they initially assumed climate science to be solid. In exploring it later themselves they withdrew support and had the integrity and courage to admit their error.
Others it seems have made an error and then possibly done what they could to prevent their error from being discovered.

Is government funding driving CSIRO and BOM climate misrepresentations polluting climate science?

Nature imageThe Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Australia's once-respected CSIRO have apparently inconsistently altered data in unscientific ways. Could that be to maintain their government funding?http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/ http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
Scientist Warwick Hughes is a pioneer in the field of exposing UN IPCC falsities. His persistent challenges contributed to exposing the Climategate scandal. He has found many deficiencies in BOM methods and data.

The heads of CSIRO have no evidence of human causation yet publicly imply humans caused global warming

CSIRO, Australia's Chief Scientist and The Australian Academy of Science all fail to provide evidence of their claim that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.
Malcolm Roberts has asked CSIRO's Chief Executive, Dr Megan Clarke and CSIRO's Group Executive - Environment, Dr Andrew Johnson for evidence that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming. In their responses neither has provided real-world scientific evidence.
Request to Dr Gregory Ayers, Director of Meteorology, Australian government Bureau of Meteorology, BOM for empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 production caused Earth's latest modest period of cyclic global atmospheric warming that ended around 1998.
In response to Malcolm's Registered Post and e-mail requests of the former Australian Chief Scientist, Dr Penny Sackett, she failed to provide any real-world evidence of global warming caused by humans.
In response to Malcolm's Registered Post and e-mail requests of Professor Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science, he failed to provide any real-world evidence of global warming caused by humans.
All these organisations are funded by the Australian government. They produce glossy reports implying global warming was caused by humans. Yet looking behind the carefully worded text and beautiful pictures, they provide no real-world scientific evidence for their falsely implied claims.

Overseas scandals involving government funding and misrepresentation of science

Eighteen months since it broke, the Climategate scandal has still not yet been independently investigated despite a breach of the law and anger from British MP's over alleged broken promises by a university at the centre of the scandal. The cover-up crossed the Atlantic.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_part 1.pdf page 4.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional material/climategate references.pdf

Al Gore's conflicts of interest and contradictions

www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf page 43.
The internet has many links to Al Gore's conflicts of interest and contradictions. Pages 41 and 42 quantify and discuss his corruption of science and the techniques used by his Hollywood producers to manipulate human emotion.
To kick-start the 2007 federal election campaign, the ALP reportedly engineered Al Gore's April, 2007 visit that drew media attention to climate alarm.
Too many people are making too much money out of climate alarm
Follow the money.

Why is our Prime Minister leading the corruption?

Nature imageWhy does Prime Minister Julia Gillard state repeatedly that there is no reputable scientist who disagrees with the government's stance? On that even her own Chief Climate Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery publicly disagrees with her. There are hundreds of internationally eminent and reputable scientists who disagree and thousands more qualified scientists. These include UN IPCC Lead Authors appalled at the UN IPCC's corruption of science.
Despite her public claims that climate is an important issue, the Prime Minister has never been briefed by the former Australian Chief Scientist.
During the 2007 election campaign, as Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard claimed to be strong on addressing climate. During the lead up to her replacement after the sacking of Kevin Rudd she advised former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to drop support for his carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme. Within months she was then claiming to be strong on climate in the lead up to the next election. Political support for climate is based on polling not science.

Demand a Royal Commission

We need a Royal Commission into the government's spreading of UN IPCC fraud. A Royal Commission requiring evidence given under oath is essential for reinstating science as the basis of public policy. True, objective science based on real-world evidence needs to be resuscitated.

Corruption of science is killing people

The corruption of climate science spreads to other areas. Why did, for example, the release of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on October 8th, 2010 contain no scientific references yet claim to be based on science? Reputable scientists claim publicly that the report contradicts or misrepresents the science.
Controls on farmers to prevent land clearing are controls that remove private property rights. They were enacted by the NSW state ALP government at the urging of the Howard federal Liberal government. That enabled the Liberal government to claim Australia was meeting its 'commitments' under the UN's Kyoto 'treaty'. Farmers paid dearly and against their will for a politically driven agenda to benefit politicians electorally.
The state stole farmers' property rights and freedom.
Land clearing legislation in Queensland has already been passed on faulty science to the detriment of the environment.
As the corruption of science by politics spreads, it will likely kill more people. The UN's corruption of science has already cost the lives of an estimated more than 30 million people. Their agonising deaths due to malaria could have been avoided had the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) not rushed the banning of DDT in the 1970's prior. The banning was reportedly politically motivated and completely contradicted the science.The UN's own World Health Organisation (WHO) resumed recommending DDT in 2004.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_Part 3.pdf
That episode alone puts the UN in the league of Earth's worst mass-murderers - Hitler, Mao and Stalin.
The core, the UN's climate body is rotten. It's rotten to the core.
In his farewell address as President, Dwight Eisenhower said: "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
While Eisenhower's warning needs to be needed, the UN has shown that it took over science and corrupted it as a means to achieve political goals.

A benefit of unfounded climate alarm

That so many people could fall for unfounded climate alarm's program of fear and guilt is concerning for our society, democracy and freedom.
Admittedly the campaign was convincing, cleverly preyed on emotions and inherent human care for the environment and humanity. It was bankrolled by billions of dollars and ego-driven politicians and academics. For example:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf pages 31-34 and 39-43.
The benefit is that people in nations whose politicians are spreading unfounded climate alarm or meekly remaining silent on unfounded alarm can now learn how fear and guilt are used to manipulate people. Consciousness of that and of our own emotional and mental vulnerabilities is an essential step in protecting freedom.

Challenge to a debate

The eight Australian academics prominent in promoting human causation of warming are challenged to debate publicly at a mutually acceptable venue with a mutually acceptable chairperson. The debate will include:
- The UN IPCC - the basis of the government climate policy
- Real-world science - the only sound basis of climate policy
- The economics - the impacts of climate policy
More details in section 2 - The Science & Futility.


We need to forgive those who have corrupted science. True forgiveness brings clarity of mind. Clear thinking is needed to restore integrity to political processes and parliament.

For care to be effective, care needs to be informed
Please help restore integrity

Please help us access mainstream media to inform the public of the corruption of science. Help us give honest scientists a public voice. Please donate to help us to achieve these aims.
Our taxes are being used to pollute science. Now they want more tax.
Please ask your members of federal parliament to take action to end the corruption by demanding a royal commission or independent judicial investigation requiring evidence under oath to investigate the corruption of science. Offer them your vote and support if they vote against any carbon dioxide tax or 'trading scheme'.
House of Representatives: list of Members
Senate: list of Senators' electorate offices
Senate: list of Senators' Canberra offices
Links from 'Summary Findings', pages 1-7:
Page 1:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf
Page 2:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf
Page 3:
Page 4:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/dead elephants.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_part 1.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_Part 3.pdf
Page 5:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/gray documents/SpinningThe Climate.pdf
Page 6:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_part 1.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional material/climategate references.pdf
Page 7:
Page 8:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional material/Personal declaration of interests.pdf

UN IPCC, Climate Science, Climate Change, Corruption: