Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball (dateline Australia).
I am in Australia at the invitation of Senator Malcolm Roberts to promote his investigation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the agency responsible for climate change. We are joined by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) who brings his devastating analyses of ‘adjustments’ to temperature at NOAA and NASA GISS as well those of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). Jennifer Marohasy is contributing even more detailed analysis of adjustments to the Australian record by the BoM.
There are two major components of the global warming/climate change deception. The involvement of the bureaucrats of each national weather agency and the lack of empirical data. The latter includes inadequate data for creating the climate models and the lack of empirical evidence to support the claims and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Maurice Strong guaranteed the inclusion and the control by bureaucrats by using the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide members to the IPCC. This determined it was controlled by the national weather offices. They, in turn, became the sole source of information to the politicians in each nation. It evolved into proof of Mary McCarthy’s definition of a bureaucracy as the rule of no one, the modern form of despotism.
These national weather bureaucracies are trapped as the evidence, or lack of it, constantly undermines the story they sold to their political bosses. I wrote about the dilemma of having bureaucratic climate scientists in a recent WUWT article. Many of these climate bureaucrats approached me over the years saying they knew the problems but needed the job.
Over the years many individuals began looking at the science behind the IPCC claims that supported their government policies. Many of them formed groups because most needed confirmation; they could not believe what they were finding. They could not believe the levels of corruption, distortion, and misuse of science they found. I was privileged to help some of them form their groups, or at least to answer their questions. Friends of Science was one of the first and most successful. More recently I was involved with the Australian Galileo Movement through the auspices of Malcolm Roberts.
Unlike most, Malcolm was willing to do more than participate in a group disseminating information the public did not receive from official sources. He ran for political office under the banner of the One Nation Party and was elected to the Australian Senate. You can see his maiden speech on the topic of the lack of empirical evidence on YouTube.
Senator Roberts asked CSIRO, the agency responsible for climate change to provide empirical evidence that human CO2 was causing warming or climate change. They submitted a report that failed to provide the evidence. They briefly used British TV celebrity scientist Brian Cox who used the NASA GISS temperature graph. It was easily dismissed by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) who showed that the graph used data inappropriately modified to emphasize warming. It was ‘adjusted’ not real data. You can see a 2016 YouTube of Heller’s exposition of all the ‘adjustments’ made to US data by NOAA and NASA GISS to emphasize warming.
Today I joined Malcolm and Tony in a press conference at the Australian Parliament to speak to the CSIRO report and address, albeit briefly, the historical context of the deception that made manipulation of data necessary to maintain it.
When you tell a scientific story based on an untested hypothesis there is the very real risk that the evidence will emerge to contradict it. Because Maurice Strong used the scientific bureaucrats in each national weather office to populate the IPCC they presented the false story to the politicians that global warming and latterly climate change due to human addition of CO2 was an indisputable fact. They were on a treadmill of having to counteract or deliberately alter data to maintain their story. They had to participate in or at least accept and condone all the corruption. Now in Australia, thanks to the actions of Senator Roberts, they are required to provide the evidence for their claims.
CSIRO produced a report, which Roberts and his team completely dissected. All this is available at his Australian Senate web site. The press conference was to bring the media and the public up to date on what is going on. It emphasized and explained how the CSIRO information is used as the basis of all government and political party policies and actions regardless of political stripe.
Hopefully these actions and events will encourage other politicians to speak and challenge the greatest deception in history. A deception that has caused bad policies to cost lives and waste trillions of dollars.
Later in the week I have the honour of making a presentation at the first annual Bob Carter lecture on climate and climate change in Brisbane. As many of you know Bob was an effective and indefatigable warrior for scientific accuracy and the truth about global climate. He took great risk and suffered doubled jeopardy with attacks from promoters of anthropogenic warming (AGW)and from people within his own discipline.
I know, after several hours of conversation with Bob, that he would be very proud and supportive of Senator Malcolm Roberts and his actions. Bob was not deterred in his efforts to bring accurate science to the public and the politicians regardless of the price. Senator Roberts is equally determined to bring accurate science to the politicians so that policy will be based on real evidence in the most appropriate way. I suspect there are many bureaucratic scientists who would welcome the opportunity to do their science without being swayed or judged by its political usefulness. Part of my reason for this suspicion is the fact that the CSIRO added a small caveat to their reports saying this work is not adequate as the basis for policy. That does not absolve them from their failure to do due diligence on the BoM and NASA GISS altered data. Similarly, it does not absolve any other agency who uses this data without question. If you do, then you are as much a part of the problem and responsible for the damage as the originator.
” ….. (CSIRO) the agency responsible for climate change ”
You mean it is all their fault?
(Sorry, nit-picking again.)
Dang. You beat me to it.
Tell the UN, tell WWF, tell GreenPeace…disband CSIRO and then disband yourselves!
Just had that ready in the cut and paste buffer too.
He’s actually right, they are RESPONSIBLE for a large part of the warming since they created it with their bogus processing
No, Its NOAA /GISS etc that are responsible for changing the past climate.
CSIRO just went along for the ride.
And here was I, thinking that Mannmade global warming was all the fault of Michael (Piltdown) Mann!
Australian Senator stitched up by SBs ,called a ‘Climate Denier’.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/07/climate-denier-senator-wants-csiro-inquiry
CSIRO responds by saying it uses peer review.
Debate avoided.
Our science establishment has to give us empirical evidence that CO2 induced climate change is an existential evil which will cause us catastrophic harm.
If not we are better to adapt to climate change while staying employed and feeding our kids.
SA darkening was the bell weather.
Re posted from Tips and Notes
“SA darkening was the bell weather” It’s the “bell-wether” the wether who wears the bell to help the shepherd keep track of where his charges are.
You must be right. I was not sure whether it was wether or weather.
I chose, wrongly, weather, because it seemed apt.
On your textural analysis what happened to that poor wether is what happened to the SA power grid.
So it is more apt.
Regards.
SBS just a different TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for the ABC (Gubmint funded).
Senator Roberts political term should be sufficient time to shake the CSIRO cronies down and force the truth out of them.
Craig,
The mainstream media of ABC Government Media, Fairfax, Commercial TV Current Affairs and even sections of The Murdoch Media (News. Com) will do its utmost to present Senator Roberts as a Denier, delusionist and general whack job and defend the Climate Narrative to the utmost.
Australian Media is as feral as it gets in this area and it takes its self appointed role to slur and sledge those that challenge the Climate Narrative very, very seriously.
Hopefully we have a senate enquiry over this. It will be nice to see those organisations heads squirm when under real questioning.
Honestly Mark I don’t think the US Senate or any other political body is the right place for that debate to occur. The Senate shouldn’t have been making policy based on hypotheticals and conjecture to begin with and that’s a subject worthy of debate in that forum. The actual science isn’t; that’s something that, by necessity, needs to be addressed by the scientific community itself.
It seems obvious the segment of the scientific community that claims to be the “core” of climate science would very much like to exclude all other scientific disciplines from that debate. In my opinion that has to stop.
Bartleby,
Yes agreed, except that none of us has made good progress getting info from govt agencies. They tend to avoid questions they do not want to answer and they waffle on inconsequentially when it gets serious. We found that the best way to date to get answers was the parliamentary process, but even then factions within govt were playing suppression games. It needed an elected person to represent those with dissenting views. This has now taken place, thank you Malcolm.
Geoff
Seriously, well done Dr. Ball, keep at it.
If irrefutable evidence has been found of deliberate tampering of climate records such as temperatures it needs to be carefully collated, written up and presented for peer review. This would then make this an issue that has to be taken seriously.
If all that is done is to make claims and accusations of fraud without verification then those in authority will see it merely as part of the long standing sceptical blogosphere claims and they will be dismissed.
I think there is a big question over the quality of the historic data being used, of which sea surface temperatures back to 1850 are the most suspect. I think the claims of extreme weather are highly unlikely and exaggerated based on my own research at places such as the met office.
However, for actual fraud to have occurred on the scale suggested to alter temperature records would require the collusion of thousands of scientists and researchers. So such as tony heller can do everyone a favour by laying this argument to rest once and for all by peer review of their work
Tonyb
For me, it is not a question of fraud. There may be fraud in climate science, but I question rampant fraud.
It is more of an issue of confirmation bias. When scientists can selectively eliminate data which disagrees with their hypothesis for legitimate reasons, but they include confirming data which should be eliminated for similar reasons — that is bias. In climate science, if a dozen reasons could be studied for increasing the temperature and a dozen could be studied for reducing the temperature — the dozen which will increase the temperature receives the lion’s share of the attention and funding. That is bias.
There is no fraud in bias — but it is just as damaging. An open science should encourage elimination of bias. A closed science would discourage such studies.
I disagree. Those who collate and are responsible for the temperature data/records are relatively few in number.
Further, their adjustments, and the reasons why they are making adjustments, are pervaded by group think.
The many thousands of ‘scientist’ and researchers you refer to, are those who use the temperature data/records in their research. If the data sets they use are bad, because of inappropriate adjustments, then they are caught up in the consequence of having data sets that are simply not fit for genuine scientific purpose.
Yes, peer review That’s the ticket. Phew! We can all breathe in peace.
O but – hang on….
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf
Gosh! Perhaps there just might be, well, – if not collusion? – mebbe ‘over confidence in untested hypotheses’?
Nah, ‘collusion’ sounds better. It puts the bacon on the table, after all.
‘Irrefutable evidence’? Good luck with that one. In the past, dud hypotheses have only been uncovered after two millennia, despite mountains of counter-evidence.
“However, for actual fraud to have occurred on the scale suggested to alter temperature records would require the collusion of thousands of scientists and researchers.”
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that, Tony. Why do you?
would require the collusion of thousands of scientists and researchers…
Actually no it doesn’t…..they just build on each other’s work and accept that the figures given them are correct
Collective neglect? Dereliction of duty?
Similar to the Summary for Policymakers done at IPCC by a few at the top, we have the same situation at NASA/NOAA where a few individuals change the graphs of the temperatures as shown at Tony Hellers weblog.
Groupthink isn’t fraud — nor is it unreasonable to expect. We definitely need better systems to address groupthink. I’m pretty sure hounding those who disagree into retirement is not a part of the solution.
“However, for actual fraud to have occurred on the scale suggested to alter temperature records would require the collusion of thousands of scientists and researchers. So such as tony heller can do everyone a favour by laying this argument to rest once and for all by peer review of their work”
There have been a number of attempt to discredit historical data, Michael Manns hockey stick and the University of East Anglia spring to mind. And as was reported in Australia yesterday, scientists are looking at leaving the industry due to lack of public grants. What better excuse to find a world threatening issue and keep putting out reports to support that theory as a way to keep the money rolling in.
Tony, Here is some irrefutable evidence of tampering I have periodically brought out that has been ignored and no response of any kind has ccome out as part of a plan to avoid public discussion of it. First, this is how it started. In studying the beginning temperature region of the satellite era I discovered that there was no warming at all in the eighties and most of thye nineties. That made the eighties and nineties a hiatus region like the one we had in the early twenty-first century. This hiatus lasted from 1979 to 1997 or 18 years. I was in the process of writing a book called “what Warming” and included the hiatus as figure 15 in my book. I was completely surprised when the official temperature curve later just wipedit out and substituted a phony, non-existent warming. And later still little IPCC spies like Bob Tisdale accused me of having invented the hiatus. Fortunately one of my readers was able to unearth a relevant NASA document about it. This is what it said:
“Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest temperatures in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Nino.
So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.”
The year was 1987. I traced the authorship of that false warming to a collaboration of GISS, NCDC (NOAA) and HadCRUT. All three had their temperature endings changed into conformity by a computer operation that left identical sharp spikes in all three publicly available data sets. They did not stop their falsification there. The hiatus in the data set was followed by the super El Nino of 1998. The total phony rise from beginning to end of the hiatus was about 0.15 degrees Celsius. This rise was added to the height of the super El Nino. But this was not the end either. It can be accurately temperature curve like this one. These are verifiable facts. I don’t know who supervises those climate workers but he missed this falsification operation, or worse, was an accomplish to it.observed in my figure 15 that both sites of the super El Nino are level with one another. Later on HadCRUT3 showed that temperature scale again at a reduced scale. And what do you know, the two sides of the super El Nino are no longer even because the right side is now a lot higher. And the step warming with which the twenty-first century comes in is also higher than it is in figure 15 and stands only 0.05 degrees below the tip of the super El Nino itself. The true height difference before they transmogrified the curve was 0.4 degrees Celsius. What this tells me is that they have falsified the twenty-first century temperature by raising the entire temperature curve up by at least 0.4 degrees Celsius. The entire temperature rise for the last 100 years was only 0.8 degrees Celsius which makes their private temperature increase gets half a century of additional warming added to itself. Another climate scientist who does not know about this can easily be brought to wrong conclusions in his work if presented with a
lorcanbonda November 7, 2016 at 2:49 pm — “For me, it is not a question of fraud. There may be fraud in climate science, but I question rampant fraud. It is more of an issue of confirmation bias.”
Good points in your post, and I agree with your assessments.
@climatereason
November 7, 2016 at 2:12 pm : Reading all of Climategate and the summaries thereof is a way to start….
ARNO — If you think Bob Tisdale is an IPCC spy, then you might want to rethink your hypothesis.
You really think thousands Tony? It seems to me, since there are only a handful of instrument records, it would be more on the order of tens, not even hundreds? We have the HadCRUT, GISS, UAH, RSS and? Those seem to be the major players. The “Climategate” eMails have already shown evidence a small group labored to corrupt the HadCRUT data and findings. Adjustments to all of those data sets are performed by a small number and controlled primarily by documented “pal” review (witness the recent changes made by Tom Karl, not very many people involved and it’s still technically up for review).
It doesn’t seem to require a huge clandestine organization of co-conspirators to me, just a few people and a willing audience made up of useful idiots.
I’ll also say again that the review of the adjustments made prior to publication isn’t validation of the adjustments. All it represents, in the very best case, is the opinion of the reviewers the adjustment (and the reason for them) is worth publishing; it’s not an ultimate blessing of the adustments in any way.
That the adjustments haven’t yet been challenged (and in fact they have been in several examples) isn’t a validation. Science is never settled; review and critique is an ongoing process.
Latitude
Surely the point you make is very similar to mine? I said;
‘I think there is a big question over the quality of the historic data being used, of which sea surface temperatures back to 1850 are the most suspect. I think the claims of extreme weather are highly unlikely and exaggerated based on my own research at places such as the met office.’
Data is produced that may be of poor quality or shouldn’t even be used (Global SST’s to 1850-how does that work?)
So thin data becomes ‘official’ and is used as the basis for models and a pyramid is erected on sand. Or rather a number of pyramids are erected, some on surer ground than others, but collectively they rely on each other. Confirmation bias? Yes. Over certainty? Yes. But that is a long way from fraud or a conspiracy..
My point is that a number of sceptics have claimed fraud and incompetence. If so, it should be relatively easy to prove, by sceptics producing their own data and getting it peer reviewed so it is an ‘official’ point of view and not one viewed by those that make the decisions as being part of a conspiracy theory.
The Fraudulent claims have been made for as long as I have been writing on the AGW subject-some 10 years. Surely if the proof is there it is high time it is substantiated.
tonyb
“Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak) November 7, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Fortunately one of my readers was able to unearth a relevant NASA document about it. This is what it said:
“Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites…”
You would think NASA would not make statements like this as they should know devices on satellites do not measure temperatures, they measure light and that value is run through an algorithm to show a number.
Tony, come on, get real, it is not just Tony Heller that has made these comparisons between Raw and Adjusted data.
Paul Homeward, the guy on NoTricksZone, Sunshine Hours, Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova, A gust of hot air and many others, including the Icelandic BOM.
This detailed research looked for evidence of bias, tampering and distortion and did not find any. It was skeptic funded
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.
AC Osborn
You surely make my point? If half a dozen people have produced solid evidence of malfeasance it is surely reasonable that instead of airing it in the sceptical blogosphere that one or more of them should put the evidence into a proper paper for peer review?
Nobody in authority that makes crucial decisions is listening to us. To make them sit up and take notice this discussion over fraud needs to be transferred to the correct battleground
tonyb
Much to much faith is placed in Peer Review. Peer review DOES NOT establish a the paper is correct. There is No Industry Standard for Peer Review. Peer Review is whatever the Reviewer says it is.
Until a paper has been replicated successfully by a skeptical investigator, you cannot consider the paper science. It is simply a guide to where the science may be discovered.
The problem with modern science is that Peer Review has taken the place of Replication in the world of Academia. We are now faced with the same problem science had more than 2000 years ago, with the contrast between Plato and Aristotle over the merits of logic versus observation.
Scientists are human. As humans, we want to believe the world is logical. So when observations appear to contradict logic, it is human nature to believe the observations are incorrect. So we subconsciously correct the observations, rather than consider that it is our logic that is faulty.
It is logical that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. For nearly 2000 years virtually everyone believed this to be true. It is highly likely that people were put to death in centuries past for suggesting otherwise.
It is logical that adding GHG to the atmosphere will lead to global warming. And in the past 50 years people have had their academic and scientific careers put to death for suggesting otherwise.
Ferd
Those with peer reviewed climate papers or well regarded ‘official’ temperature data sets (no matter what you might think of them) are present on the right battleground and are looked on with favour by those also camped on the same battlefield, the movers and shakers and decision makers who construct policy.
Its all very well us crying ‘foul’ but no one is listening. If we want to influence policy we need to change our battlefield so we are also in front of those calling the shots.
tonyb
Tony B
I originally posted a very long post trying to educate you, but it never showed up here.
I’ll type a shorter version now, in simple English.
And I’ll type slow, so even you can understand.
Leftists like yourself live in a world of beliefs and feelings.
The coming global warming catastrophe is nothing more than a leftist fantasy.
It has been a fantasy for at least 40 years … as climate model after model made wrong predictions about the future average temperature — roughly 97% of the simulations were wrong — one model in Russia seemed reasonable, but with a 97% failure rate for simulations, that correlation was probably just a coincidence.
You leftists make ridiculous predictions of climate doom, and then try to cut off debate with character attacks.
I could have posted here just to call you a dolt, but I prefer to point out where you are wrong.
For those leftists who try to be reasonable, like you — which is rare — the “debate” is steered to minor points, such as:
— Was 2015 really the hottest year?
— Are the tiny adjustments proper?
— Is the claimed +/- 0.1 degree margin of error reasonable?
— Where is proof, via high definition video and audio, with a notarized affidavit signed by all the climate modelers, that they are colluding to fool the public?
(of course clear proof of that is in the hacked ClimateGate emails,
but I know you leftists don’t accept hacked emails as evidence!)
The skeptics that can’t be silenced with the usual leftist character attacks,
are aimed at minor details — tenths of a degree here, hundredths of a degree there.
And with that focus on minor details, several steps up the assumption ladder taken by the leftists can be completely skipped (in the rare debates that leftists sometimes allow).
Here are the primary assumptions that are non-debatable by leftists:
(1) Evidence that humans can predict the future average temperature.
(after 40 years of wrong predictions)
(2) Evidence the current climate is abnormal, or even unpleasant.
(but no one knows what a ‘normal’ climate is)
(3) Evidence that CO2 has ever, in 4.5 billion years of climate history, been the ‘climate controller’.
(If it had been, there would have been runaway warming long ago)
(4) Evidence that a +2 degree C. warming would be a catastrophe, or even a problem.
(considering that the average temperature has ALREADY increased AT LEAST + 2 degrees C., and perhaps even +3 degrees C., from the 1690’s lows during the Maunder Minimum, to the peak heat during the 2015 / 2016 El Nino cycle.
Based on anecdotal information, humans are MUCH happier with today’s climate, than they were in 1690s’.
My climate blog for non-scientists
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Please don’t go to that URL, Tony B. — I try to keep the posts simple
but they would be way over your head, and closed mind.
Oh, and by the way, you are a dolt.
Richard Greene
you said amongst many other strange things
‘Leftists like yourself live in a world of beliefs and feelings.
The coming global warming catastrophe is nothing more than a leftist fantasy.’
I think you must have confused me with someone else. Not even my worst enemies have ever accused me of being a leftist or that I believe in the global warming fantasy.I have written some 15 articles over the last ten years regarding so called AGW. I suggest you read what I actually wrote instead of getting on your high horse and galloping off in completely the wrong direction.
tonyb
Dr. Tom Ball — Correct in every way. — Eugene WR Gallun
Worthy endeavor, but the bureaucrats almost certainly have political cover for their actions. If the system in Australia works like the US, the purportedly neutral government employees are in a symbiotic relationship with certain politicians, with politicians providing funding for a continued supply of propaganda from the supposedly nonpartisan government staffers.
Consider what happened when Senator Ted Cruz tried an investigation of the US climate change establishment. The Democrats had a great deal of solidarity with their supporters in the bureaucracies.
Australia’s public service only serve the Labour Party and if the current government tries to change the status quo, which these dead beats lock the gates and go on strike. The CSIRO is a perfect example of ‘protecting the nest’ and Malcom is the predator they want to keep out.
That’s not true.
Nicely written, Tim. Curiously, I am currently reading Mungo McCallum’s book “The Good, The Bad, and the Unlikely: Australian Prime Ministers” and came across this quote in the chapter on Kevin Rudd.
“And the slide [2007-8 global crisis] continued: Rudd and the opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull, basically agreed on the need for action on climate change and between them had hammered out legislation to put in place an emissions trading scheme. But sceptics and conservatives within the Liberal Party staged a revolt and Turnbull was dumped in favour of Tony Abbott, who flatly refused to endorse the arrangement. Rudd was tempted to call a double dissolution election over the issue, but decided against it and was persuaded by his more cautious advisers, led by Gillard and Swan, to put the legislation to one side.”
This probably gave CSIRO the impetus to establish itself as the de facto authority on climate change (despite its caveat, and the BoM). When governments pick up the prognostications of alarmists as policy their rationalizations take on the appearance of established fact.
Kevin Rudd may be remembered as the man who convinced the Queensland State Government that climate change meant there would be no more risk of floods but increased risk of drought and that flood control dams to the west of Brisbane should be converted to water storage. The outcome was disastrous floods in Brisbane because the dams were in danger of collapsing and could not be used to control the flows.
You are right but I would add this clarification
that there had also been similarly disastrous
floods in the Brisbane Valley in 1974 I think so
the later floodscant really be blamed on climate change as Bob Brown Green leader
of the time asserted with that confidence
usually displayed by messianic preachers
predicting the end of the world caused by
man’s wickedness
The CSIRO were encourage to promote man made climate change by the left wing government at the time. Many government jobs were created in Canberra based on the propaganda dished out by the CSIRO. After the last election Tony Abbot began dismantling the climate change bureaucracy created in Canberra, much to the disgust of the main stream media, whom finally played a major roll in ousting him. The ABC played a large part in all this.
The only people who follow the ABC are progressives and people like me who believe in the concept of a non-commercial broadcaster.
Abbott was ousted because he had lost the confidence of middle Australia.
This really all goes to the difference between actual evidence and what is accepted as evidence by the bureaucrats in question and therefore the apparent evidence (stamped “EXPERT” of course) that must be argued against.
I am reminded of that TV series back in the sixties/early seventies, The Vikings. One episode had the crew of the viking ship facing court in ‘civilised’ Italy and they had engaged a lawyer to handle their case. The key scene showed their ‘lawyer’ literally weighing scroll after scroll on a set of scales as he explained that the matter would turn on the ‘weight of evidence’. They then realised he was an idiot and resorted to practical means to sort out their problem.
Statists have become hung up on the number 2.
If the rate of CPI inflation is not kept above 2% something awful will happen. A contraction.
Global warmers are convinced that if the temp gets beyond 2 degrees above the 1850s base something awful will happen. Runaway warming.
Both sets of operators are convinced of their powers for successful intervention.
Speculation in financial markets has become extreme and the next contraction will be seen as a massive failure of central banking. The main thing is that the public will re-discover commonsense.
With El Nino over and as the solar minimum continues, temps should get back to flat-lining. Which would be enough to revive the public’s commonsense.
Both developments will continue to build the case against government promotions.
The last great experiment in authoritarian government burned itself out in the early 1600s when practical merchants in London described the nonsense as “Tyrannical Duncery”.
In modern terms lets call the current experiment “Tyrannical Stupidity”.
Bob Hoye
And a 2% movement of the vote and all the comfortable positions taken up on pure B.S. will came crashing down into a whole new reality. The sky is falling!
Nice effort, Malcolm.
Surprise for me is how nervous you were. Reminds me of yours truly in his first undergrad debate! So that’s a plus. I’ve also read your full challenge to CSIRO which I certainly endorse, save for some unreasonably absolutist statements which it seems to me are a hostage to fortune, and allow our opponents an escape route. For example, you say-
“..The empirical data proves no change is occurring in temperatures or climate factors.””
and –
“…Humans do not and cannot affect the level of carbon dioxide in air globally.
Physical evidence,natural processes and Henry’s Law combine to show human activity
does not and cannot affect global climate. …”
Neither statement is unquestionably true (though it can be supported- I could argue it myself) and presenting it as incontrovertible is neither wise nor necessary, and draws attention away from the core message.
Whatever happened to the re analysis of historical tempature data sets? Haven’t heard anything for quite a while. Seems it might be germane here.
Synopsis of the scientific interchange between Roberts et al. and CSIRO.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/climate-debate-is-on/
Ron
Thanks for the link, you have a great way of covering various aspects of the debate.
Other links to: Climate Change – One Nation’s response to CSIRO
https://checkvist.com/checklists/583700?print=true
Climate Change – One Nation’s response to CSIRO HTML
https://checkvist.com/checklists/583700
Senator Malcolm Roberts One Nation website
PDF Link ON CLIMATE,CSIRO LACKS EMPIRICAL PROOF>
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/politics/aust/one-nation/01On%20Climate%2C%20CSIRO%20Lacks%20Empirical%20Proof%20FULL-2.pdf
HTML Link ON CLIMATE, CSIRO LACKS EMPIRICAL PROOF
http://www.senatormalcolmroberts.com.au/csiro-report
Mods
Can you check my comment that seems to have disappeared. Perhaps it has gone into moderation because I blockquoted an extract from climatereason’s comment of November 7, 2016 at 2:12 pm. I myself did not use the f word, but the extract I blockquoted did use the f word.
There was an announcement of layoffs of CSIRO’s climate scientists. Then some of the layoffs were cancelled. Does anyone know what the status of the layoffs is?
As a scientific layman (Ga Tech Physics & retired corporate CFO) it’s frequently difficult to follow heavy “climate science” technical presentations.
However, it has always been crystal clear that a primary problem is corrupt data (even CFO’s easily understand that).
An intensely powerful skeptical responses to CAGW graphs would be to publish the SAME graph SHOWING BOTH THE CAGW CLAIM & THE UNADJUSTED DATA. “Cheating” is easily understood by the logical mind, even if you’re not an academically-trained scientist.
“When you tell a scientific story based on an untested hypothesis there is the very real risk that the evidence will emerge to contradict it. Because Maurice Strong used the scientific bureaucrats in each national weather office to populate the IPCC they presented the false story to the politicians that global warming and latterly climate change due to human addition of CO2 was an indisputable fact.”
So that’s how he did it. Clever. The Left *does* know how to organize to be effective. Co-opt all the national weather services and make them part of your scheme.
Senator Roberts and President Trump need to get together. Maybe I can say that for real tomorrow night.
The only thing that will fix this is if we cut off the money.
Now one could say cut-off the money for the pro-global warming set only, but these are the same people who are doling out the grants. They dominate the agencies and boards which make these decisions and they use dirty politics to keep objective scientists off of the boards. And then they use dirty politics to get objective scientists fired from their jobs so they can’t even apply for let alone receive any grants.
Its a wicked self-reinforcing circle.
And then, all the scientists who have used the dirty academic and other politics to control everything, then are put in charge of keeping the temperature records.
Now it is not even a wicked circle anymore but it is more like a wicked sphere or self-contained something.
It is too late to fix it. The fix is already in. We can only cut-off all the money and wait 5 years to start over after the mafia is gone or have been pushed into less powerful positions.
Bill Illis, I agree with you. I suspect we need to boycott all corporations. Through lobbyists, they seem to have taken over the government.
(Bill, on a personal note: I like your CO2 graphs on the CO2 page. Would it be possible for me to use these in a book? You can reach me through the website link on my name — Contact link at bottom of that screen. Thanks!)
Anyone can use my charts at any time without attribution. They are for public use. It is just information and data that should be widely available. That is why I put them together. Climate science doesn’t do this, everything is distorted to support the narrative.
Great stuff! Roberts and anyone who helps him are my heros!
I have watched his speech in the senate on Youtube and couldn’t believe my ears – this coming from an elected government official. I only wish we had people of this calibre in my country!
Wow!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Hope this works
Roger
It’s up on YouTube and well worth the 33 minutes or so it takes to view.
I would just like to point out that when being taped in this type of venue, and you’re talking questions from a crowd, ALWAYS try to repeat the asked question into the microphone before launching into your response.
Awesome press conference. Ironically, most people don’t seem to know what “conspiracy” means. They’re treating it as “fantasy” and it’s really quite common. When I taught algebra to first-year college students, I found more than a dozen cases of student conspiracies to cheat on my exams in the first semester alone. And that was a small class of 45 students.
I think Senator Roberts was right to talk down to the man for using the “c” word as a pejorative term, but some journalists seem to have become vile mouthpieces for the “consensus,” rather than hard-nosed about finding the truth.
When I researched my book, “Dirt Ordinary,” I discovered in the documentation that there are at least 489 new conspiracies starting every second, on average. And that’s only the documented conspiracies. Conspirators don’t normally want to be documented. So, there might be a few more than this. To accuse someone of talking about “conspiracies” should not be an implication of stupidity or lunacy. To do so is to dabble in delusion. Conspiracies are as real as human selfishness; only they involve 2 or more people.
Making discussion of conspiracy grounds for immediately dismissing the presenter is a clever tactic of conspirators. It goes along with deliberately conflating climate change with the AGW hypothesis, a trap even seasoned critics fall into all the time. You deny climate changes? You must be a loon. QED.
People need to be sensitive to this sort of argument. It’s a warped sort of ad hominem involving turning an entire course of investigation into a forbidden subject. Critics of AGW don’t dare be labeled conspiracy theorists since that approach has been successfully linked to tinfoil hats by the perpetrators and and their media lapdogs.
I suppose that makes me a conspiracy theorist doesn’t it? I’m out of tinfoil though so I’ll just have to walk bareheaded through the streets…
Bartleby
but alleging that NASA faked it all, or that all scientists just do it for the grant money or that it is a plot by the UN under agenda 21 is conspiracy theory, not contrary scientific evidence.
A skeptic argument against established climate science must fail when its based on political beliefs or generic assertion of fraud.
Really Griffypoo?
First you attempt to change the discussion to some massive UN Agenda 21 conspiracy, when evidence has been presented that well placed activists can skew entire departments or collude with other activists.
Then you claim that skeptic arguments are based on beliefs or general fraud.
Talk about projection griffypoo! You just projected the basic alarmist approach.
Established science has yet to be proved wrong; i.e., the CO2 alarmist claims have never been proven or even validated.
Research without replication
Research without useful findings
It is hard to understand how so many ‘researchers’ can spend well over a trillion dollars without beneficial results.
Even pigs gain weight while feeding at the trough.
Trough dependent researchers, unwilling to stop the gravy train are now little more than almost trained seals; doing tricks for old herrings.
Great presentation by 3 professionals in the face of a baying pack of ill-informed, sensation-seeking journalists. How dare that muppet bring the question of religious bigotry into the debate, and how elegantly was he put down by Tony.
My only criticism is that sceptical scientists need to get better at ‘selling’ a concept. Describing the data is too complicated for ‘groupthink’ journalists to understand. The reason the whole GW myth has been successful is that it appeals to the emotion of human fear. The only way to counter that is to appeal to the positive side of human emotion.
And whilst rubbishing the data of establishments like NASA and the IPCC might be factual, and might seem a good idea, it’s not. What you are telling your audience is that they are idiots for believing in their establishment, the people they have trusted for generations.
A better tactic is to produce an alternative to GW. Make your predictions on empirical data and within that make comparisons with accepted data. Let them ask their own questions and make their own assessments of your data. Start your papers with titles like ‘An alternative view of GW’ or “Whilst much climate science is right, details need addressing’. Frame your article titles in terms that make the intelligent reader want to read further. And never, ever, ever slag off the competition!
It is a basic, fundamental tenet adhered to by the most honest, professional sales people on the planet. You never, ever see a TV advert for washing powder saying the opposition is rubbish. You want to buy a new car, you test drive it and like it. The dealer says “Our car is good but if you want to be really sure you should try the competition down the street” when you go down the street, the other dealer says “That car you drove is rubbish, it will break down within a week, don’t go near that slimy mob”.
What would you think?
You can talk to any successful sportsman/woman on the planet and they will tell you they do nothing but focus on their performance because the competitions performance is beyond their control.
Focus on your strengths, not the opposition’s weaknesses. Never disrespect them, they are fellow scientists. They can make mistakes like anyone else, you just happen to have found a few mistakes that make enough of a difference to change the final data output.
“It’s not anyone’s fault [Mr. Journalist] it’s the scientific process that adopts a peer review process scientists understand to be imperfect because there is no alternative”. That statement alone will get half the world’s scientists crawling out the woodwork because they don’t fear being vilified. You condemn their mistakes but allow them the opportunity to be absolved because “It was the system that dun it M’lud”.
Interestingly, when Tony was personally insulted by remarks about religious bigotry, the collective audience cringed when he stated his case. A factual statement about his religion, defending a man who was attacked for disreputable behaviour on the basis of that religion brought everyone back to reality.
If you can slap down a nasty, ill-informed journalist like that with facts, the rest are just as vulnerable on the science of GW.
Awesome critique! Reacting to insults never helps. And neither does badmouthing the competition. I think you’re spot-on referring to this within the marketing paradigm. The people behind the “climate change” scam have teams of marketers to build talking points for them. They’ve sold the world the sizzle of “scorched Earth,” and it’s difficult to un-hear that sizzle.
Sure it is. All you have to do is find out that the premises are false and then laugh at the proponents. They’re all hat and no cattle, after all.
I simply did not believe that CSIRO and BoM would massage figures but found out differently when Dr Jennifer Mahorasy bravely exposed the “homogenisation” of two well established weather stations (Amberley and Rutherglen). I was disgusted. Here is Amberley. The reported excuses are just hilarious if not so sad.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/
Oh boy are the young immature journos having a field day on Malcolm Roberts. SBS have just had a couple of these journos interview him with images of melting ice, bush fires and coal fired power station smoke going on in the background. All good empirical evidence of man made global warming of course, They played the old broken record “but, but, but … 97% of scientists all agree” They also asked him if Obama was born in America??
Coming up with this sort of crap shows that quite a few journos are running scared on this press conference by Malcolm.
I often observe situations in which a deceptive argument is presented by a global warming climatologist but whether this deception was accidental or deliberate is unclear. One of these situations arises in conjunction with the phrase “global warming.”
A bystander might conclude that the “global warming” is the change in the global temperature but this conclusion would be incorrect. He or she might conclude that the “global warming” is the change in a quantity which, like the global temperature, is an example of a “measure” but this conclusion would also be incorrect.
A “measure” is a single valued function but, dependent upon the context, the “global warming” is either zero valued or two valued. If it is zero valued the law of the excluded middle is violated by the argument. If it is two valued, the law of non-contradiction is violated by the argument. In neither case is information is conveyed to a policy maker about the outcomes of events by this argument. Is the policy maker defrauded by the climatologist? Without additional information it is hard to say. Is the policy maker deceived? Certainly!
Thank you, Dr. Ball, for your continued fight for truth and climate sanity. I especially like your call for accountability and responsibility for data, despite disclaimers.
Tim Ball — Appreciate getting the mailing address of Senator Malcolm Roberts, so that I can send my latest book “Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities”, BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 276p.
My Ph.D. Thesis is available with ANU Library [Canberra] — 1985 –and my book published in 1993 is available in Geography Department Library/ANU.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Dr. Reddy See: http://www.senatormalcolmroberts.com.au/contact
Senator Malcolm Roberts
Suite 5 Level 36 1 Eagle Street
Brisbane 4000 QLD
Get em Tim
Well Done Tim Ball ! Push back on a bully starts with people like you .
Australia should be proud to have a politician willing to really educate himself and
willing to stand up to tremendous pressure from people who have an interest in
keeping the biggest scam in the world going .
I would like to see a Nobel Truth prize for people like the three of you .
Please keep up your effort all of you .
Dr. Ball, I wish you all the luck in the world. If you’re successful, or even if you aren’t, I’d certainly like your help with the California State Legislature if you ever have any spare time.
“We are joined by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) who brings his devastating analyses of ‘adjustments’ to temperature at NOAA and NASA GISS as well those of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). ”
Well, that’s your entire credibility blown away: Heller is a serial fantasist…
(I believe that this blog has more than once taken issue with his assertions…)
And you believe the “science” links published at the Gaurdian and Cleantechnica web sites? Riiiggggghhhhhttttt!
Both those sites link to scientific research, which I read, yes.
I look at published science, not opinion and distortion…
Griff: “I look at published science”
And a fat lot of good it would do you if you did, you scientifically illiterate paid shill.
WooHoo!
+1000 to catweazle666 for squarely calling out the faker with his slight of mouth and idiotic spun stories.
“Well, that’s your entire credibility blown away: Heller is a serial fantasist…
(I believe that this blog has more than once taken issue with his assertions…)”
When all else fails, attack the messenger.
Does anyone take issue with Tony’s charts? The ones that put the lie to human-caused global warming? Would love to have a discussion on that subject.
Well here is a report of a well respected skeptic critical of Hellers claims on NASA
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
Let me correct myself. I said Tony’s charts put the lie to human-caused global warming, but that is not the case. Human-caused global warming is not a lie, it has just not been proven to be a factor in anything to do with the way the climate behaves.
Tony’s charts put the lie to the NASA/NOAA/IPCC narrative of “hotter and hotter” and “hottest year ever!” Like this chart here. The climate alarmists couldn’t be saying “hotter and hotter” while looking at this chart. They would be saying “cooler and cooler”. But that doesn’t fit in with their CAGW narrative, so they bastardize the surface temperature charts to make it look like it is getting hotter and hotter.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-04-at-9.10.08-PM.gif
Well, to quote from your article, Griff:
“In his email to me, Watts details the sort of bureaucratic bungling that produces what he thinks is a significant artificial warming signal in the lower 48 temperature records from which he concludes:
It is my view that while NOAA/NCDC is not purposely “fabricating” data, their lack of attention to detail in the process has contributed to a false warming signal in the USA, and they don’t much care about it because it is in line with their expectations of warming. The surface temperature record thus becomes a product of bureaucracy and not of hard science…Never ascribe malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.”
Sounds like the disagreement is over whether it is purposeful bastardizing of the temperature record, or just incompetent changing of the temperature record. Either way, the temperature record was changed to insert what is described as a “false warming signal”.
Putting intent aside, what do you think of Tony’s chart above? Does that represent reality or not? Was it a lot hotter in the 1930’s than it is today? Looks like it to me. The “hotter and hotter” stuff is just pure BS (bad science).
Griff: “Heller is a serial fantasist…”
No Grifter, unlike you, he is nothing of the kind.
You are a totally unscrupulous paid agent of the ‘Unreliables’ industry who tries to spread disinformation anywhere your masters discern an informed threat to their malicious activities.
catweazle666 said:
“Griff: “Heller is a serial fantasist…”
No Grifter, unlike you, he is nothing of the kind.”
Are you aware of why Tony Heller was booted from WUWT by Anthony?
Thank you Phillip (and prior, Griff):
“Are you aware of why Tony Heller was booted from WUWT by Anthony?”
He was indeed – see below.
AND Splendid Mr Ball: It’s a bit like Godwin’s Law except it’s Heller rather than Hitler what turns up to bring ridicule on an argument.
I’ll let Anthony explain (some) of the guy’s deception and ignorance….
Which like all *Sceptic* myths continues unabated and independant of debunking.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
Thank you Philip (and prior, Griff):
“Are you aware of why Tony Heller was booted from WUWT by Anthony?”
He was indeed – see below.
AND Splendid Mr Ball: It’s a bit like Godwin’s Law except it’s Heller rather than Hitler what turns up to bring ridicule on an argument.
I’ll let Anthony explain (some) of the guy’s deception and ignorance….
Which like all *Sceptic* myths continues unabated and independant of debunking.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
Thank you Philip (and prior, Griff):
“Are you aware of why Tony Heller was booted from WUWT by Anthony?”
He was indeed – see below.
AND Splendid Mr Ball: It’s a bit like Godwin’s Law except it’s Heller rather than Hitler what turns up to bring ridicule on an argument.
Thanks. Perhaps Oz is not so much like UK on this topic…at last!
You need a judge in the room. The evidence must be presented under oath.
Until that happens, the lies will continue.
The thermometer will be the judge.
Sceptics need to up their game in this area, there have been many claims of inappropriate adjustments of temperature, or of failing to adjust when necessary (such as UHI), but there has been no proof, and nobody has come up with a better answer. The much touted GWPF investigation has so far not said a word.
I suspect that some errors have been made, and some confirmation bias, but the much greater sin may simply be the cherry picking of time periods and quantities reported (such as reporting an average, to hide the fact that the maximum is not changing), and there is no doubt at all that that practice is rife in govt agencies.
And of course Berkley Earth used skeptic funding specifically to evaluate the surface temperature record.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
“Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies.”
“Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.”
Yes Griff – BEST’s study did find that the….
“Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.”
So we have a former sceptic carrying out a study with the KOCH brothers money and finding something that the Kochs did not want.
A study that led him to no longer being a sceptic.
Climate scientists doing what their paymasters want eh?
That’ll be just like the Exxon ones too.
The science is the science and when it’s done properly by competent experts, it is undeniable …. whatever the paymaster.
Madness. You don’t defeat scientific exaggeration by exaggerating in the opposite direction, particularly with statements which are readily refuted by hard facts. And you don’t defeat the monolithic orthodoxy of “dangerous AGW” by opining a global conspiracy of scientists, academics, businesses, politicos and environmental activists with absolutely no supporting evidence. Oh yeah, ” I didn’t use the word “conspiracy” ” says Malcolm Roberts. We three just described one in a press conference, and threw in a few terms like “corruption”, “distortion” and “the greatest deception in history”. Even if you believe that some specific individuals or groups have engaged in wilful distortion rather than confirmation bias, it is practically impossible to prove motivation. So unless you have hard evidence of specific fraud (and I do mean fraud, not poor judgment), it is then political insanity to make such a broadranging condemnation in public. This just makes a lot of unnecessary enemies, ruins the credibility of anything else you have to say and makes you look like a tinfoil hat guy.
Upto 2015 a sceptic might reasonably have argued that there was no convincing empirical evidence to support AGW theory. I would strongly suggest to all readers here that you read a paper by DR Feldman entitled “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”. It provides unambiguous empirical evidence of variation in downwelling LW at surface due to variation in local atmospheric CO2 timeseries. The match of spectral signature makes it impossible to interpret the correlation results any other way. The GHE is real. The RTE are valid and well tested to a very good approximation. Anyone suggesting otherwise can and will quickly be labeled by any objective scientist as an ignoramus, a nutter or a charlatan, take your pick. The scientific battleground is in the magnitude of the effect of adding CO2 given the uncertainties associated with other confounding effects.
Malcolm Roberts now believes that there is no empirical evidence to support AGW, instead of the more defensible assertion that net warming induced by and attributable to the growth of atmospheric CO2 has been exaggerated. I predict that he will be readily dismissed as a crank by mainstream scientists and as a conspiracy nutjob by mainstream media. Wait for an avalanche of adverse reaction. And who can blame them.
The entire southern hemisphere has not warmed in the month of December for seven decades.
Across the globe peak variability in surface temperature occurs in the winter months. The variability is in the minimum and it appears to be linked to the annular modes phenomenon recognised as the chief mode of natural variation involving shifts of atmospheric mass from high latitudes driven by enhanced polar cyclone activity due to change in that part of the atmosphere where the troposphere overlaps with the stratosphere.
Consequently, there is abundant empirical evidence in the temperature record that other factors other than the CO2 content of the air are at work. The observed degree of variation together with the specific timing of that variation indicates that surface temperature change is linked to natural processes.The natural process allows for regional variation and both increases and decreases in temperature together with periods of relative stability….and that is what we observe.
There is no danger that the Earth will overheat in winter.
There is no empirical evidence in terms of the manner in which the temperature of the surface changes, the degree of change or the location of the observed variations to support the notion that surface temperature is linked to the changing carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
Assertions are valueless unless they appear to have some degree of plausibility. Plausibility depends upon the relationship between what is being asserted and what we actually observe.
Thank you Dr. Tim Ball.
This is WONDERFUL to read.
Even more splendid, is to see and hear that half hour video with Senator Malcolm Roberts and with Tony Heller.
Bloody marvellous stuff !
Regards and the Very Highest Praise,
WL
Previous comment disappeared in moderation – trying again.
Madness. You don’t defeat scientific exaggeration by exaggerating in the opposite direction, particularly with statements which are readily refuted by hard facts. And you don’t defeat the monolithic orthodoxy of “dangerous AGW” by opining a global conspiracy of scientists, academics, businesses, politicos and environmental activists with absolutely no supporting evidence. Oh yeah, ” I didn’t use the word “conspiracy” ” says Malcolm Roberts. We three just described one in a press conference, and threw in a few terms like “corruption”, “distortion” and “the greatest deception in history”. Even if you believe that some specific individuals or groups have engaged in wilful distortion rather than confirmation bias, it is practically impossible to prove motivation. So unless you have hard evidence of specific fr**d (and I do mean fr**d, not poor judgment), it is then political insanity to make such a broadranging condemnation in public. This just makes a lot of unnecessary enemies, ruins the credibility of anything else you have to say and makes you look like a tinfoil hat guy.
Upto 2015 a sceptic might reasonably have argued that there was no convincing empirical evidence to support AGW theory. I would strongly suggest to all readers here that you read a paper by DR Feldman entitled “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”. It provides unambiguous empirical evidence of variation in downwelling LW at surface due to variation in local atmospheric CO2 timeseries. The match of spectral signature makes it impossible to interpret the correlation results any other way. The GHE is real. The RTE are valid and well tested to a very good approximation. Anyone suggesting otherwise can and will quickly be labeled by any objective scientist as an ignoramus, a nutter or a charlatan, take your pick. The scientific battleground is in the magnitude of the effect of adding CO2 given the uncertainties associated with other confounding effects.
Malcolm Roberts now believes that there is no empirical evidence to support AGW, instead of the more defensible assertion that net warming induced by and attributable to the growth of atmospheric CO2 has been exaggerated. I predict that he will be readily dismissed as a crank by mainstream scientists and as a conspiracy nutjob by mainstream media. Wait for an avalanche of adverse reaction. And who can blame them.
“Anyone suggesting otherwise can and will quickly be labeled by any objective scientist as an ignoramus, a nutter or a charlatan”
To which category do I belong? To which category do you belong? Are you dealing in hard facts or speculation?
“Fraud” and “conspiracy” are essentially a straw man argument. The green blob is a mass movement, with many of the characteristics of a religion. One does not need a leader, or coordination, just shared values and goals.
The US EPA financed a study in the 1970’s on the origin of the Environmental Movement, and found no one cause–“Pollution and Policy” J.E. Krier, E. Orsin. Who was the one person behind Socialism?
What this shared viewpoint has led to is serious defenses of “corrections” to historical temperature records as “who doesn’ want the record to be correct?” with no sense of irony. What was Winston Smith’s job in 1984? Thomas Karl apparently now has the position.
Exactly right. The recorded temperature, at the time the reading was taken, is what it is. You can certainly do an error analysis and propagation; but I’ve yet to see such done. When you do an experiment, it is crucial to ask yourself “What happens if/when my premises are contingently false?”, and subject your experiment/analysis to independent replication/verification.
Spot on. This is what people need to realize.
At the same time, however, there have been people like Maurice Strong and The Team, who were important, and perhaps critical, to the promotion of the entire movement. But this doesn’t mean they should be regarded as having deus ex machina powers.