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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.