How Do You Make the Bureaucratic Climate Deceivers Accountable?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Attempts to bring the deceptive science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) into the political and public arena fail for an important reason. Understanding that reason offers the only chance to hold the creators and perpetrators accountable. I know of only one person who understood and took the steps necessary, but so far only proved that the adage that you can’t fight City Hall was correct. I was proud to be associated with that effort and continue to push, including with this article. The challenge is ongoing, as the system defends itself. It is difficult because most have no idea how nasty the system gets when attacked and what weapons they will use to destroy an individual. I call it ‘the system’ because it is a headless, amorphous mass, collectively known as the Bureaucracy.

Recently, someone made a second attempt to challenge and get answers but received a standard, predictable, response. The response says, our response is correct because we did the original work. It parallels the IPCC trick of saying we know CO2 causes a temperature increase because our models show it.

Many people contacted me over the years as they learned about the corruption. They cannot believe what is going on, although the descent into chaos, corruption, criminality, and the complete failure of the politicians to deal with it in most countries, are opening eyes. Lord Acton spoke of power corrupting. We now see the extent to which people will go to obtain that power. The emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 disclosed behavior designed to deceive, distort, and falsify an outcome, yet nobody even lost their jobs or were held accountable. The answer to how and why is simple; the Bureaucracy protected them. The solution is clear but difficult to implement.

When Maurice Strong established the IPCC, he did it through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This UN organization is a composite of UN bureaucrats and the bureaucrats of weather offices of each UN member nation. He did it this way because he knew the bureaucrats would control the science and the politicians in their respective nations. However, there is another element of this that makes exposure of the deception complicated.

In most countries’, citizens are not allowed to interrogate bureaucrats directly. You cannot cross-examine them and can only obtain information through a politician or a Freedom of Information (FOI) process. The recent attempt to get information using an FOI occurred in New Zealand and illustrated the problem. The person used FOI and received the following answer.


Thank you for your email of 5 October 2018 requesting the following under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA): Please provide the evidence that proves that human generated carbon dioxide is the cause of dangerous global warming. / seek evidence not assertions. The evidence of anthropogenic (human-made) climate change is clearly established and credible, although we note that science does not attempt to provide “proof’. Scientific evidence allows us to choose the best explanation among all available alternatives. The available evidence on carbon dioxide and climate change is publicly available, and we have therefore refused this request under section 18(d) of the OIA. The evidence is best summarised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report was completed in November 2014 and is available at the following link: The IPCC reports represent the global expert assessment of knowledge on climate change, which the New Zealand Government accepts. The Fifth Assessment Report states that it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by humans. The best estimate is that all the warming over the period 1951-2010 was anthropogenic. These statements can be found on page 17 of the following document:—SPM—FINAL.pdf.. With regard to the OIA, you might also find it helpful to read a document prepared by the office of the Ombudsman,

Making official information requests: a guide for requesters. (www.ombudsman. parliament,nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2465/original/making_oi_requests_-_guide for_requesters.pdf). Yours sincerely.

The answer cites the IPCC Fifth Report (AR5) as justification for the policies they recommend to the government. The problem is the New Zealand bureaucrats who provided this answer are members of the IPCC. It is a truly incestuous situation, but that is the situation in all countries, just as Strong planned.

The person who handled the situation correctly was Australian engineer, Malcolm Roberts. He came to the climate issue through a wider interest in banking control and corruption. Malcolm was involved with an Australian group, the Galileo Movement, that worked to explain the fundamentals of the science. I worked with Malcolm on his recognition that a critical issue is a difference between computer-generated data and empirical data.

Malcolm realized that the only way to get to the bureaucrats was to become an elected official. He ran as a State of Queensland candidate for the Australian Senate and won. His maiden speech addressed the issue of climate change and the lack of empirical data. He then arranged for a public discussion on climate, or at least the climate the public doesn’t hear. I was invited along with Tony Heller to appear in a public presentation. Tony and I followed that with presentations in Melbourne, and Sydney.

In Australia, climate change is the purview of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This is a strange situation because it is apparently a private company with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) as one of their clients. What appears like an arms-length situation is the opposite; they are paid to tell their clients what they want to hear.

One of the most significant problems in society in general but particularly in government came up years ago after a presentation to Alberta Municipality representatives. Somebody asked for the one piece of advice I could give to help decision making. I replied, “Stop hiring consultants that tell you what you want to hear.” All this does is perpetuate bad practices and inappropriate responses while eliminating any chance of finding better solutions.

It is a weakness of humans that we seek people who are going to bolster our views when we need to hear the opposite. We always retain the right to assess the new information.

I am grateful for the opportunity Malcolm gave me. It reinforced the importance of empirical data, but also that a major solution was to confront the bureaucrats directly.

The response from CSIRO was almost identical to the one from the New Zealand bureaucrats. They cited the work of the IPCC. This is no surprise because their employer, the ABM, is a part of the IPCC. In subsequent Senate hearings, Senator Roberts exposed their complete lack of understanding of the IPCC, its structure, limitations, and total dependence on computer models.

One thing Malcolm Roberts and I disagree about is what happened to him after he began his work as a Senator. In 2017, he lost his seat because he held dual citizenship and that is illegal when you run for the Senate. There is no doubt the evidence shows he broke the rule. The problem I have is it was all too convenient for somebody to dig out this arcane excuse to get rid of him. Time and again we see how bureaucracies get what they want. They are the deep state and unaccountable, but that must change.

The simplest way is to cut their funding, but they quickly scream interference when it happens. Bureaucrat James Hansen who started the deception with his testimony in 1988 made such a claim in 2007, but his boss at NASA GISS refuted his claim. A Canadian headline said, “Canadian scientists say the government is muzzling them and they want it to stop.” The first sentence gives it all away.

Hundreds of union activists representing Canada’s scientists held protests in cities across the country this week, demanding the federal government end what they see as rampant political interference of scientific research.


They are all unionized government employees. It is virtually impossible for them to practice science. Once they created the deception of human-caused global warming and sold it as confirmed to the politicians, they were on a treadmill. Any evidence that contradicted the theory was going to be ignored, altered, or falsely contradicted. Once they chose to prove the theory rather than disprove it, they were no longer practicing science. Their protest was a response to a new government who dared to suggest the science was different than what the UN IPCC presented. The bureaucrats won as they have on every occasion to date.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 11, 2018 10:02 am

How do you do it?

Hate to say it but the “old fashioned way” might be a good start.

No more funding, clawback everything including personal assets then let em loose in the coliseum with hungry wild critters.

Pay per view….

richard verney
Reply to  john
November 12, 2018 7:05 am

How do you cut funding?

It is the politicians who decide what to fund, and the politicians are all signed up to this, and are dining nicely out on the NGO lobbying accounts. So why will anything change, at least not until the politicians have wrecked the grid, put up energy prices to unaffordable levels, closed down all residual industry with loss of payroll jobs etc. such that the green agenda becomes a positive vote loser.

The man in the street has no say in matters.

Reply to  john
November 12, 2018 4:57 pm

Do not underestimate the power of the bureaucracies and the bureaucrats that run them. They are indeed the Deep State. Politicians are today more beholding to the bureaucrats than they are the voters. Sadly where voters meet government is through the faceless bureaucracies not through their elected official.

The bureaucrats have more power because they are always there. They are “we-bes” or we be here when you came we be here when you are gone. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan “the closet thing to immortality is a government program.” As it is today at least in the USA, it is impossible to fire a government employee. They are protected by unions, Civil Services laws/ rules, and the judges presently sitting on the bench.

It takes only ten percent to run the show and not the appointed department heads. Another ten percent just pull in a pay check, duck, cover and avoid work. Another ten percent follow the orders of the first ten hoping to move up when those folks retire. There is a ten percent, though they don’t last long, that see the problems and want to make it better. They are often isolated and quickly cut from the herd. The rest are just happy to have a government job, benefits and pension. They learn quickly not to rock the boat long ago.

Tom Halla
November 11, 2018 10:09 am

Most bureaucrats most of the time act under Pournelle’s Law, that those who run the organization are those who are good at mastering the internal politics of the group, not those who are good at carrying out the proclaimed purpose of the group. Unless there are strong external pressures, the market with private business, or the funding authority with “public” groups, CYA and acting to protect the group will rule.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 11, 2018 2:28 pm

Millions of kids died from malaria due to the green ban on DDT .

The DDT ban and malaria, Excess Winter deaths from fuel pyoverty, lung disease from green opposition to fossil fuel energy in the developing world, the list goes on…

Radical greens are the great killers of our time.

November 11, 2018 10:12 am

I don’t talk science to people any more. I just ask them “How well do solar panels and wind turbines work when there has been an extended cold period with lots of snow?”
And then I remind them that there will probably be no coal or nuclear power stations to provide any backup power.
Cold kills quickly. Think about that.

Reply to  Richard111
November 14, 2018 10:05 pm

They will babble on about batteries or pumped hydro — without the faintest idea of the magnitudes involved.

“He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense”
— John McCarthy 1995

John Robertson
November 11, 2018 10:25 am

In the short term,yes they win.
In the process they destroy all faith in civic institutions.
Blind Worms Gnawing at the foundation of civilization.
Westminster Government relied on Evidence Based Policy Making.
Policy Based Evidence Manufacturing is the new normal.
Why will taxpayers tolerate ever increasing theft to the benefit of people they fear and distrust?

Our bureaus serve only themselves,Canada has Public Health,which many refer to as “free healthcare” so free it consumes 1/2 of government spending.
Ever hear of a bureaucracy with compassion?

The bureaucracy is comparable to fire.
A little can be useful a lot leaves nothing behind.
Both are driven to consume every resource they can reach.

A mass reset is coming,simply because we are out of productive persons to steal from, for the benefit of the entitled ones.
What cannot go on,will not go on.
No one has satisfactorily explained why I “owe” a pension to people who have mismanaged the country I love into bankruptcy and lawlessness.

Reply to  John Robertson
November 11, 2018 11:11 am

“In the process they destroy all faith in civic institutions.”

This is a feature, not a bug. The intention is to destroy the old institutions that worked, so the proletariat will rise up and demand a communist dictatorship to take care of them.

The problem is that, when the people do rise up against left-wing destroyers, they tend to be looking for a Pinochet rather than a Lenin.

“A mass reset is coming,simply because we are out of productive persons to steal from, for the benefit of the entitled ones.”

Bingo. We’re currently staring at an oncoming civil war between the producers and the looters. And that’s a tricky one, because the producers can live without the looters, but the looters can’t live without the producers.

Reply to  MarkG
November 11, 2018 12:17 pm

“so the proletariat will rise up and demand a communist dictatorship to take care of them.”

or an aristocracy that will own the means of production and the workers completely and bask in the wealth which will naturally come their way.



Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Roger
November 11, 2018 12:53 pm

Any time that money is given from the rich to the poor, the rich entrepreneurs find some useless product or service to sell to the poor who then buy it and thus all the money that was given to to the poor ends up in the entrepreneurs pockets anyway. In other words, if the government decided to give all poor people $100000, within 10 years all that money would end up in the rich peoples pockets and the poor would be as poor as they were before the $100000 donation by the government. If you take all the money and businesses away from the rich entrepreneurs, you end up with 100% socialism which leads you to a Venezuela situation and very soon a dictatorship which thens turns to Communism. Socialism is an impossible dream. You cannot get rid of poverty in the world because total money supply on the order of $100 trillion divided by 7.5 billion leaves = $13333 for every man woman and child on the earth. No one in our society would consider themselves even in the lower middle class with total wealth of $13,333 . That level is a lower class level of asset. It isn’t poverty but it is nothing to aspire to. Even at that , if you took all the money from everybody and redistributed it to everybody equally so that everyome had $13,333, within 10 years the number of people with $ 0 and thus in poverty would be the same as now before all the world’s wealth was distributed.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 11, 2018 3:39 pm

That is 13,333 per capita, not per family. There are very large number of people who would be a happy member of a three generation family with six members and an income of $80,000 p.a.

Because that is a typical family, it would provide a huge improvement in their current lives. It happens that I visit many countries and in none of them do people have anything this level of income. Most families live on $200-600 a month.

In general people do not want a handout: they want a job. In many cases, the reason they don’t have one is corruption at high level. The foundation of a healthy economy is moral fortitude. Strengthen that, strengthen the economy.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 11, 2018 6:39 pm

Excellent comment, thank you Crispin.

Reply to  Roger
November 12, 2018 8:19 am

An aristocracy that owns both the workers and a means of production is what a communist dictatorship always becomes. Usually before the first decade is finished.

Reply to  John Robertson
November 11, 2018 1:03 pm

“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.” – President Ronald Reagan

Gerald Machnee
November 11, 2018 10:26 am

The government of Manitoba’s Green Plan started with the imaginary statements:

WHEREAS climate change is the result of greenhouse gas emissions, and it creates a wide range of environmental risks and challenges in Manitoba and around the world;
AND WHEREAS greenhouse gas emissions are primarily caused by the use of carbon-based fuels and processes that release carbon, and a move to a low carbon economy is critical to slowing climate change and minimizing its effects;

How do you get that changed?

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 11, 2018 2:57 pm

How do you get that changed?
we just drove across Canada. left New Brunswick Nov 1. Manitoba was frozen solid. -20C with 40km wind. The sort of cold where a broken down car can prove fatal if not rescued soon.

Now try this in your electric car with an electric heater. You will likely end up stranded, out of power due to the cold and distance between towns. You probably can’t even defrost the windows it is that cold.

We had an 800 km (500 mi) range in our petrol fueled vehicle and we were plenty thankful for this. Canada is a whole lot of miles filled with nothing but ice, snow and rocks.

Reply to  ferd berple
November 11, 2018 4:21 pm

Driving west into the wind is no help either. And it is only a little more than halfway through fall. Winter isn’t until Dec 21, and then it really doesn’t get cold until January/February, and is usually mid April before it starts to warm up and melt. No wonder the ancient ones were so terrified at Halloween with the sinking Sun, and the bitter cold descending from the north for 5-6 months. November 11, Remembrance Day, is usually considered the unofficial start to real nasty winter weather, although that can start in early October as many on the prairies saw this year.

I am so hoping that there actually is a smidgeon of global warming, because any significant cooling from where we are is a death sentence for the crops at these mid latitudes. We live on a thin thermal edge, even in an interglacial. As my Grandfather used to say about winter on the prairies 50-60 years ago (the annual ice age) at Christmas day dinner, was, “As the Days begin to Lengthen, the Cold begins to Strengthen.” Bundle up my Mother would say!

James Francisco
Reply to  ferd berple
November 11, 2018 5:09 pm

“Canada is a whole lot of miles filled with nothing but ice, snow and rocks.”

Don’t forget the fish. I got spoiled fishing up there. Haven’t enjoyed fishing since.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 11, 2018 3:11 pm

A small start might be to go back to calling it atmospheric CO2 and not the Spin Doctors ambiguous title of ‘Carbon’. It intentionally conjures up particulates like soot and easily identifiable smog in the minds of the general public.

Carbon is found in pencils.

Reply to  Tim
November 12, 2018 12:15 am

I second that emotion.

steve case
November 11, 2018 10:39 am

” I call it ‘the system’ because it is a headless, amorphous mass, collectively known as the Bureaucracy.”

How ’bout the “Climate Mafia or “Mob”?

Reply to  steve case
November 12, 2018 8:32 am

Many UN documents have the names of those who produced/wrote the various UN documents and reports.

And the Berlin Mandate,

Articles: about 1,630
Search results: Berlin Mandate

Can follow the history of the Berlin Mandate into the Kyoto Protocol by using these articles.

November 11, 2018 10:41 am

CSIRO is a wholly owned Government entity just like BOM, as it is known in Oz. They are perhaps better described as peers than subsidiaries.
Unfortunately M. Roberts was just one of many caught in the citizenship fiasco. It was political but not sure specific to climate.
Most people don’t want to believe that all you say could ever be possible in free societies, hence the difficulty in looking under the covers

George Hebbard
November 11, 2018 10:48 am

The current President of the United States of America has indicated that that he is dubious that the observed Global Warming is due to human intervention. He even went so far as to say it may reverse itself on its own.

He has been assailed from all sides for his attack on the gravy train. Perhaps, if he is, in fact, a denier, he would be more effective if he would thank climate scientists for their diligent work, and have the EPA fund seminars that force both sides to debate their issues. Who could argue with that stratagem? {;

Reply to  George Hebbard
November 11, 2018 10:58 am

“if he is, in fact, a denier”

Good grief.. what a slander.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  George Hebbard
November 11, 2018 11:33 am

have the EPA fund seminars that force both sides to debate their issues

This would be useless and a waste of money.

Many politicians (think Jerry Brown in CA, or Jay Inslee in WA State) believe the concept more as a religion than as science. They do not have any intellectual interest in the science, and would not pay any attention to a debate. They can see the possibility of increasing funding (taxes, fees) for their pet ideas. They have much support in this from people that don’t know much, and people that do.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 12, 2018 8:24 am

If you listen to many prominent “environmentalists”, it’s not the fact that the earth is changing that is bad, it’s the fact that they believe man is causing this change.

To them, any change caused by man, no matter how small is evil, and must be fought.

J Mac
Reply to  George Hebbard
November 11, 2018 1:56 pm

RE: “He (President Trump) ‘even went so far’ as to say it may reverse itself on its own.”

In a cyclic system, reversion to the mean is the norm and expected. President Trump simply acknowledged this time-tested fact. You went so far as to make acknowledging this fact seem like an extreme position, demonstrating one of Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’: #13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

By your choice of words, we know you!

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  J Mac
November 11, 2018 3:59 pm

Trump is the only leader that I have seen come close to the facts.

George Hebbard
Reply to  J Mac
November 11, 2018 5:46 pm

{; = /sarc

robert stevenson
November 11, 2018 10:54 am

The findings and conclusions of IPCC have been accepted without question by the UK. This has been sealed further by devolving all responsibility for the environment and climate change to the EU, which organisation flood the UK with directives on the issue that are immediately turned into law. The UK is utterly lost to the warmists and unfortunately can never be redeemed or saved RIP.

Reply to  robert stevenson
November 11, 2018 12:52 pm

The fastest way to put and end to this….is make the UN/IPCC explain why, 30 years ago, they put a system in place that guarantees atmospheric CO2 will increase

..and if they really believe it’s dangerous, why did they do that

steve case
November 11, 2018 11:09 am

A famous quote from the IPCC’s AR5 report says in the Executive Summary of Chapter Ten:

“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

It needs to be pointed out that governments around the world are making policy based on predictions that are not possible.

That and a few other factual sound bites need to be hammered home.

A good well funded ad campaign like the Harry and Louise series that defeated the Clinton health care initiative is what’s needed. The emphasis of course is on funding. Wikipedia said, “Harry and Louise was a $14 to $20 million year-long television advertising campaign” And I suppose TV stations would refuse to run it.

Reply to  steve case
November 11, 2018 11:16 am

The left-wing media will never run ads that oppose The Narrative in any meaningful way. And that’s now basically the entire mainstream meda.

Besides, who watches TV ads these days? Boomers who can’t figure out how to use their TV remote?

The best method to defeat them is very simple: defund, defund, defund. With no money in the field, they’ll go looking for another pile of gold to loot.

Reply to  steve case
November 12, 2018 12:43 pm

The quote is from the THIRD Assessment Report (TAR) and, of course, it is ignored and the IPCC’ers will tell you that the science has moved on and we now can confidently predict the future with models. (So much for the settled science.)

Dodgy Geezer
November 11, 2018 11:26 am

What you need to ask is not ‘where is the proof?’

But instead, ‘What would count as DISPROVING this hypothesis?”

If there is nothing that would disprove it, it’s not science. if there is, go and get that evidence…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 11, 2018 11:51 am

That is a very good question and the one AGW advocates never answer , which is very odd consider how strongly they claim to be following the principles of science.

November 11, 2018 11:29 am

“Once they chose to prove the theory rather than disprove it, they were no longer practicing science.”

They are always counting white swans instead of looking for a swan of a different colour.

Kevin Benn
Reply to  leitmotif
November 11, 2018 11:52 pm

And they paint white swans black, or dish out dark glasses…

Global Cooling
November 11, 2018 11:29 am

Government should just give the scientists something else to study. They forget CO2 easily, when they get paid for their honest studies of rain, hurricanes, floods, wild fires, monsoons, droughts, and so on.

Instead of wasting money on wind and solar, lets study nuclear energy. Fusion is coming and new fission technologies.

Get rid of subsidies and embrace real competition.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Global Cooling
November 11, 2018 12:59 pm

Controlled nuclear fusion is impossible

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 11, 2018 7:06 pm

Most everyone thought motorized heavier than air flight was impossible well, right up until Orville Wright of Wright Bros. fame in the USA flew their first flight at Kitty Hawk, S.C. on December 17, 1903. Hardly any newspapers even reported this first flight. And even then, the USA armed forces saw no future for flight in those very early years. The point is, is never say never. We don’t know what advances the future may hold. I am fully confident that economically feasible controlled nuclear fusion of some type will be possible at some point in the future.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 12, 2018 8:26 am

Many leading scientists said that rockets would never work in space because there was nothing to push against.

November 11, 2018 11:48 am

The bottom line is no AGW , no IPCC , you need to understand how UN bodies operate and what motivates them , you need to consider how ‘well’ some have done out of the game ,many who not have hoped succeed how they did in in other ways . Has much anything else its a personal story with the normal human failings.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  knr
November 11, 2018 1:01 pm

2030 seems to be the magical year for the UN. The global warming alarmists and the IPCC have given us until 2030 when the world is supposed to become uninhabitable because of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Now there is a new UN document that is called the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

It will be adopted at the UN conference in Marrakech December 10 and 11 , 2018. This has nothing to do with International Refugees. They are covered by the UN Global Compact on Refugees which was adopted in 2016. The differences can be explained by this UN document called the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted on 19 September 2016.

The UN bureaucracy seems to move fast these days.

However this all started with the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development. It then morphed in 1992 into
the Agenda 21 document which was the forerunner of the Sustainable Development document mentionned a couple paragraphs below.

In that document was laid the plans for a true global government. One of the reasons why it floundered was of course money, AMONG OTHER EVEN MORE FRIGHTENING REASONS. I quote one of its objectives

“The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new
and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for
the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate
sustainable development. ”

Some more juicy tidbits.
“Facilitate, in a timely way, the integration of all countries into the world economy
and the international trading system; ”
“This partnership commits all States to engage in a continuous and constructive
dialogue, inspired by the need to achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy”
“Economic policies of individual countries and international economic relations both have great
relevance to sustainable development………………… if commodity prices and the terms of
trade of developing countries remain depressed. The record of the 1980s was essentially negative on
each of these counts and needs to be reversed. ”

Sustainable development is bullshit; clear and simple. my words

“Continue to apply compensation mechanisms for shortfalls in commodity export earnings of developing countries in order to
encourage diversification efforts”

“Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric
pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a
whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;”

DON’T FORGET THAT THIS WAS JUNE 1992 AND WOULD HAVE TAKEN AT LEAST A YEAR BEFORE THE FINAL DRAFTING. So it is now clear that less than 4 years after the IPCC was born, the UN was hell bent on declaring CO2 a pollutant.

When the UN bureaucrats realized that Agenda 21 wouldn’t fly it was replaced by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

This document came out of the UN office for Sustainable Development. The new Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration referred to in the 1st paragrah above ; makes regular mention of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which in turn mentions
as one of its key goals
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

The whole list of its goals are



Goal+3.+Ensure+healthy+lives+and+promote+well being+for+all+at+all+ages








Goal+11.+Make+cities+and+human+settlements+inclusive,+safe,+resilient+and sustainable


Goal+13.+Take+urgent+action+to+combat+climate+change+and+its+impacts ???????????????????????????????????????







Oh don’t forget the other big scam of the United Nations ; the 1992 Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Hole which banned many CFC’s and is still in process of banning other gases and which is just finishing up its’ 30th meeting in Quito Ecuador on 5-9 november 2018.



Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 11, 2018 6:54 pm

If more people knew how to obtain UN documents, publications, press releases, etc., then more people would understand what has and is now taking place at the UN?

For example, getting a constitutional amendment process started in the recent Nevada election? Then how do you get rid of a constitutional amendment?

Reply to  Barbara
November 11, 2018 7:02 pm

More sub-national action. State by state.

Reply to  Barbara
November 11, 2018 8:27 pm


Articles: about 959
Search results: Global coverage, articles on constitutional amendments and climate change.

November 11, 2018 11:54 am

Sadly we will have to wait until the lights go out. The last one in South Australia was written off as a extreme weather event, but the next one will be too hard to explain away like that. Then it may be a case of “Who is responsible”and they the “Warmers”will run back to the Universities, another institution which also needs cutting back to size.


November 11, 2018 12:06 pm

Here is some sciency stuff of interest to all climate change or no change scribes.
Temperature is measured in SI units known as kelvin (K)
Up to now:
1 K (kelvin) = 1/273.16 fraction of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water—the point at which water, ice and water vapor co-exist in equilibrium.
From now:
1 K (kelvin) = (a bit complicated for me to understand) unit of thermodynamic temperature, is such that the Boltzmann constant is exactly 1.380 649..× 10−23 joule per kelvin
but joule as well as kilogram (based on the Planck constant not french cylinder), amper and some other units are also redifined.
At this point I give up.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  vukcevic
November 11, 2018 1:42 pm

What you are confused with, is that the triple point of water doesn’t exist naturally in nature. You need a partial pressure of 0.00603659 atm at 273.16K or 0.01C.

To understand the Boltzmann constant you must realize its’ definition.
Boltzmann constant = ideal gas constant/Avrogadro constant

Avogadro constant = no of molecules in 1 mole of a substance = 6.022 x 10^23 /mol
gas constant = PV/ nT which is the Ideal gas law

So you can see it all comes back to the Ideal gas law. In fact Dr. Ned Nikolov argues that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist in the atmosphere. He argues taht troposphere temperatures on every planet with an atmosphere pressure > 10kPa are determined by this law. Obviously since you need the pressure to be greater than 10kPa, there is something wrong with this reasoning, since it isn’t universal with respect to all pressures .

Brett Keane
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 12, 2018 1:31 am

Alan, the only reason you ned 10kPa is becausebelow about that pressure, Radiative emission can Mars. Such are the sublties of Physics, and indeed, Ned likes to apply his system through to vacuum eg Lunar and seems to get away with it. But the basic premise of Mass atmspheric Thermal Effect goes back to Maxwell’s Theory of Heat’. See Hockeyschtick Blog.

November 11, 2018 12:16 pm

Since climate scientists state that the science is settled, why not direct the relevant grant-giving agencies to direct their research monies towards renewable energy research? What’s the point of spending so much money on settled science? Instead spend it on researching the renewable energy solutions that they say are necessary. I would love to live in a world running on renewables that can actually do the job of running an industrialized society.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  icisil
November 11, 2018 1:49 pm

Because they have to keep up the scare stories to get the vast amount of funding that they are getting now. The more scare stories the more funding. The more funding the more scare stories.

HD Hoese
November 11, 2018 12:20 pm

I wonder how many engineering projects are subject to the same reliance on models. I just ran across one dealing with sediment transport which recommended field verification, but only starting during the construction phase. The project used a mathematical model partly using hindcasting, relying also on an equation that has had some utility elsewhere. The project, apparently closely similar to their model, failed eventually, probably due to a lack of understanding of sedimentary geology. Interestingly, this partly rested on information only available from the organization wanting the project which was significantly funded by taxpayers.

Do we build structures using admittedly hypothetical, unconfirmed models verified after or during the operation? Would it help to hammer more that these are not models, but call them simply unconfirmed hypotheses. Lots of those around.

Reply to  HD Hoese
November 11, 2018 6:21 pm

Where possible, virtual models are tested by physical prototypes and partial prototypes in real world engineering.

Just like the building that eventually failed the climate change models have failed. The AGW hypothesis has had 40 years of testing and it has failed miserably over and over again. The problem is the bureaucracies can and do fiddle with data. They decide what the data are and what isn’t as it suites their agenda. They write the narrative. Moreover, they constantly change the goal posts and call normal abnormal. One crisis after another is proclaimed. Unlike a building or a bridge that fails for all to see, their virtual data sets are a foggy sea in a make believe world. Often virtual output from one model is then used as virtual inputs for yet another model. GIGO.

November 11, 2018 12:29 pm

I have had a bit of an enlightenment today. I read something that made me stop in my climate sceptical tracks and made me think.

A couple of things for a start:

1) The AGW narrative is dying. The vast majority of the public don’t believe the world is heading for catastrophic warming. They have heard it all before and are getting bored with the message. Predictably, this takes an inordinate time to filter through to politicians. And I’m only talking the western world here, the developing world just couldn’t care less.

2) Diversion is better than confrontation. We sceptics are bashing our heads against a brick wall, not that we shouldn’t keep doing it, but there are vastly more important issues at hand that divert the attention of politicians away from one issue to the next. Especially when it comes to profit. And as we know, no one likes an easy profit better than a politician.

The next international battleground will be for dominance of technology and particularly AI (Artificial Intelligence). Our current technological revolution will pale by comparison. It will look like the chasm between the invention of the steam engine and the invention of the iPhone, but in a generation instead of four generations.

However, beware the snake oil marketeers who would have you believe AI will give us all an easy life. They tried the same trick with steam engines and computers. So far, life has just gotten more complicated. It will, however, as humans desire, offer us more opportunity. At least we sceptics who tend to be more optimistic than our climate alarmist brethren.

And as we know, nothing in this world was ever achieved without optimism.

The report I read is here:

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  HotScot
November 11, 2018 2:02 pm

That whole paper is hogwash and as a fellow skeptic you should have recognized it. The paper depends on the premise that we are losing our bio diversity.

Almost all of the people live on only 19 million km ^2 including cropland; of a total of 149 million km^2 of land. Projections are another 1.5 million by 2030. But since 11 billion total population is only 46 % more than present population of 7.6 billion we can figure that until 2100, the total amount of land that humans will occupy will increase to a total of 19 million * 1.46 = 27.7 million km ^2. That will still only be 18.5 % of the total land. However we should subtract off Antarctica and Greenland which total 16 million. So that leaves 133 million km ^2 of liveable land . So if by 2100 we occupy 27.7 million km^2 that puts the % up from 18% (including Antarctica and Greenland) to 20.8 % if we exclude Antarctica and Greenland.

So even in 2100 there will be 79.2 % of the earth surface that will still not be used by mankind.

So even by the year 2100, man will not be using 80% of the livable land. That 80% which we will never touch through farming ( at least until 2100) will continue to be bio diverse through natural processes. The premise that modern farming is destroying the planet is ludricrous.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 11, 2018 2:57 pm


I can’t really argue with your numbers other than to say that Matt Ridley is well informed on the subject being a Zoologist, a farmer, a landowner, a coal miner and one who refuses to have wind turbines on his properties because he is well aware they are a scam.

My perception of your calculations (and forgive me if I’m way off here) is that you exclude the land masses of unproductive Canadian and Russia that remain under perma frost as well as the equatorial regions of desert that can’t sustain crops, all of which are which are truly massive.

Then there’s areas like mountains, and forests that, by their nature can’t be cultivated lest we lose natural habitat. Then there’s areas where it would be irresponsible to intrude as they are valuable in terms of habitat like Yellowstone Park or the protected parks of Africa.

So whilst I don’t entirely disagree with you, I suspect Matt Ridley is closer to reality than you are. We can’t cultivate everything, we can improve cultivation of what we have.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  HotScot
November 11, 2018 9:16 pm

It doesnt matter that we can’t cultivate everything. All those lands that you mention are not covered by snow and ice 365 days of the year. I subtracted off Greenland and Iceland because 99% of their land is covered by ice 365 days of the year. Bio diversity is constantly happening. Don’t forget what Darwin taught us. Species live and species die. New species are created all the time in nature. Man has nothing to do with it. If we were affecting more than the 15% of the land area that we do now, to a point where we had control over the whole globe then we might potentially affect bio diversity. Until that happens and if the population of the world does indeed level off in 2100, mankind will probably never use more than 25% of the available non ice non snow land. So how can we affect biodiversity if we don’y touch 75% of the land in the world. That 75% will keep creating bio diversity by itself. It has been doing this for 4 billion years, and will continue until the sun burns out or we get hit by a giant asteroid. The alarmists whether they be warming alarmists or bio diversity alarmists always overestimate man’s power over nature.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 11, 2018 9:20 pm

However, 2 things man has done 1) splitting the atom 2) inventing nanotechnology: do scare the hell out of me.

Kevin Benn
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 12, 2018 12:10 am

I worry about the destruction of the tropical rain forests, whose enormous biodiversity is being replaced by olive palms and beef cattle.

Al Miller
November 11, 2018 12:29 pm

In the short term the tools we have are to voice our dissent point out their complete lack of integrity and to urge others to think for themselves, critically, through voting and media platforms.
Keep informing mass media that we are aware of their biases and deception.
In the longer term when this fraud is widely exposed, an accounting MUST be held.
For us to get through this dangerous period of history we must persevere.
Thank you Tim Ball and the many others who labour on in a toxic environment. We are grateful for your continued fight against greed and tyranny!

November 11, 2018 12:37 pm

Corrupt, entrenched bureaucracies are why armed revolutions happen. The will not reform until power is seized from their hands. Probably justice for the corrupt bureaucrats, but so many innocents are collateral damage. That’s the pity.

Peter Charles
November 11, 2018 12:46 pm

Only a substantial, noticeable and sustained cooling lasting decades will kill off AGW. Even then the proponents will try to spin it so that they get the credit for saving the world and if they can’t swing that will bleat about how they were all acting in complete good faith, that consensus blinded them to reality, how it was justified because if it had been real the consequences would have been too great and if necessary will quickly remind everyone that their papers always stressed ‘might’, ‘possibly could’, ‘potentially’, ‘is likely to’ and all the other caveats included which The Media somehow misreported as ‘will’, ‘undoubtedly’ etc.

Then there is the problem that there are simply too many vested interests in perpetuating AGW, the politicians who have committed and wasted billions to fighting it, the industries that have made billions in subsidies and guaranteed energy prices, the scientists and institutions that see it as the golden goose they can milk for grant after grant, the environmentalists who make the most noise and near drown in charitable and government grants, NGOs of all stripes that can use it in their propaganda to keep the flow of charitable and government grants and ‘prove’ how urgent and essential their ‘work’ is, the government bureaucracies that use it to expand their power, responsibilities and control, the media who are always desperate for stories to cause alarm and fear, big business who are happy to see it building ever higher barriers to entry for their potential competition, big finance for the potential windfall from processing and trading carbon taxes and credits. Indeed the only people that don’t gain from it are the man-in-the-street who end up paying for it, the small enterprises that can’t square their profits with the increased costs across the board it generates, the people that have lost their jobs stemming from efforts and regulation to combat it and the scientists who are desperate for grants not associated with climate change.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Peter Charles
November 11, 2018 7:46 pm

“Only a substantial, noticeable and sustained cooling lasting decades will kill off AGW.”

A two- or three-year decline will kill its momentum.

November 11, 2018 12:52 pm

I think that in most jurisdictions any work that could be construed as engineering, and which affects the welfare and safety of the public, requires an engineer’s signature.

So, we have the requirement for engineers and we have governments all over the place practicing engineering without a license. Good luck getting an engineer to stick her neck out to sign off on 9/10 of climate related speculation.

Peta of Newark
November 11, 2018 12:55 pm

A lovely example of how it is all going wrong is ongoing here in the UK.

The boss of a house-building company (name of Persimmon) was awarded/given a £100 million pay-off.

OK, that’s a lot of money but, inside 5 years (ish) he doubled the stock-market value of the company, made it very successful employing people *and* building houses PLUS, made a load of other people quite rich as well.
So why not give him his bonus?

But it appears that his company made a shed-load of money out of the fact that UK Government had launched (and funded) a Help-to-Buy Scheme. Aimed at young folks and ‘first-time-buyers’

Now of course there are stories of these people, once they’ve had children and wanting a larger house, finding that the ‘help-to-buy’ house has gone down in value and SURPRISE!!!…
HM Government wants its money back.

Good Intentions etc…….

A brilliant one went past recently on BBC4 I think, about my only remaining vice= mindless dance music,
Interviewed DJ Steve Aoki about his residence at whichever casino(s) in Las Vegas and how much he earned.

His take on it was, “If The House is taking a million dollars per night, primarily because I am here, why am I not entitled to $500,000 per night?”

Makes the boss of the house builder company look as frugal as a Church Mouse

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 11, 2018 1:29 pm

How about big companies buying government subsidised hybrid fleet cars and after two or three years putting them on secondary market without ever unpacking charge cable, then sold by dilers at premium with ‘brand new – never used batteries’, despite fact that whether used or not the lithium batteries significantly dethiorate after 3-4 years.

November 11, 2018 1:19 pm

The answer is to target specific errors in the IPCC reports and publish papers that falsify those errors. Then replicate the science that supports the falsifications. Do it like Dr. Ed Berry(, making it clear that the purpose is to show errors in the “consensus science”. McKitrick and Christie recently published the evidence against a central part of the GCM’s. It will be a battle. Look at what Harde had to put up with( Expose this type of censorship to your politicians and your news papers. Eventually, maybe not till it gets cold again, they will have to back off.

Reply to  DMA
November 11, 2018 1:51 pm

Except it’s not a fight against bad science as Brad Keyes pointed out recently. If it were then the argument would have been over long ago. All the alarmists need to do is wheel in Brian Cox who will drop his jaw in amazement and point to a graph (as he did with Malcolm Roberts). He does it so well though, don’t you think? Must be the floppy hair and the shit-faced grin.

November 11, 2018 1:50 pm

l think this coming winter will deal the AGW cause a real blow. As the weather patterning looks set to drive cold air down across Russia and then pushes it westwards across europe. l expect to see some major cold weather events in europe over the winter. Which may lead to europe’s worst winter since 78/79 and maybe even since 62/63.

Reply to  taxed
November 11, 2018 2:02 pm

AGW predicts worse winters too, so no advantage there.

It is extremely rare for CAGW proponents to quote Karl Popper: “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.” So don’t hold your breath.

Reply to  leitmotif
November 11, 2018 2:31 pm

This winter looks set to hit europe early and hard, as what l call ice age weather patterning takes hold over eurasia. Where high pressure sets up over Greenland/northern europe and lower pressure over northern Russia. Which allows cold Arctic air to flood down across Russia and sets up a pool of bitterly cold air over Russia. Ready to be exported over to europe. This type of winter will make a laughing stock of any claim that its due to AGW to the public. As it will be the type of weather pattern that set up the cold winters during the LIA.

Reply to  taxed
November 11, 2018 5:28 pm

And will be widely reported on CNN, the BBC, Sky, the Guardian etc, etc …..

November 11, 2018 1:55 pm

IMO quite a lot of politicians and media people know perfectl;y well that the CGW scam is just that. I myself have met a few. The problem is that they are afraid to say “We were wrong.” Any politician who admits they, personally, got it wrong will vanish from politics at once.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 12, 2018 11:55 am

I think the first major politician to say “we got it wrong” will be regarded as an honest man or woman by the general public. The last one to do so will be regarded with contempt. Furthermore in the case of the politicians who make an early confession of their errors the public will be inclined to forgive them and blame the scientists who, by pretending to know more about the climate than they really do, misled the politicians.

Gary Kerkin
November 11, 2018 2:20 pm

Thanks Tim, as always! Your comments are interesting because they show that nations with small populations (NZ has less than 5,000,000 inhabitants) suffer the same sorts of woes, dilemmas, and disinformation as larger economies. But where does the problem lie? You state

The problem is the New Zealand bureaucrats who provided this answer are members of the IPCC.

I don’t agree with this, at least in the context of NZ. I think the problem is that

for us, climate change has become apolitical.

Experience in NZ shows that there is no political group, or Party, to which we can appeal for support in promoting honest science.

Citing the response to the OIA request the Ministry for the Enviroment wrote

The evidence of anthropogenic (human-made) climate change is clearly established and credible, although we note that science does not attempt to provide “proof’. Scientific evidence allows us to choose the best explanation among all available alternatives.

(my emphasis)
It is hard to imagine that an honest scientist would write that phrase. Whoever did write it sounds very like Donna Laframboise’s description of the bureaucrats working for the IPCC .

Earlier you wrote

It parallels the IPCC trick of saying we know CO2 causes a temperature increase because our models show it.

I agree with the sentiment but I think it needs more emphasis. I would have written

… because our models, which assume that CO2 causes a temperature increase, prove it.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
November 12, 2018 12:01 am

Hard to fight alarmism here in NZ when all political parties and all MSM (except Leighton) support alarmism, either because they gain by doing so or are too ignorant or lazy to seek the truth. NZ is soon expected to ratify a UN resolution which compels countries to permit uncontrolled immigration by ANYBODY, and provide everything those immigrants wish. No exclusions! Another Venezuela in the making. Wherever you live, excluding the USA, coming your way soon.

November 11, 2018 2:53 pm

“evidence that proves that human generated carbon dioxide is the cause of dangerous global warming”

They do have that evidence (if you are willing to overlook the nitpicky matter of spurious correlstions in time series data).

Reply to  Chaamjamal
November 11, 2018 2:55 pm


November 11, 2018 3:15 pm

Spare a thought for little known physicist Warren Stannard. He is one of the survivors of the Global Warming fiasco, but barely. His little booklet “Controlling the Climate, the New Science of Global Warming” was an influential and compelling read toward my understanding of CAGW.

He was a CSIRO physicist who did not toe the party line on Global Warming. He did not last long in the organisation with that heresy. He is now a lecturer in Perth, WA and appears to keep his head low these days.

November 11, 2018 4:33 pm

Malcolm Roberts was just one of a whole bunch of our incompetent politicians who lost their jobs because they were not in compliance with our Constitution. Unfortunately, most of them have not been reelected but it is really Malcolm’s own fault. These are not new requirements. A number of those politicians who were disqualified by our High Court were re-appointed or re-elected once they had sorted out their citizenship , unfortunately not the competent ones!
Malcolm did a bit of a service by calling out some of our scientists. Unfortunately Australians as a whole have had a gutfull of our self serving idiots and have tuned all politicians out. Voting in Australia is compulsory and you get fined if you don’t vote without good reason, otherwise I expect our turnout would get to below 50% based on the opinions from all sides of politics that I have come across recently.

Gary Kerkin
Reply to  Quilter52
November 11, 2018 5:21 pm

Voting did drop to less than 50%, in the 1940-50’s I think. Which was why compulsory voting was introduced. The fine for not voting was hardly excessive. In the late 60’s it was around $2 (AUD). I understand it is not much more now, in relative terms.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Quilter52
November 11, 2018 7:55 pm

I’ve read that one needn’t actually vote, only show up at the polling place and register one’s attendance.

Gary Kerkin
Reply to  Roger Knights
November 11, 2018 8:37 pm

No. In Australia, as with New Zealand, a vote must be posted in the ballot box. But it can be informal—i.e. with no marks, or incorrect marks. Scrutineering votes in the Australian Federal Election in December 1972 I encountered one such “informal” vote where the person wrote across the ballot a remark suggesting that a certain, long dead, Prime Minister do something quite impossible to himself!

November 11, 2018 4:35 pm

You ask “How Do You Make the Bureaucratic Climate Deceivers Accountable?”, however this belies a simple misunderstanding that many people have, — bureaucrats at not really human. They are just fleshy automata that have the outward appearance of humans but are unimaginatively “just following orders” with a default alarm setting. Nearly a ‘cyborg’ but not quite as intelligent.

old construction worker
November 11, 2018 4:41 pm

How do you bring down an elephant? One cut at a time. Put more teeth in the Data Quality Act.

November 11, 2018 5:58 pm

Tim Ball,
Your words about bureaucracy match my experiences at the highest levels here in Australia, eventually before the High Court.
It is frightening and frustrating to devise ways to combat the bureaucratic power of “We know that we are right and you are not.”
Especially when all main political parties have swallowed the bait to some degree. Geoff.

November 11, 2018 8:14 pm

“How Do You Make the Bureaucratic Climate Deceivers Accountable?”

What’s needed is President Trump making the 2020 election a referendum on this CAGW scam. If he tweeted out a few factual tweets a day about how the science has been corrupted, and that he is defunding all USA financing of this scam, especially the UN and IPCC that add to the corruption of climate science, the general population would understand. Include a Commission to investigate the criminality of politicians, scientists, academia & media that participate in this racketeering and extortion, and the average voter would give a huge majority to re-elect Trump and the Republican Party. Especially if the Democrats are running on a platform of carbon taxes on everything. It is nothing more than a general tax for general revenues on most everything, especially for the basic necessities that everyone needs, especially that the poor and middle class require to survive for which they expend a lot of their disposable income on.

Who, except some brainwashed mental retards in the cities and academia are going to vote to put carbon taxes on everything, so as you can’t even make an honest living anymore or heat and cool your home or drive your car to work? The logistics of such a vote will see an even better turnout at the rural, middle America polls in 2020 and a guaranteed win again in the Electoral College for the Republicans. Then take a wrecking ball to this climate change racket everywhere on American soil, starting with massive defunding at the UN and the Universities who peddle this crap. This is what it will take to stamp out this academic evil globally that is morphing into a crime against humanity. Once again, it will take America to save humanity from the scourges of Marxist/Fascist plots, the latest of which is CAGW and dangerous climate change carbon taxation on nearly everything.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Earthling2
November 11, 2018 9:25 pm

Hear Hear 2 Thumbs up

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Earthling2
November 12, 2018 12:09 am

Absolutely, hopefully with worldwide ramifications. Also POTUS should declare CO2 is not a pollutant, despite the fraudsters claims.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 12, 2018 6:39 am

That would get the ball rolling. A few factual tweets a day or every other day about how the science has been corrupted would put the global warming scam out into the open.

I would support that.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 12, 2018 1:10 pm

Your plan might work if President Trump can appoint a lot more Federal judges between now and January, 2021. Judges who will throw out the inevitable avalance of lawsuits, or overturn those that get through the Court of Original Jurisdiction.

November 12, 2018 1:00 am

See any episode of “Yes Minister” to see bureaucracy in action.
Bureaucrats only seem to employ yes men who are in their own image.

November 12, 2018 1:52 am

Stephen, you beat me to it!

I wil add that bureacrats hate even a hint of personal publicity; so one way would be to publically name them together with their policies. I know it is bad form to expose one’s servants to public scrutiny, as it were, in the interests of good governance …. but here we are facing ‘bad governance’

November 12, 2018 3:45 am

If Malcolm Roberts had been around in the 7th century, would he have been a supporter of Galileo? Given that he had no valid empirical evidence to show that the Earth moved, and what evidence he claimed was obviously false.

Reply to  Bellman
November 12, 2018 4:00 am

That should be 17th century of course.

November 12, 2018 7:24 am

I think we should take to directions of Waters, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris, Obama, Perez, Gillum and the rest of the Democrat Party leadership, get up in their faces, run them out of restaurants and stores and gas stations, riot at their homes, all the things Democrat Party has been doing for the last 12-14 years. Only do it louder, harder and more destructively. It is what they are telling us to do, we should be good citizens and obey!

Thomas Homer
November 12, 2018 8:23 am

[“The available evidence on carbon dioxide and climate change is publicly available, and we have therefore refused this request “]

The ‘available’ evidence is available. Quite a compelling premise! And, if true, it should’ve been simple to produce some of the evidence in the response, why was none included?

[“Please provide the evidence that proves that human generated carbon dioxide is the cause of dangerous global warming. / seek evidence not assertions. The evidence of anthropogenic (human-made) climate change is clearly established and credible”]

Specifically asking for evidence and not an assertion gets an assertion in response.

Why is the ‘clearly established and credible’ evidence always – over there – and never presented in a response? When defending a scientific theory it’s acceptable (and expected) to invoke the science.

Ian Macdonald
November 12, 2018 8:37 am

We have the curious situation in Scotland where Greens are opposed to wind farms. There is the threat of a large wind farm ruining one of the most popular hill walking areas near Cairn O’ Mount, and the local branch of the Green Party has spoken out against it.

Maybe times and opinions are changing. Who knows?

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
November 12, 2018 1:20 pm

The BBC had a news item recently that Scotland had derived over 90% of its electricity from inshore wind farms, and only 3% from offshore.
They didn’t say how long for, nor did they say how much they generated during the weeks last summer when the wind didn’t blow. Presumably they had to rely on good old fossil fuel during that period.

November 12, 2018 9:25 am

All my posts on the topic, or most, I end with GLOBAL WARMING BY WAY OF CO2 IS A SCAM.
It is about getting the message out and across. Most often simple is best.

If everyone started posting the same the thought would be planted.

No different than the psychological manipulation in the media. So much so that I now see weather forecasts referred to a climate forecasts.

Call it what it is, BRAINWASHING!!

GREG in Houston
November 12, 2018 10:20 am

This is very late and very picky, but in your post where it say “The person used FOI and received the following answer,” I think you meant “sued”

%d bloggers like this: