T W A W K I

The world as we know it

lamestreammedia media utter fail

Copied from email from Malcolm Roberts. Journalism in this country is appalling, particularly as it is no longer bipartisan.

To all Federal MPs

Your dealings with some journalists have our empathy.

Here are three recordings exposing journalists’ ignorant and/or deliberate misrepresentation of climate:

1. Recording of Graham Readfearn, The Guardian and blogger:


Summary and conclusions here:

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/GrahamReadfearnPhoneCallNotesShort.pdf

Admits he doesn’t read UN climate reports. Yet his work relies on the reports and spreads their claims.

2. Recording of Ben Cubby, Fairfax:


Redacted personal phone number and address. Transcript here:

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/ROBERTS,Malcolm-InterviewWithBenCubby-30July2012WorkingCopy2.pdf

Details and observations of Ben’s behaviour are on pages 30 to 40 here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/13_appendix.pdf

Admits knowing little about formation and background of UN climate body. Yet his work spreads its claims.

3. Recording of Wendy Carlisle, ABC: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/WendyCarlisleABC_BackgroundBriefingResearch_23_06_11%204_22PM.mp3
Observations of Wendy’s behaviour and propaganda is on pages 21 & 22 here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/13_appendix.pdf

Detailed analysis here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/13a_AppendixABCBackgroundBriefingWorkingTranscript.pdf

and here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/13b_AppendixABCBackgroundBriefingNotes.pdf

(Both are part of this report: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html)

4. Mike Carlton, Fairfax, pages 30 to 40, here: http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/13_appendix.pdf
Video of holocaust survivor rebutting Mike Carlton’s anti-Semitic smear is here:

Mike Carlton earlier failed to provide empirical scientific evidence for his climate belief. Instead, he introduced religion, race and his “conspiracy theories” into Australian climate discussions. Such tactics are increasingly seen as diversions hiding lack of evidence.

Contrary to facts, the vicious and false implied anti-Semitic smear was spread by Graham Readfearn and Ben Cubby.

5. Detailed analysis of five prominent ABC programs and the ‘work’ of some ABC journalists is here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/13_appendix.pdf

6. David Marr in analysis by Andrew Bolt: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/tim-flannery-has-been-sacked-8212-and-so-too-should-journalists-who-are-climate-change-scaremongers/story-fnj45fva-1226724721844?from=trendinglinks

7. Strong journalists such as Andrew Bolt can be damagingly pressured and misled by journalists’ hurtful false smears. See pages 30 to 40 here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/docs/new/13_appendix.pdf

Overview here: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/restoring_morality_justice.php#H

Despite ample documented evidence some journos fail to discuss UN and Australian corruption of climate science.
See appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9 and others here:http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

All journos and program producers who push climate alarm based on human carbon dioxide contradict empirical scientific evidence. They’re deliberately or inadvertently supporting corruption of climate science.

Are they dishonest? Or are they group thinkers? Or dependent? Or lacking strength to question what they initially perceived as the popular tide? Or naively aligned with vested interests stealing money by fabricating, pushing and/or milking unfounded climate alarm?

Given the facts and empirical scientific evidence, is their behaviour in misrepresenting modest cyclic global warming that ended in 1998 irresponsibly or negligently incompetent or is it deliberately dishonest?

Given that too many federal MPs are afraid of the media’s power, it’s easy to see many were herded into falsely accepting fabricated and unfounded climate alarm. We empathise.

Should all Australians pay the price for abusive journalism? None should. Please Axe the Tax, Drop Direct Action and hold journalists accountable.

Malcolm Roberts
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

Filed under: Governance, , , ,

Be sure of this, the Globalists refuse accountability

The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim, denounces it, and excites the public odium and public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments.–Henry Clay

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue.–Peirre-Joseph Proudhon

Everywhere you turn the globalists and the puppet governments refuse to be accountable, act with impunity and believe they are above the law. Just watching the Gillard ALP in Australia where the government that has presided over more than 700 deaths, hundreds of house fires, tens of billions squandered, corruption at every turn and yet remains in power, refusing to be transparent or accountable to the people. This week has been replete with examples of that as Gillards past corruption comes to light whilst she stonewalls & refuses answers. Her fraud & all the appointments to positions of power she has made for accomplices and mates are finally being laid bare but she refuses to budge.

Then there is Australia’s carbon tax legislation which Gillard ensured to the people pre election she wouldn’t bring in, and yet had every intent on doing so and deceptively did so and that in a manner that defied every democratic process and made a mockery of representational government. To be true we are no longer governed by and for the people but simply ruled by elitists believing themselves to be above the ‘little people’. To Gillard the end justifies the means and has no problem with lying as long as she accomplishes her fabian (creeping) socialist ideals – the pinnacle of which is the carbon tax. Keep in mind that the carbon taxes are nothing but wealth redistribution – historically one of Gillards favorite socialist endeavors, and one that conveniently funds the UN and its global governance as well. The carbon tax is nothing but centralised power & where that power is shifting from a national/Australian level to an international/UN level. All the rules and laws of the carbon tax come from the UN, not from the Australian people and allegiance to the UN is nothing short of allegiance to a foreign power – or treason as our constitution would define it, tyrannical treason.

The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.–James Madison

Also keep in mind the most expensive carbon tax in the world will only go up. Also keep in mind that ex Goldman Sachs bankster Turncoat Turnbull is another globalist puppet waiting ready in the wings to replace Abbott who vows to repeal this law of enslavement. No we the people don’t want Turnbull but what we the people think doesnt seem to matter anymore.

There is no democracy under globalism. The UN is the least accountable bureaucracy in the world. It is also the least democratic as we the people have no say, it has no elections and does as it pleases. Is it any wonder that its socialist puppets behave in the same manner – Gillard & Obama in particular refuse transparency, accountability or scrutiny. The more centralised the power, the less voice that the people have. We would head the wise words;

Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.–William Pitt, the Younger

No where has the impingement of human freedom been more obvious than the fabricated global warming alarmism, where all the free things we hold dear are being removed by the lying excuse of saving the planet. The planet isnt dying, the world does not have a fever, extreme weather events are not increasing – all lies to push a lie. Our green tyrants are turning us into nothing more than slaves. And if the UN’s Agenda 21 gets fully implemented then tragically in comparison the holocaust will look like a picnic in the park.

UN has absolute immunity in sexual harassment ;

Fear is what is needed in a despotism. Virtue is not at all necessary, and honor would be dangerous.–Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , ,

Destroying the ANZAC liberties

Guest post by Graham Williamson. You can read more of Graham’s research here

As we celebrate the hard won freedoms we enjoy on Anzac day, please pay attention to moves outlined below to remove those freedoms under the guise of concern for climate change. Though hard to believe, Australian lawyers and politicians are currently, as we celebrate Anzac day, looking for ways to ensure Australia can be forced to surrender control and massive amounts of money to the UN and poorer countries using climate change as an excuse. These will be enforced changes, NOT democratic changes.

Enjoy Anzac day and remember. Enjoy your freedoms and protect them.

Graham Williamson

 

Explaining the debt and why we owe climate compensation

http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/climatechange

“The concept of climate justice seeks to restore equity in two ways. Firstly, that richer countries should repay their climate debt by undertaking severe cuts in emissions, reserving “atmospheric space” for the growing emissions of poorer countries. Secondly, that they should provide financial support for low carbon transition and adaptation to the damaging effects of climate change.

These principles of climate justice are firmly enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This treaty was agreed at the Rio de Janeiro “Earth Summit” in 1992 with the ultimate objective of “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.” (NOTE: The UNFCC was enforced in Australia under Part 1 Section 3a of the Clean Energy Act)

The Convention demands application of the precautionary principle and that the scale of emission reductions should be assessed “in the light of the best available scientific information.” And international climate change laws must observe the Convention’s commitment to “common but differentiated responsibilities” between richer and poorer countries………….Desperately slow implementation of the UNFCCC vision has driven climate justice campaigners to refer increasingly to human rights law and to the legal principle of reparations for damages.

 

In 2010…..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/nov/12/dhaka-climate-court-criminals
“Imagine an international court (1718 ) where the poorest people in the world could sue countries such as the US or Britain for failing to keep to agreements to reduce climate emissions or for knowingly causing devastatingclimate change. It’s some way off, but this week has seen an extraordinary tribunal being held in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, with more than 1,200 people including British lawyers, politicians and economists, listening to the testimonies of villagers living at the frontline of climate change.”

 

In 2011 Durban UN conference promotes International Climate Court
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/10/un-floats-global-climate-court-to-enforce-emissions-rules/
U.N. Floats Global ‘Climate Court’ to Enforce Emissions Rules
United Nations climate envoys have proposed the creation of a global “climate court” that would be responsible for enforcing a sprawling set of rules requiring developed countries to cut emissions while compensating poorer countries in order to pay off a “historical climate debt.”……….. The proposal is meant to “guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision.” Annex I countries are mostly developed countries, covering the United StatesBritainAustraliaCanada and much of Europe — including countries that are struggling financially such as Greece and Portugal. The rules of the road the court would presumably enforce are based on the view that these developed countries owe developing countries a “debt” over climate change, and must provide financial aid in addition to taking major steps toward cutting emissions.  In one section, the document calls for developed countries to help poorer countries with “finance, technology and capacity building” so they can “adapt to and mitigate climate change” while helping eliminate poverty. Another section provides that developing countries should receive an amount of money equal to the amount “developed countries spend on defense, security and warfare.” Yet the document also calls for a guaranteed end to warfare altogether — for the sake of curbing climate change. One section, noting that “conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions,” calls on all parties to “cease destructive activities” like warfare — and then channel the money that would have been spent on war and other defense projects toward “a common enemy: climate change.” The document also asserts the “rights of mother earth,” a concept that environmental activists have been pushing for.”

But according to Gunter (1), the Kyoto Protocol, which the Gillard government legislated to enforce in Australia through Part 1, Section 3a of the Clean Energy Act, is a sham when it comes to controlling climate (1):

Kyoto is now mostly about punishing rich countries for being rich and forcing them to pay vast sums — up to $1.6-trillion a year — to the UN for redistribution to poorer nations (after, of course, the UN has taken a healthy cut off the top to support its own wasteful bureaucracy, nepotism, cronyism, incompetence and corruption)…….. Whereas the original Kyoto Protocol laid out how much each developed country was to reduce its carbon emissions — Canada agreed to reduce its CO2 emissions to 6% below 1990s levels — the Durban agreement (which is effectively an amendment to Kyoto) concentrates mostly on blaming the developed world for climate change and dictating how much guilt money it should pay. The implication is that somehow all this money — at least $100-billion a year, rising to as much as $1.6-trillion — will buy an end to global warming.”

Australian government supports Durban moves to force Australians to pay their climate debt
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/durban-fine-print-shows-we-will-lose-our-autonomy/story-fn558imw-1226221278321
“CLIMATE Change Minister Greg Combet fully supports the decisions made at the Durban climate talks. These include binding Australia to take action. We are going to commit ourselves to an offshore body that can make binding decisions on our economy. We are gradually losing the ability to govern ourselves and to retain control of our destiny. A new international climate court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to Third World countries in the name of making reparation for supposed climate debt.”

The Australian government even described the Durban outcome as a (2) “remarkable step forward”, a (345) “significant breakthrough”, and (6) “a massively historic step.”

But what do the lawyers say?

British environmental lawyer Polly Higgins has long supported an International Climate Court (171819).

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL EXPERTS PREPARE FOR CLIMATE COURT CASES

In Australia, the Australian Climate Justice Program and environmental and animal rights lawyer Keely Boom (2021222324) are at the forefront of proceedings (25). In a recent article entitled “See you in court: the rising tide of international climate litigation”  Keely explains (25):

“The Pacific Island State of Palau recently announced it will seek an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), asking whether countries have a responsibility to avoid their emissions causing climate change damage elsewhere. This will be the world’s first international climate change case and it has been a long time coming………Palau’s announcement reveals that it intends to ask the ICJ to provide guidance on how the “no harm rule” (more on this below) and the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) apply to climate change damage………Climate change is not the result of a deliberate act to cause damage, but rather the cumulative effect of routine social and economic activities such as burning coal, driving cars and grazing livestock. None of these acts are crimes at either national or international law. So how could Palau have a claim?

Breaching the golden (environmental) rule

The “no harm rule” is a rule of customary international law that declares a State has a duty to prevent, reduce and control the risk of environmental harm to other States……..It is not necessary to show actual harm in order to demonstrate a breach of this rule. An increase in risk of harm is sufficient although the increase needs to be significant. Thus, the no harm rule is particularly well suited to the problem of climate change damage.

It could be argued that Australia has breached the “no harm rule” on the basis that:

1) Australia has had an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

2) climate change damage was foreseeable, at least since 1992 when Australia signed the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

3) Australia has not taken proportionate measures to mitigate its emissions.”

“From the air to the sea

On another front, article 194(2) of the LOSC declares that States are obliged to take all measures necessary to ensure activities under their jurisdiction or control do not cause “damage by pollution” to the marine environment of other States.

The LOSC contains a wide definition of pollution, and greenhouse gases from human sources could fit within it.

Australia may also be breaching the LOSC through failing to cut emissions and failing to prevent pollution to the marine environment. But the LOSC lacks specificity, potentially providing Australia with enough wiggle room to evade responsibility.

The causation hurdle

The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and most of the observed warming since the mid 20th century is due to human activity.

But can one State’s emissions be linked to another’s climate change damage? The “but-for test” asks “but for the defendant’s act, would the harm have occurred?” Admittedly, this test is poorly suited to climate change, where the process is cumulative.

The but for test would require proof that without the defendant State’s emissions, the damage would not have occurred. But no one State is responsible for climate change and climate change science is fraught with uncertainties. That said, the fact multiple States have contributed to climate change does not necessarily limit application of international law to the problem.

The Nuclear Tests Cases concerned alleged damage caused to Australia and New Zealand by France’s testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific. In this case, Australia argued that any additional exposure to radioactive contamination, no matter how small, substantially contributed to the risk of radiation-related injuries.

The ICJ did not decide on this point in the Nuclear Tests Case, yet Australia’s argument is clearly relevant to Palau’s predicament. Therefore, the appropriate test may be whether a State’s contribution has caused additional exposure to climate change damage.

Turning the tide

An Advisory Opinion from the ICJ may help Pacific Island States such as Palau turn the tide in the international climate negotiations. Arguably, a credible case can be made. A ruling by the ICJ could help provide a new impetus for Australia and the world community to find an international solution to climate change.”

And in 2012 Bob Carr announces his desire to give evidence against Australia in the International Court to assist Palau (789101112)

Foreign Minister Bob Carr assured the UN of Australia’s support for (7) “international legal action on climate change” to support a UN “resolution seeking an opinion from the International Court of Justice that would mean nations had to take action on climate change under existing treaties.”

http://andrewmcintyre.org/2012/04/13/carr-wants-to-give-evidence-against-australia/
This is either self-destructive madness or cynical tokenism to buy into the UN Security Council. Not content with attempting to undermine Australia with the introduction of a carbon tax — a deeply unpopular policy — the Gillard government is wanting us to be hauled before the International Court of Justice to shame her own country. This is quite insane and irresponsible and clearly not in Australia’s national interest. It shows the Prime Minister is prepared to betray Australia for her own policy goals.  FOREIGN Minister Bob Carr has volunteeredAustralia to give evidence on behalf of poor nations that want the United Nations to investigate if big emitters – potentially including Australia – have a legal responsibility to keep their greenhouse gases from hurting other countries. Australia would give evidence supporting a push led by Palau for a UN resolution asking the International Court of Justice to assess how much countries were responsible for the damage their emissions did overseas.”

And more………

http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carr-to-help-fight-emitters-australia-among-them-20120413-1wz13.html
FOREIGN Minister Bob Carr has volunteered Australia to give evidence on behalf of poor nations that want the United Nations to investigate if big emitters – potentially including Australia – have a legal responsibility to keep their greenhouse gases from hurting other countries. In an interview with The Saturday Age in New York, Mr Carr said he had told UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Australia would give evidence supporting a push led by Palau for a UN resolution asking the International Court of Justice to assess how much countries were responsible for the damage their emissions did overseas. Climate law experts said that if the resolution was successful, it could be the first step by worst-affected nations in seeking reparations from countries such as the US, China and Australia.”

But the Australian government, BOM, and CSIRO have been compiling ‘evidence’ and issuing grave predictions about climate change in Palau (1314), though how much of this is alleged to be caused by humans and reversible by humans is not clear (1314). So Australian tax payers are funding research into scaring the Palauian government about the consequences of (human caused???) climate change and now Bob Carr will assist them to obtain compensation from all Australians?

But how much money do we owe?

According to Gideon Polya (1516) Australia owes a climate debt to poorer countries and the “Net Per Capita Climate Debt (US$ per person)” of Australia is “$23,900 or $24,265, if including the effect of its huge GHG Exports on its Climate Credits” while the “Net Climate Debt” for Australia is $0.5 trillion. Polya concludes (16): it is apparent that the greedy climate criminals (notably the US, Australia and Canada) and the other Climate Debtors will not repay their debt nor indeed stop polluting the atmosphere……… The Climate Debtors are stealing from the poor Climate Creditors and should be held to account by the Climate Creditors at the ICJ and the ICC.”

See here to calculate our debt http://sites.google.com/site/climatedebtclimatecredit/net-climate-debt

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , ,

The subterfuge of controlling the global warming narrative

This is not science the way we were told it works. This is not independent scientists working without conflicts of interest focusing on the data, submitting their results for independent assessment, being at arms length to the assessors and publishers. No this is real life story of the control of the press (Nature, Science and others), control of the editors and attacks on the non compliant ones, control of peer review, vilification of opponents work, manipulating political processes and controlling the narrative. This is a process where more of the ‘scientists’ energy is put into controlling their positions than seems is ever put into the science. And keep in mind these guys are on the government payroll and should be open and transparent in all their dealings.

This is also a story of a select group of individuals in positions of power paid for by the taxpayers, believing they are above reproach and cannot be wrong. This is about the religious fervor with which these global warming scientists banded together on group think to meet, plot and enact compliant acts of vilification against scientists whose studies threatened their work. There are few degrees of separation, if any between these so called scientists and the highest powers in many of the worlds nations. Additionally there is the menace of those in global governance aiding and abetting them. The following emails are almost a script for a movie on global warming eco elite’s subterfuge.

Bold mine, comments in red mine

Formatting removed to make it easier to read. You can read the original file here

Phil Jones, Mike Hulme, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Danny Harvey, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Robert wilby, Tom Karl , Steve Schneider, Tom Crowley, jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter”, “p.martens”, “peter.whetton”, “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Scott Rutherford, Neville Nicholls, Ray Bradley, Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, “Greg.Ayers”

date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: My turn
to:

HI Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don’t wish to receive these correspondances…

Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments from other individuals as well–I’m not sure. I believe that the matter is in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any case, I’d be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.

I think that a response to “Climate Research” is not a good idea. Phil and I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don’t view as having passed peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz (Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well…

cheers,

mike

p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original distribution list.

At 09:27 AM 4/24/Mark Eakin wrote: At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be best to direct such a response. Some options are:

1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
3) A letter to OSTP

The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the best published approach.

A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’ methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.

I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.

Cheers,
Mark

Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Tom et al,

Thanks for comments–I see we’ve built up an impressive distribution list here!

This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in large, I agree w/ Tom’s comments (and those of Barrie’s as well). A number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process in this area (both with regard to empirical “climate reconstruction” and in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley’s Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece for /Science/ on the “Medieval Warm Period”. Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a scientific point of view, they are awful–that is certainly true. For example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard they applied for finding “a Medieval Warm Period” was that a particular proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the “20th century” (many of the proxy records don’t really even resolve the late 20th century!) could be used to define an “MWP” anywhere one might like to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a “MWP” that was “warmer than the 20th century” (a non-sequitur even from their awful paper!) (it is worth noting that …) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words don’t make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it weren’t the case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but without some external pressure).

So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC. Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the “Harvard” moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd (the demonising of Murdoch begins, which is still being pursued by Gillard) , and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear that “Climate Research” has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in the skeptics’ (can we find a better word?) (yes denier was what they chose). disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I’ve seen (e.g. a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.

This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey and I’m sure there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different nature–there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn’t see the light of the day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL–there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.

best regards,

Mike

At 11:53 PM 4/23/Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear friends,

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’

to which I add ….

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

____________________

Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, ppREDACTED 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRLREDACTEDREDACTEDHowever, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did in the above example — then this is an advantage.

_____________________________

There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on this?

_______________________________

There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in writing a response.

The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GLREDACTED). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23, ppREDACTED Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded saying …

The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.

On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.

It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper — deFreitas has offered us this possibility.

______________________________

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
Soon, and so on).

The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.

The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through.

_______________________________

Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).
______________________________

Best wishes to all,
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail:  Phone:770 FAX:137

http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
325 Broadway E/CC23
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________

It is worth noting on the science that far from being bad science

Who is who in the above emails – a cast of ….

Michael Mann – inventor or should one say the fabricator of the discredited hockey stick. Previously employed by Penn State. Currently under investigation for use of grants.

Mark Eakin – Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

Phil Jones – UAE chief concedes “all our models are wrong“, refuses FOI requests, and has acknowledged there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

Mike Hulme – Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)

Keith Briffa, Professor at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia asks colleagues to delete emails, discusses manipulating the data,

James Hansen, NASA astronomer turned climate ‘guru’ who is current financial scandal is how he is making over $1.5 million dollars of undeclared income on top of his government paid position,

Danny Harvey,

Ben Santer, Research scientist on climate models angry that climate skeptics arnt silenced, keeps moving the climate goalposts to suit his failed theories,

Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist NCAR. who said in October 2009 ” The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Robert Wilby, Professor of Hydroclimatic Modelling

Tom Karl ,

Steve Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University

Tom Crowley, Simon Shackley,  Tim Carter,  P Marten,  Peter Whetton,  C Goodes,  A Minn,  Wolfgang Crame,  Jim Salinger CRSNZ NIWA,  Simon Toro,  Scott Rutherfor,  Neville Nicholl,  Ray Bradle,  Mike MacCracke,  Barrie Pittoc,  Ellen Mosley-Thompso,  Greg Ayers

Climategate ; Biased BBC ;

CSIRO clanger – “which representation of the results is appropriate to giving the best advice on what changes to expect”

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Work from home

Join 2,326 other followers

TWAWKI Twitter

RSS TWAWKI RSS

Story archives

Categories

%d bloggers like this: