Monthly Archives: October 2011

Public Mislead – BEST Research shows Global Warming has Stopped

Scientist accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose, Mail Online   6:11 PM on 30th October 2011

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

Hot topic: The plight of polar bears captures the hearts of many, but are the ice caps still shrinking?

Hot topic: The plight of polar bears captures the hearts of many, but are the ice caps still shrinking?

It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of  trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.

The graph that fooled the world

But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

Media storm: Prof Muller's claims received uncritical coverage in the media this week
Media storm: Prof Muller’s claims received uncritical coverage in the media this week

This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.

The oceans, they argue, warm more slowly and this is why earlier global measurements which also cover the sea – such as those from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University – have found no evidence of warming since the Nineties.

Read more:

New York and US East Coast hit by deadly Halloween Snowstorm

The Mail Online reported on 30 October 2011:

Three million on the US East Coast could be without power for DAYS after New York was hit by deadly October snow storm… and there’s more on the way

Still on sale? A view of a pumpkin patch covered in snow is today seen in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a day before Halloween

Halloween Pumpkins covered in snow in Portsmouth, New Hampshire

Whiteout: A jogger makes his way through Central Park as snow falls in New York City for only the fourth time in November since the Civil War

Whiteout: A jogger makes his way through Central Park as snow falls in New York City for only the fourth time in November since the Civil War

Governors declare states of emergency in New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and parts of New York
Great-grandmother, 77, dies when power outage stops her oxygen machine. Another dead in Pennsylvania after tree crashes into his home as he takes a nap. Man electrocuted in Massachusetts
Icy roads cause horrific highway pileup in the Bronx, New York that kills woman, 20, bringing death toll to five, and left 16 injured
In excess of 3 million people from Maryland to New England lost power, with some predicting it could be off for days
Earliest New York City one-inch snowfall since records began
More than 1,000 flights in or out of America cancelled
Parts of North East receive more than two feet of snow as records tumble
Only fourth time since Civil War that snow has fallen in NYC in October

New York City and the East Coast are picking up the pieces hit by more than one inch of snowfall before Halloween for the first time ever – with experts predicting much more on the way.

See more amazing photos, snow falling in Times Square video and read full article here:

IPCC: A WWF Trojan Horse or a group of objective scientists?

The IPCC according to Kevin Rudd on Q&A in Feb 2010, in response to a challenge from a sceptical student:

“The first thing I’d say is the IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change – scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years. They reached a conclusion about, first of all, climate change happening and, second, the high likelihood, defined as 90 per cent plus, of it being caused by human activity sometime ago.”

On Bolt Report:  Er, not so, says even the warmist Guardian:

Perhaps unknown to many people, the process is started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the information is presented in so-called summary for policymakers [SPM] chapters.

Donna Laframboise, an investigative journalist blogging on, has been researching and publishing for 2 years on the failings of the IPCC, its  scientists and their processes. Her recent book: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert finally exposes the IPCC for the unscientific advocacy group that it is:

Given that this UN Body will control the future freedom and prosperity of your children, it is well worth finding out who are the IPCC and they want:

Climate Change – nothing new under the sun

A concise referenced summary of Climate Change alarm:

The case for AGW theory has been getting weaker by the minute, as Marc Morano notes in this characteristically feisty summary of the current state of play:

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers, the Arctic hasrebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polarbearsare thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actuallydroppingCholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining,global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declinedsince the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusual nor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weatherscandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists and scientists continue to dissentat a rapid pace.”

Its wall to wall Abbott in the press

Terry McCrann’s argument makes sense – The Liberal Party adopting the same catastrophic AGW narrative and same CO2 reduction targets as Labor, but only differing in ways of achieving them may be nearing the end of its useful life:

…No, what Abbott must do is lead the opposition to walk away from all this; to build a sustained narrative against the entire climate change orthodoxy, to go back to his core belief that “climate change is crap”, but this time based on substance…..The functional case is easy, logical and unanswerable. An Abbott government would make any move to a mandatory cut of our emissions conditional on a global agreement. But that forces him to abandon the absurdity of the 5 per cent emissions cut target, and the 20 per cent mandatory renewable one.,,,,Lawyer Fergus Green has argued on the Inside Story blog that the repeal of the carbon tax would not trigger a compensation obligation to the holder of carbon units. Provided, simply, the government itself did not take them back.


Dennis Shanahan in Friday’s opinion piece, on the other hand, cools up a feast of climate politics nonsense.

He slavishly repeats all the Labor mantras against Abbott:

Abbot opposes everything just to get into government

Abbott is responsible for the asylum mess due to his s intransigence on Malaysia

Abbott is responsible for uncertainty in Energy industry due to his s promise to repeal the carbon tax

Abbott will be responsible for electricity price rises by inducing uncertainty

Hard to know where to start:

That determination to destroy the Gillard government is costing the Coalition credibility as an alternative government.

Where is the evidence for this. This is the most hated PM and most hated government. The feeling out the I see is that Australians will kiss the feet of anyone who will rid them of this abomination, before they ruin our country.


His success in forcing a humiliating defeat on to Julia Gillard over the offshore processing of asylum-seekers was a short-term political victory blinded to the longer-term consequences by the desire to force an election.

Forcing a humiliating deaf? Gillard’s has a majority in both the House and the Senate with her Green partner. Gillard’s humiliation is 100% her own doing – in insisting on inhumane Malaysian legislation that was denounced by both houses of the parliament, that Abbott  said from the beginning he was not in support of, that most Australians disdain and that the Greens and even her own party rejects, all the while rejecting a perfect Nauru solution lying on the table before her.


But the real anger about the carbon tax, particularly among workers fearful of job losses in manufacturing and mining, and that includes unionists and Labor supporters, is directed against Gillard for going back on her promise there would be no carbon tax….

Sorry, does this even make sense? The workers only hate the lie, they don’t mind the tax so much, that is killing their jobs? I don;t think so, the majority clearly want to ditch the tax.


Abbott now faces two difficulties: convincing people he can rescind the tax and the danger of a devastating loss of face if he can’t.

Why does he have to convince people? Are they likely to not vote for him if he fails to convince them – get real, Abbott is the only game in town to rescind the tax.  And if he fails to disarm the poison pills, is that a reflection on Abbott, or is that the result of a monstrously anti-democratic act of the Labor Party, in purposefully creating a law against people’s mandate and wishes that the people cannot later democratically vote to rescind? Where do irreversible laws fit into our democracy?


[Abbott] Destroying confidence in the carbon market before the election is a destructive way to frustrate the government’s implementation of its legislation….Greens deputy leader Christine Milne has declared Abbott’s warning to business not to buy emissions permits will drive up the cost of electricity.

It is not Abbott who is destroying confidence. Gillard has legislated a hated tax based on delusional assumptions of a global trading system, without bipartisan support, that the opposition has, on good economic grounds, popularly committed to rescind on their likely election to office. So now, who created the uncertainty in this clearly temporary tax?


After obstructing and frustrating Labor policy in an effort to force an early election, the argument that a Coalition victory would give Labor a moral imperative to support the end of the tax is a bit of a stretch. The argument that it is not the job of the opposition to help implement government policy is as valid for the ALP as it is for the Coalition.

Abbott is not obstructing policy just for the sake of forcing an early election – if they were good policies, he would be punished by the electorate; he opposes them because they are the worst policies in our political history.

Dennis Shanahan sees the Labor-reconstructed Abbott, not the real Abbott, the electorate is slowly discovering.

CSIRO Boss’s Conflicts of Interest – emblematic of climate industry

THE head of the CSIRO is at the centre of conflict of interest claims over her role as a director of a Tasmanian company that purchases land for carbon sequestration.

It was revealed in Senate estimates today that the peak science body’s chief executive Megan Clark is the director of Cradle Mountain Carbon Pty Ltd and is also on the board of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Cradle Mountain Carbon Pty Ltd is a private family company that sets aside land to store carbon as part of efforts to combat climate change.

CSIRO’s acting chief executive Mike Whelan said Dr Clark, who was absent from today’s hearing, was an officer of the highest integrity and the organisation’s board believed there was no conflict of interest issue. “She is driven on the basis of values and integrity,” Mr Whelan said. “I don’t see, on the face of it, any issues there and I have no doubt the board has assured itself of the fact there is no conflict of interest.” …

See also Bolt and ACM comments.

Dr Megan Clark’s apparent conflict of interest is emblematic of the entire industry. and part of the reason why the public is understandably sceptical about the severity of climate change and any carbon tax.

Firstly, what is this conflict off interest (COI). In medicine, COI has become endemic with so many medical doctor experts employed on drug advisory company boards, that governments admit they can not obtain unbiased advice and have to settle for biased one – as happened in the Swine Flu vaccine stockpile debacle. In this case, the BMJ Review article laments:

The investigation by the BMJ/The Bureau reveals a system struggling to manage the inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO, and the global public health system, which all draw on the same pool of scientific experts.

This is what the conflict of interest for doctors looks like:

Here is what Dr Megan Clark’s COI appears to be:

By directing policy and advocacy activities at CSIRO as it’s head towards climate alarmism and need for carbon reduction, and suppressing opposing views, Dr Megan appears to stand to gain in her other roles as a director and member of advisory board of companies who stand to greatly benefit financially. I don’t know the specifics of her financial arrangements and thus the magnitude of the conflict, but the conflict pathway is clear on current public information.

It is absolutely absurd of the CSIRO’s CEO Mike Whelan to try to dismiss the concern over this COI by statements like “She is driven on the basis of values and integrity,”. Well she may be, but how does the public know, and how is avoidance of even subconscious biases assured? If the Minister for Gaming was on the board of Aristocrat (poker machine manufacturer), would assurance of his integrity, especially from a subordinate, constitute adequate reassurance?

There is a second  concern of scientific bias. Dr Clark appears to be intellectually (as well as financially) committed to carbon reduction. She can not possibly head a scientific body charged with objective scientific advice on Climate Change to our government.

Generally, CSIRO appears to provide Commercially focused research and not Science, and the Australian Government can not claim it is basing its policies on science, if CSIRO advice is involved.

And politicians wonder why the public is increasingly sceptical of being taxed based on a ‘scientific’ scare.

Who will be found at fault for the AGW scam?

Alan Caruba in the conservative Public Forum asks a pertinent question: Will Warmists Face Justice for their Deceptions?

Firstly, although I agree with the thrust of his article, Mr Caruba exaggerates and it is important that sceptics ‘police their own’ and don’t look the other way about exaggerations for the cause, the way warmists do.

Mr Caruba says:

“C02 plays no role in climate change” – is not what most sceptical scientists say and is baseless. CO2 does warm the planet but probably by minor amount.

“Surely the people behind the scheme knew this. The IPCC charged a small clique of climate scientists to come up with “proof” that global warming was happening.” – I don’t know what people knew, and I don’t know that the IPCC actively conspired for the result, but they certainly chose or allowed to self-select and group of politicians and scientists whose own bias would guarantee the desired outcome.

“It turns out that in 2010 alone he [Dr Hansen] received “between 236,000 and $1,232.500 in outside income”!– Receiving inside or outside income does not in itself discredit his research, it is a distracting argument in the debate. However, the fact that “The agency had resisted disclosing this information for years” is relevant information, suggesting corruption of academic process.

“Joanne Nova of the Science and Public Policy Institute…” – Joanne is an Australian freelance science writer and not ‘of’ PPI to my knowledge.

“For deception on that scale, one might think they will be punished at some point, but it will likely be years more before those responsible for the global warming fraud will stand before the bar of justice, if ever” – Good question!

Regarding this, yet premature question, I believe NO. No one will ever be prosecuted for this fraud.

Why? Because:

The research scientists who constructed the models and published papers always disclosed that they were only models, which are imperfect and results are merely scenarios, not projections. Their conclusions about dangers are always qualified by ‘may’ or ‘might’ or ‘could’.

The activist scientists and scientific bodies who recommend policies to government always have disclaimers that they are based on uncertain models and take no responsibility. Here is a handy disclaimer example from Australian CSIRO:

This report relates to climate simulations based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the clients (the Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment; Queensland Department of Primary Industries; Department of Natural Resources; and the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection) for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance of this report.

The government policymakers will say that they acted in good faith on the recommendation of a consensus of scientific bodies and advisors and on the well established precautionary principle, now enshrined in environmental law. They will back themselves by claims that clean energy was desirable in any case.

The profiteering industry will say they acted entirely properly in response to government policies and incentives, and they will be right.

The media will say that they merely reported with emphasis what respected scientists told them and devalued non-establishment scientists; anyway reports always include those qualifier weasel words ‘may’ or ‘might’ or ‘could’, and thus headlines are not untrue.

The community promoters of Action on Climate will rightly point to all the above agencies for the justification for their alarm.

The Greens will simply never concede that man is not destroying the environment with industrialisation in some way or another, so will never concede this movement was wrong.

So, who is to be found at fault?


It is a perfect scam.

In reality, the error in the above chain lies at the step where the Government policymakers accepted, without verification, the scientist’s preferred public response policy. The governments allowed climate scientists to essentially dictate the public response policy – to drastically cut CO2 emissions, which should not the decision of scientists but of democratically elected politicians in consultation with the public, who will be the ones impacted.

Where public safety is at risk, the Government must not allow elite narrow minded scientists and ideological action groups to formulate policy, especially a self serving one,  and must instead audit and independently verify the integrity of the scientific data and resulting advice being given, just as it does with the medical, aviation and other critical industries. The government must also take into consideration the wider social and economic effects from independent bodies.  But because climate industry is so young and the danger appeared so urgent, such appropriate quality and safety processes were not established for this industry.

Unfortunately, the only punishment for government error is for the public to vote them out of office  – hardly a fitting recourse for a global scam of this size, especially as they will, of course, again get back into office in a few years.

The only areas where fault and punishment can be attributed is where required processes were corrupted or bypassed. One example is the US EPA failing to evaluate the science according to their own processes, as found by their own review body. In the case of Solyndra, if improper business / government events took place, but these will all be prosecuted, but will all be relatively minor transgressions, notwithstanding that they cost billions of dollars.