IPCC’s abuse of science 2
Accusations, malpractice, malfeasance
Part 2 of an open letter to Australia’s Chief Scientist October 2012
By John Happs
This is Part 2 of an open letter of 3 October 2012 from Dr John Happs to Australia’s Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb. It includes 46 accusations against the IPCC by experts who contributed in good faith to the IPCC process, 23 examples of IPCC malpractice, 12 examples of IPCC malfeasance, and a final question — why is Australia’s Chief Scientist turning a blind eye?
Dear Professor Chubb,
Continuing on from Part 1. You told the Joint Select Committee that you would get back to them with further information on a number of issues. I wonder if you are planning to get back to the committee with an update on the literature which shows several years of global cooling?
You said: “The question is: are you putting, on top of that, changes that are caused by human activity? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists would say yes.” In fact “the overwhelming majority of climate scientists” say no such thing. You may recall how previously I had given you documentary evidence showing how your statement was to be completely incorrect. So you have either not seen it or you have decided to ignore it.
Consensus is against the IPCC
Let me remind you how quickly the consensus has shifted. In the space of 2-3 years, increasing numbers of scientists have become aware of the IPCC’s questionable practices. So where is the current consensus?
By way of reply I previously urged you to look up the following petitions by scientists: The Heidelberg Appeal; The Oregon Petition; The Manhattan Declaration; Open Letter to UN Secretary General; The Petition by German Scientists to the Chancellor; The Leipzig Declaration; Statement from Atmospheric Scientists; Letter to the Members of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate; Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics; Statement from scientists to President Obama.
I also urged you to look up and bring to the Joint Select Committee’s attention the following document: “More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming.” Finally I asked you to verify how the IPCC has corrupted climate science by looking at testimony from some of the experts who actually contributed to the IPCC process in good faith. Here are some of their statements. Please bring them to the notice of the Joint Select Committee:
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC
1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
17. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
19. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
20. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
21. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
22. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
23. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
25. Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
26. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
27. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
28. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
29. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
31. Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
32. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
35. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
36. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
37. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
39. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
40. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
41. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
42. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
46. Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
So what do the above statements mean?
Professor Chubb, please remind the Joint Select Committee that the above statements are from experts who contributed in good faith to the IPCC process. They are not from a handful of misguided fringe scientists critical of the IPCC process. It should be very clear that: (1) Many former IPCC contributors are now criticising the IPCC’s “science” and “process”. (2) A majority of scientists now reject the notion of catastrophic man-made global warming.
23 examples of IPCC malpractice
And while you are at it, please inform the Committee about the many cases of IPCC omissions, errors and malpractice which have been documented. Here are just 21 of many examples of malpractice:
Example 1. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report in WG1 stated: “A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gas. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase in greenhouse gases.” The Summaries for Policymakers, which go out to governments and the media, contained no such uncertainties.
Example 2. The IPCC’s 1995 Scientific Report draft included the following three statements by IPCC scientists: (1) “None of the [scientific] studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” (2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.” (3) “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” Yet in the IPCC’s draft Chapter 8 all three of the above statements were replaced with: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
Example 3. Dr Patrick Michaels was Research Professor at the University of Virginia for over 30 years. He recounts how, as a reviewer for the 2007 First Assessment Report, he looked over the draft which clearly documented how Siberia and East Russia had previously been between 2 and 7°C warmer than any post-industrial period. It reported: “Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current Arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yrs BP [before present] and retreated to its present position between 4000 and 3000 yrs BP.” This information was removed from the second draft.
Example 4. The 1995 Second Assessment Report (Chapter 8) noted: “Many, but not all of these studies show that the observed changes in global-mean, annually-averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system.” This was changed to: “The majority of these studies show that the observed changes in global-mean, annually-averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system.” And the following statement was deleted: “The evidence rests heavily on the reliability of the (still uncertain) estimates of natural variability noise levels.”
Example 5. The Second Assessment Report (WG 1, Section 184.108.40.206) noted: “While such studies help to build confidence in the reliability of the model variability on interannual to decadal time scales, there are still serious concerns about the longer time scale variability, which is more difficult to validate (Barnett et al., 1995). Unless paleoclimatic data can help us to ‘constrain’ the century time scale natural variability estimates obtained from CGCMs, it will be difficult to make a convincing case for the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate change signal.” This was later deleted.
Example 6. The Second Assessment Report (WG 1 Section 220.127.116.11) noted: “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution-related conclusions, for which there is little justification.” This was later deleted.
Example 7. The Second Assessment Report (WG 1 Section 18.104.22.168) noted: “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” This was later deleted and replaced with: “Implicit in these global mean results is a weak attribution statement — if the observed global mean changes over the last 20 to 50 years cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, some (unknown) fraction of the changes must be due to human influences.”
Example 8. Dr Willem de Lange, an expert in oceanography, coastal processes and climatic hazards, was listed by the IPCC as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. In fact he did not agree. Nor did he agree with the IPCC projections of sea level rise and threats to Pacific Islands. Dr de Lange indicated how research clearly shows that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and he was convinced that the IPCC projections were unrealistic and that they severely exaggerated the problem. The IPCC ignored his comments.
Example 9. Professor Frederick Seitz considers the 1996 IPCC report as: “Not what it appears to be — it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. … Many of the contributing scientists object to what is left in the Summaries For Policymakers after the non-scientists have influenced it but their names remain as contributing scientists.” Seitz asked for his name to be removed from the report but the IPCC refused, saying that he had contributed to the report, so they had to give him credit. Seitz insisted they remove his name and threatened legal action if they did not comply. Eventually they did.
Example 10. The IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers, which is issued to politicians and the media, was prepared and released before the science chapters were written. No matter, because IPCC guidelines specifically say that, where there is conflict between the science report and the summary for policy makers, the summary takes precedence and the science reports have to be modified to reflect the political summaries.
Example 11. Dr Chris Landsea, of the Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, has made it clear that the IPCC has systematically ignored the science (presented by its own experts) on hurricane intensity. Rather, the IPCC have promoted dramatic scenarios which are not backed up by research findings. Dr Landsea asks the question: “Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? … As far as I know, there are none.”
Example 12. Dr Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the IPCC, announced at a press conference at Harvard University that there was a clear relationship between global warming and the increased intensity of hurricane activity. (Note that Trenberth has no expertise in this area.) Dr Chris Landsea was so annoyed by this unsubstantiated claim that he withdrew from the IPCC. Landsea wrote: “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”
Example 13. Professor Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist at MIT, was Lead Author for the IPCC Third Assessment Report. He relates how, as an insider, he was able to observe how manipulation took place. He noted how the reports and summaries were subject to constant pressure to push findings in a definite direction: “Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC co-ordinators would go around insisting that criticism of (computer) models be toned down, and that “motherhood” statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their “green” credentials in defence of their statements.”
Example 14. Professor Paul Reiter heads the Insects and Infectious Disease Unit at the Pasteur Institute. Because of his history of excellence in research of diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects, the US State Department in 2001 nominated Professor Reiter to be a lead author of the IPCC’s health chapter. But Reiter was not surprised when the IPCC rejected him as a lead author since he had been a critic of the pseudoscience that the IPCC had disseminated about this matter. Neither was he surprised when the IPCC failed to select any scientists with expertise in mosquito-borne diseases. Reiter reported that, in its Second Assessment Report chapter on human population health, the IPCC displayed “glaring ignorance” about mosquitoes, their survival temperatures and the altitudes where mosquitoes can be found.
Thus the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” stated: “Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life.” The IPCC was taking the line (with no supporting evidence) that global warming was increasing the habitats for mosquitoes, putting hundreds of millions of people in the tropics at risk of contracting malaria and dengue fever. They promoted the view that these diseases would spread around the world due to man-made global warming.
In 2005 Reiter testified to a UK parliamentary committee. He said: “The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject. Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists.” In short, the treatment of this issue by the IPCC was ill-informed, biased, and scientifically unacceptable. Reiter commented emphatically on pre-report meetings: “For the 2001 report, I was a contributing author. And we had these meetings that were absolute bullshit. I mean they had an agenda, and that was it.”
Example 15. When the IPCC reported: “Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world’s energy needs by mid-century”, it did not mention that this “80% by mid-century” was based on the claims of lead author Sven Teske, who was also a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but Teske was allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work via the IPCC. But this was nothing new — the IPCC is renowned for using “grey literature” in support of its claims.
Example 16. Related to the above breach, in its 2007 First Assessment Report (Chapter 10, WG 2) the IPCC stated there was a very high chance that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Only one reference was used to substantiate this claim, in the form of a paper (not peer-reviewed) by the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental activist group. Three years later the IPCC conceded that their prediction on vanishing Himalayan glaciers had no basis in fact.
Example 17. Much the same thing happened in the 2007 First Assessment Report (Chapter 13, WG 2), where the IPCC stated: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.” This statement was not based on a peer-reviwed scientific repoprt but on a World Wildlife Fund report written in conjunction with the International Union For Conservation of Nature.
Example 18. Dr Andrei Kapitsa described how: “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 UN conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. … As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the UN declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Example 19. Dr Robert Balling observed: “The IPCC notes that ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.'” But this information did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Example 20. Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen wrote, in a submission to the UK Parliament: “I inherited the editorship of the journal Energy & Environment from a former senior scientist at the Department of the Environment (Dr David Everest) because we shared doubts about the claims made by environmentalists and were worried about the readiness with which politicians accepted these claims. … [Because E&E] remained open to scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of Climatic Research Unit manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E‘s disadvantage, and showed that libel threats were considered against its editorial team. Dr Jones even tried to put pressure on my university department. The emailers expressed anger over my publication of several papers that questioned the ‘hockey stick’ graph and the reliability of CRU temperature data.”
Example 21. The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (1990) and Second Assessment Report (1995) contained a graph of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age showing temperature shifts far in excess (in range and extent) of anything we saw in the 20th century. (There is ample historic and paleoclimatic data to support this.) So what was the IPCC’s response to these inconvenient truths?
Example 22. Dr David Deming, geologist at the University of Oklahoma, reported: “I received an astonishing email from an IPCC climate scientist who said: ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’.” Deming commented: “The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th Century warming was anomalous. It had to be gotten rid of.” Accordingly, in 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues produced a 1000-year reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. The infamous “hockey stick” became the centre piece for IPCC propaganda and it featured prominently in Al Gore’s misguided movie An Inconvenient Truth. Independent reports confirmed that the hockey stick was a political invention, whereupon the IPCC quietly dropped it from subsequent reports.
Example 23. In 2010 Dr Benny Peiser reported: “The IPCC review process has been shown on numerous occasions to lack transparency and due diligence. Its work is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following their advice — as the Copenhagen summit showed.”
Professor Chubb, let me know if you would like to see other examples of IPCC omissions, exaggerations and malpractice. I have many more.
A fair go?
You said: “My job is to make sure that scientists have a fair go at putting the evidence on the table, putting the uncertainties on the table, and having them debated in a rational and civilised way.” I find this hard to believe, since you seem to have ignored those scientists (now in the majority) who reject the notion of catastrophic man-made global warming, AND the large number of scientists who formerly contributed to the IPCC process and now publicly criticise it, AND the large number of respected scientists who have publicly accused the IPCC of malfeasance. The last are especially relevant, so let me remind you with a few examples:
12 accusations of malfeasance
1. Dr Vincent Gray, climate consultant, long-standing member of the New Zealand Royal Society and expert reviewer for all four IPCC Assessment Reports described the IPCC’s climate change statements as: “An orchestrated litany of lies.”
2. Dr Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, was explicit about the leaked emails and documents: “The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory, is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns. … Carbon dioxide was never a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it is the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science.”
3. Dr Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne agrees: “Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it’s all based on fraud.”
4. Dr Christopher Kobus says: “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data.”
5. Dr Hilton Ratcliffe was equally clear: “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”
6. Dr Andrei Kapitsa, Russian Antarctic ice core researcher, also considered the Kyoto Protocol as: “The biggest ever scientific fraud.”
7. Dr Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS). He said: “Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen … the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
8. Dr Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, also resigned from the APS over its position on global warming. He objected to their statement that: “the evidence is incontrovertible.”
9. Dr William Gray is Emeritus Professor and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado University. He states: “I am of the opinion that (global warming) is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”
10. Professor Bob Carter, Research Fellow at James Cook University is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist. Professor Carter describes the notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as promoted by the IPCC as: “The greatest self-organised scientific and political conspiracy that the world has ever seen.”
11. Dr William Gilbert wants his feelings known: “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”
12. Dr Hans Jelbring, Swedish climatologist, is equally specific: “Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.”
Professor Chubb, I suspect that the IPCC is the only organization which can be publicly accused of malfeasance without fear of libel. I can readily imagine the long line of scientists waiting for an opportunity to testify against the IPCC. One final question:
Why is Australia’s Chief Scientist turning a blind eye?
Perhaps I am being naive and optimistic but I always thought that a Chief Scientist would have to tell politicians that the science of climate change is far from settled and that the IPCC “science” and “process” are not to be trusted. After all, science is about process, evidence, truth and integrity. Chief Scientists from all countries have to be staunch defenders of those principles. Australia does not need a Chief Scientist who turns a blind eye and tells Government Ministers only what they want to hear.
Dr John Happs
Click here for original version (you will leave this website)
and follow prompts to Chief Scientist’s Call to Arms