budbromley

“In Edward Bellamy’s widely read socialist fantasy novel Looking Backward, 2000–1887, a Rip Van Winkle character goes to sleep in the year 1887 and awakens in the year 2000 to discover a changed world. His twentyfirst century companions explain to him how the utopia that astonishes him emerged in the 1930s from the hell of the 1880s. “That utopia involved the promise of security ‘from cradle to grave’—the first use of the that phrase we have come across—as well as detailed government planning, including compulsory national service by all persons over an extended period.”[1] Bellamy’s fiction became much of the world’s reality in twentieth-century socialism. Bellamy believed that “human nature is naturally good and people are ‘godlike in aspirations . . . with divinest impulses of tenderness and self-sacrifice.’ Therefore, once external conditions are made acceptable, the Ten Commandments become ‘well-nigh obsolete,’ bringing us a ‘second birth of the human race.’”[2] Bellamy managed to mix the perversions of socialism, secularism, and New Age philosophy into one impossible world.”[3]

[1] Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), 93.
[2] Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway, [1983] 1989), 190.

[3] http://americanvision.org/1451/return-of-american-fascism/ Gary DeMar, The Return of American Fascism, Mar 3, 2009.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/03/04/contrary-to-white-house-claims-netanyahu-laid-out-how-to-beat-iran/

The viable alternative is to support Israel and not support Iran and this crazed nuke agreement with Iran. Bibi said it repeatedly. But, instead, with Obama’s/Hillary’s/Kerry’s help, Iran – the foremost sponsor of global Islamic terrorism – could be weeks away from a pathway to nuclear weapons and full international legitimacy. Obama hears what he wants to hear and says what he (or Valerie really) want the media, astroturf and sheeple to repeat.

James Lewis had it spot on in the following article back in January 2013, as we can see by the events that have transpired.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/dangerous_times_john_brennans_black_ops.html#.VPeL1XK5K_M.facebook

“We will never achieve our objectives in the war on terrorism until we accept the fact that it is Shariah law that fosters radical Islam. Such an ideology is totally incompatible with our Constitution and our concept of freedom. However, with his release of five hard-core terrorists, it is clear the president will continue to subvert our Constitution until Congress finds the courage to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.” ~ Admiral James Lyons.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/06/11/presidential-appeasement/

DOE announced last week it would close the $1.65B FutureGen project.  “It was one of many federal energy projects experimenting in so-called “clean coal” technology. FutureGen sought to demonstrate the technical capabilities of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. CCS attempts to capture carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and store it underground, eliminating an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

The CATO article at this link includes a useful link to a list of failed, federally subsidized energy programs.  http://www.cato.org/blog/admitting-futuregens-failure

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/energy/energy-subsidies

http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc3.htm

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 8.3.3.3) 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 8.4.1.1) 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 8.4.2.1) 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.

Sincerely.
Dr John Happs

Click here for original version (you will leave this website)
and follow prompts to Chief Scientist’s Call to Arms

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

The following 206 endorsers are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields (this is a subset extracted from the other larger lists of endorsers):
1. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
2. William J. R. Alexander, PrEng, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering, South Africa
3. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, Physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
4. John W. Bales, BA, MA, PhD (Mathematics, Modeling), Professor, Tuskegee University, Waverly, Alabama, U.S.A.
5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor – University of Winnipeg, Science Advisory Board member, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
6. Gregory J. Balle, B.E., MSc., PhD. (Joint Aerospace Engineering and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics), Pukekohe, New Zealand
7. Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
8. Colin Barton, PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
9. Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
10. Matthew Bastardi, BSc (Meteorology, Texas A and M University), Florida, U.S.A.
11. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Dept. Biotechnology and Nutrition Science, Merian-Schule, Freiburg, Germany
12. David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
13. Andre Bernier, Meteorologist, WJW-TV, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
14. Sally Bernier, Meteorologist, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
15. M.I. Bhat, Professor (Tectonics, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir), Sprinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
16. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
17. Frederick Bopp, PhD (Geology), Environmental Consulting, Owner, Earth Quest, Downingtown, Pennsylvania. U.S.A.
18. Ian Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
19. Bruce Borders, PhD, Forest Biometrics, Professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.
20. William M. Briggs, PhD., Statistical Consultant (specializing in accuracy of forecasts and climate variability), U.S.A.
21. James Brooks, BS, PhD, Geophysics, Adelaide, Australia
22. John W. Brosnahan, Vanderpool, Texas, U.S.A., Research Physicist (Atmospheric Remote Sensing), atmospheric science consultant, founder of Signal Hill Research, LLC., former President of Alpha/Power, Inc., founder of LaSalle Research Inc., founder of Tycho Technology Inc.
23. Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
24. Stephen Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, District Agriculture Agent Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Mat-Su District Office Palmer; Alaska Agriculture Extension Agent/Researcher, Alaska, U.S.A.
25. Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr., Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
26. James Buckee, PhD (astrophysics), Calgary, Alberta, Canada
27. Bruce Bullough, BS (Chemical Engineering), chemical process design, pollution controls systems design, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, U.S.A.
28. Mark Campbell, PhD (Chemical Physics, Johns Hopkins University, 1987), gas phase kinetics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.
29. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
30. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
31. George V. Chilingar, PhD, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
32. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
33. James Clarke, BS (Meteorology), TV-Meteorologist, WZVN-TV, Ft. Myers, Florida, U.S.A.
34. Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
35. Michael Clover, PhD (experimental nuclear physics); Computer Simulation, Senior Scientist, Science Applications International Corp., San Diego, California, U.S.A.
36. Michael Coffman, PhD, (ecosysytems analysis and climate change), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.
37. John Coleman, Founder, The Weather Channel, Weather Anchor, KUSI-TV, San Diego, California, U.S.A.
38. Martin Coniglio, Meteorologist, KUSA-TV, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
39. Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
40. Piers Corbyn, ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, owner of Weather Action long range forecasters, degree in Physics (Imperial College London), England
41. Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
42. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
43. Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
44. Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
45. Joseph D’Aleo, MS, BS (University of Wisconsin) Meteorologist and Climatologist (retired), Executive Director, ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
46. Dalcio K. Dacol, PhD (physics, University of California at Berkeley), physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
47. Dave Dahl, BSc (Meteorology, Florida State University), Chief Meteorologist, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS/KSTP-TV, Saint Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
48. José Carlos de Almeida Azevedo, PhD (Physics, MIT), Consulting, former President, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil
49. Willem De Lange, PhD, MSc (Hons), Dphil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
50. James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas, Geography, Climate, Environmental Science), retired University Professor, now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
51. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
52. David Douglass, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, New York, U.S.A.
53. Geoffrey Duffy, DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip, Professor of Chemical Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
54. Robert Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A..
55. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
56. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
57. Per Engene, PhD, Biologist, Valenvegen, Norway
58. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
59. David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak’, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
60. Donald W. Farley, P.Eng, M.Eng. (Water Resources Engineering & Hydrology), Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
61. John Ferguson, BSc, PhD. ARCST, DipHE, Ceng, Computer Control Systems & Mathematical Modelling (retired), Berwick, United Kingdom
62. Robert Jacomb Foster, BE (Adelaide University), palaeoclimatologist and energy economist, Director Lavoisier Group; past Councillor Royal Society of Victoria and Victorian Institute of Marine Science, Melbourne, Australia
63. Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
64. Peter Friedman, PhD, Member, American Geophysical Union, Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
65. Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
66. Maureen T. Gallagher, PhD, (Geology, Micropaleontology), Consultant, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
67. Rigoberto Garcia, MC, Climate Change and Urban Sustainability, Doctorate Student, El Colegio de México, México City, DF, México
68. Edgar Gärtner, Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies (DEA, en Ecologie appliquée, Redaktionsbüro), Frankfurt am Main, Germany
69. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
70. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, INTTAS, Asunción, Paraguay
71. Indur M. Goklany, PhD (Electrical Eng, Michigan State University), climate policy analyst, Vienna, Virginia, U.S.A.
72. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mechanical Engineering), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst, Stockholm, Sweden
73. Stanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
74. Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
75. David Gray, PhD (EE Stanford U., Electromagnetic Wave Transmission (in Atmosphere, and fiber)), Asst Professor of Engineering, Messiah College, Grantham, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
76. Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
77. Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
78. William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Dept. of Atmospheric Science), Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
79. Charles Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modelling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
80. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, U.S.A.
81. Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
82. D. Hebert, PhD, Faculty for Chemistry and Physics, Institut fur Angewandte Physik, Freiberg, Germany
83. Hug Hienz, PhD, (Chemistry, University of Mainz, Germany), former Professor of Organic Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry, Germany
84. Ted Hinds, BS (Engineering Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), PhD (Physical Ecology, U. Washington, Seattle), Quantitative empirical analyses regarding climatological, meteorological, and ecological responses to environmental stresses, consultant for USA EPA research on global climate change program. Senior Research Scientist, retired, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, U.S.A.
85. Art Horn, Meteorologist (honors, Lyndon State College, Lyndonville, Vermont), operator, The Art of Weather, U.S.A.
86. Warwick S. Hughes, MSc Hon. (University of Auckland, New Zealand), geologist (retired), Canberra, Australia
87. Ole Humlum, PhD, Physical Geography, Professor, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
88. Steve Hynek, BS (Meteorology), Air Quality Analyst, Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
89. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
90. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
91. Albert F. Jacobs, MS, P. Geology, retired geologist, co-founder Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
92. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Senior Science Advisor of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
93. Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
94. Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist for Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
95. Wibjörn Karlén, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
96. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD (Organic Chemistry, M.I.T.), Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
97. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
98. Harald Kehl, PD Dr. rer. nat., Ecosystem Analysis, Lecturer, Researcher, Berlin, Germany
99. Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor “Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
100. William Kininmonth, MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
101. R.W.J. Kouffeld, PhD, Emeritus Professor – Energy Conversion, Technical University Delft, Driebergen, The Netherlands
102. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. rer. nat. (Meteorology), Theoretical Meteorology, Research Faculty, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
103. Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O’Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
104. Olav M. Kvalheim, Professor, Department of Chemistry, Univ. of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
105. Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief scientist, and adjunct professor, Chemical Engineering, SINTEF and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
106. Rune B. Larsen, PhD (Geology, Geochemistry), Associate Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
107. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President – Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
108. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, U.S.A.
109. Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
110. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, France
111. Bryan Leyland, M.Sc., FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer (power), Secretary – International Climate Science Coalition, Auckland, New Zealand
112. Edward Liebsch, MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), BA (Earth Science & Chemistry, St. Cloud State University), Air Quality, Meteorology, Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A.
113. William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting Geologist and Company Director, Tiburon, California, U.S.A.
114. Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
115. Endel Lippmaa, Prof.Dr.habil (Physics, Chemistry), Chairman – Energy Council of the Estonian Academy of Science, Tallinn, Estonia
116. Keith Lockitch, PhD (Physics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Science and Environmental Policy, Resident Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute, Irvine, California, U.S.A.
117. Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
118. Richard Mackey, Statistician, author of papers about the role of the Sun in the Earth’s climate dynamics and biographer of Rhodes W. Fairbridge, Canberra, Australia
119. Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
120. Björn Malmgren, PhD, University Professor, Paleoclimate Science, retired, Lerum, Sweden
121. Jennifer Marohasy, BSc, PhD, Biologist, Writer, Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Director, Australian Environment Foundation, Sydney, Australia
122. Les McDonald, RP Bio; Senior Impact Assessment Biologist, BC Environmental Protection (retired); Consulting Aquatic Biologist, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada
123. Alister McFarquhar, PhD (international economy, Downing College), Cambridge, United Kingdom
124. John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, Post-graduate Diploma of Computer Studies, B. Arch., Climate Data Analyst, Computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia
125. Rob Meleon, PhD, biochemist, CSO Pepscan, Lelystad, The Netherlands
126. Amos Meyer, Theoretical Physics, Applied Mathematics, Mathematical Modeling, Chief Scientist, Westport, Connecticut, U.S.A.
127. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
128. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
129. Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
130. H. Michael “Mike” Mogil, Certified Consulting Meteorologist (three decades with NOAA), weather educator and science writer, How the Weatherworks, Naples, Florida, U.S.A.
131. Michael Monce, PhD (Physics), Atomic/Molecular, Energy and Environment, Professor of Physics, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut, U.S.A.
132. M. R. Morgan, PhD, Cdr., FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K., now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
133. Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
134. Luboš Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
135. Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
136. John Nicol, BSc (University of Queensland), PhD (James Cook University); Radio Physics and High Resolution Optical Spectroscopy, former Senior Lecturer of Physics at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; now residing in Brisbane, Australia
137. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
138. James J. O’Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
139. Peter Oliver, BS, MS, PhD, FGA, Geology, Geochemistry, Paleomagnetism, Research Scientist, retired, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
140. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia
141. Curtis Osgood, BS (Meteorology, Lyndon State College), Consulting Meteorologist, Forecaster/Consultant, Granby, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
142. Pat Palmer, MAgrSc (agronomy), pollution control expert (sources and effects on health), retired from Crop Research Division, DSIR, Christchurch, New Zealand
143. Donald Parkes, PhD, BA (Hons), MA, retired Professor Human Ecology, Australia and Japan
144. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor & Director, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair – International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
145. James A. Peden, Atmospheric Physicist, webmaster Middlebury Networks, Vermont, U.S.A.
146. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
147. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
148. Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
149. Patrick Powell, BS (Meteorology/Physical Geography, Western Illinois University), AMS Board of Broadcast Meteorology, CBM, Chief Meteorologist, WLUK-TV, Green Bay, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
150. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
151. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
152. George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
153. Henriques Renato, PhD, Geology, Auxiliary Professor, University of Minho, Braga, Braga, Portugal
154. Art Robinson, PhD (Chemistry), founder and Professor of Chemistry, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon, U.S.A.
155. Robert G. Roper, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
156. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
157. Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
158. Robert Roseman, Meteorology & Climatology, TV Meteorologist, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
159. Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant – Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
160. Clive Schaupmeyer, M.Sc., P.Ag. , Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
161. Chris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology), PhD (Geology), retired Exploration Geologist and Geophysicist, Australia and France
162. Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A. .
163. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
164. Milos Setek, Meteorologist/Statistician, Senior Scientist, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia
165. John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, United Kingdom
166. Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
167. Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in energy sciences, notably renewable energy, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
168. Vedat Shehu, Prof. Dr. Eng., Geologist, Engineering Geology, Tectonics, Geoingineering, Sharon, Massachusetts, U.S.A. and Professor “Geoingineering Research Unit” in Tirana, Albania
169. Richard F. Shepherd, ARCS (Mathematics), PhD, DIC (high energy physics), FIMA (numerical analysis), FBCS (director of computing centre, retired), Pembroke, United Kingdom
170. Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
171. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
172. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor in Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
173. Oleg G. Sorokhtin, PhD, Director of Ocean Laboratory, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
174. Douglas Southgate, PhD, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
175. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
176. T. J. (“Jim”) Sprott, PhD, OBE, MSc, FNZIC, consulting chemist, forensic scientist, Auckland, New Zealand
177. Walter Starck, PhD (marine science), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries with 1000 dives from northern Cape York to the Capricorn group), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
178. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
179. Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), Weather Modification, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
180. Wojciech J. Szalecki, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Senior Scientist, formerly University of Lodz, Poland, and University of Colorado, now in Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.
181. Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
182. George H. Taylor, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), Past President, American Association of State Climatologists, Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
183. Malcolm Taylor, Dip ES (Climatology and Hydrology specialization), Power Systems Analyst, Otago, New Zealand
184. Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Dwingeloo, The Netherlands
185. Wolfgang Thüne, PhD, Dipl.-Met., Senior Meteorologist and Sociologist, Oppenheim, Germany
186. Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane Univeristy, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
187. Göran Tullberg, Civilingenjör i Kemi (equivalent to Masters of Chemical Engineering), currently teacher of Environmental Protection Engineering and Organic Chemistry at University in Växjö; Falsterbo, Sweden
188. Brian G. Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park, Dept. of Energy, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
189. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
190. Roderick W. Van Koughnet, BS (Geology), MS (Geology (Geophysics), Wright State University), Senior Geoscientist, L&M Petroleum, Wellington, New Zealand
191. Gösta Walin, Professor, i oceanografi, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
192. Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Electronic Properties of Materials, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
193. Anthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather, Founder, surfacestation s.org, Chico, California, U.S.A.
194. Gerd-Rainer Weber, PhD, Consulting Meteorologist, Essen, Germany
195. Jack Wedel, BS (Geography), Arctic Hydrology, retired, Environment Canada, Keewatin, Ontario, Canada
196. James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Associate Professor, Environmental Geology, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
197. Rich Weiss, BSc (Meteorology, Valparaiso University), Meteorologist, Supervisor of Meteorology, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
198. Forese-Carlo Wezel, Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
199. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
200. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
201. Arnold Woodruff, M.Sc. (Atmospheric Physics, U.C.W.Aberystwyth), B.Sc. (Physics, Durham), Terrestrial & Spaceborne Exploration Geophysics, Consultant Geophysicist, Woodruff Exploration & Production Ltd., Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, U.K.
202. Chris Yakymyshyn, PhD, MS, BS (EE/Physics), Instrumentation, Vice President Technology, Field Metrics Inc., Seminole, Florida, U.S.A.
203. Roger Young, BS, MS, D.I.C. F.G.S., Geophysics, Geophysical Consultant, Bedford, Bedfordshire, England
204. Josef Zboril, MSc. (Chemistry), Board Member, Confederation of Industry, Prague, Czech Republic
205. A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
206. Stan Zlochen, MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.

https://www.icsc-climate.com/manhatten-declaration

Dear U.S. Supreme Court Justices, I request these statements included in evidence submitted by the government, and relied upon in your decisions, be admitted as exculpatory evidence, adverse to the government’s case that global warming/climate change is dangerous.

“Extreme [weather] events are, almost by definition, of particular importance to human society. Consequently, the importance of understanding potential extreme events is first order. The evidence is mixed, and data continue to be lacking to make conclusive cases.”

…”A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of changes in extreme events. There have been recent advances in our understanding of extremes in simulated climates (see, for example, Meehl et al., 2000), but thus far the approach has not been very systematic… However, it must be recognised that we are still unfortunately short of data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale in the observed climate.”  UN IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.3, page 775

Click to access tar-14.pdf

Obama has been marching this country and the world to an unnecessary war since he was elected. Weakness, appeasement and disarmament is the path to war and the world has been on that path since Obama was elected. Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of our time. “Why was World War II unnecessary? Because the nations attacked had vastly greater military potential than the aggressor nations–and the aggressors were well aware of it. But the weakness, vacillations and disarmament of the democratic nations convinced the aggressor nations that they could be conquered or neutralized before they could get ready to fight,” says Thomas Sowell. The world is repeating history, rather than stopping another unnecessary war. “Two very different visions of war and peace have coexisted in the Western world for at least two centuries. One vision sees the road to peace as being through disarmament and compromises of international differences. This vision, which has long been that of the Western intelligentsia, speaks softly and doesn’t carry a big stick. This was the vision that prevailed in both intellectual and political circles within the Western democracies between the two world wars.”…”The opposite vision sees peace as being primarily a result of successfully deterring war. “No peace keeps itself” is the way Professor Donald Kagan of Yale expressed this vision in his recent book, On the Origins of War. Two centuries earlier, John Jay said in The Federalist, “nations will in general make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it. From this perspective, war is what to expect when there is insufficient military deterrence,” says Thomas Sowell.http://home.sogang.ac.kr/…/…/2.%20an%20unnecessary%20war.pdf or Forbes’ Aug 14, 1995 issue.

“I try to avoid the term ‘regime change’, as it implies a change of one ‘regime’ (usually understood as relatively functional and stable state, albeit a potentially ruthless one) to another. In the recent history of so-called ‘regime changes’ by the West, this has never happened. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, ‘regimes’ have not been replaced by other ‘regimes’, but have rather been destroyed and replaced instead by ‘failed states’, where security is largely non-existent, and no single armed force is strong enough to constitute itself as a ‘state’ in the traditional sense of establishing a monopoly of legitimate violence. This in turn leads to further societal and sectarian divisions emerging, as no group feels protected by the state, and each look instead to a militia who will defend their specific locality, tribe or sect – and thus the problem perpetuates itself, with the insecurity generated by the presence of some powerful militias leading to the creation of others. The result, therefore, is the total breakdown of national society, with not only security, but all government functions becoming increasingly difficult to carry out.” … “They [Libyans] are currently involved in a war to oust the newly elected government that has likely cost the lives of thousands since it started this June. This is not ‘regime change’ – what NATO has created is not a new regime, but conditions of permanent civil war.”

“Many in both Libya and Syria now regret having acted as NATO’s foot soldiers in sowing the seeds of destruction in their own countries. Anyone expecting future ‘regime change’ operations conducted by the West to result in stable democracies – or even stable sharia theocracies for that matter – need look no further than Libya for their answer. Western military power cannot change regimes – it can only destroy societies.” ~ Dan Glazebrook http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/12/the-lessons-of-libya/