Aussie Climate Professor Exposed as Dishonest Alarmist
Written by Dr Judy Ryan, Dr Marjorie Curtis
Professor Ken Baldwin
Director Energy Change Institute
The Australian National University
Building 141, Linnaeus way
Canberra, ACT, 0200
Dear Professor Baldwin,
On Wednesday 28th May 2014, Tony Dale and I attended a presentation you gave at a community forum run by the University of the Third Age (U3A) in Canberra. The topic was the future of renewable energy in Australia. You made a number of comments there that we think were misleading, either by omitting relevant information regarding renewable energy or exaggerating the effects of climate change.
According to my notes, your introduction included the statement “it is imperative to reduce our carbon emissions to combat global warming”………. “we need to move away from using fossil fuel”.
As you surely must know, it is carbon dioxide, not black carbon, that is emitted from fossil fuel fired power stations. CO2 is a transparent trace gas which is essential for all plant life. Its solid state is dry ice, therefore impossible to be emitted upwards from the point of combustion. It is neither a pollutant or a warming agent. You were extremely misleading when you referred to it as “carbon emissions”. The listener was led to believe that you were referring to some form of ‘black carbon’. Some forms of black carbon are pollutants, albeit at a regional level. However, as you must be aware, Clean Air Laws, were introduced in most industrialised nations more than a century ago. The result is that black carbon (soot) is no longer emitted into the atmosphere. Further, Australia’s coal and its power stations are amongst the cleanest in the world.
So why did you persist in omitting the important fact that fossil fuel fired power stations use scrubbers or other technology to remove particulates from gaseous emissions.
Further into the presentation you showed, what appeared to be a misleading graph and made comments such as “for one million years nothing like the variation in the amount of co2 in the atmosphere, nothing like the rate of increase there is now, not so much the amount although, that’s really bad because it means that its going to be a lot warmer than its ever has been in the last million years…..”
At that point Tony Dale commented that the Medieval and Roman warming periods had occurred during this period at a times when the CO2 atmospheric concentration was lower. You overruled his statement saying that temperature and CO2 track pretty closely. That comment is totally incorrect as evidenced by the 1990 report of the IPCC page 250 http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/paleo-temperatures.html
This graph by Dr Vincent Gray, a long time reviewer for the IPCC, also shows no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature:
Further into your presentation I asked the question, words to the effect, … if in all IPCC climate models solar effects were not considered a heat energy factor why is solar being so heavily promoted as a renewable energy source now. You responded by reiterating that the sun has only a negligible effect on earths climate.
It is illogical and contradictory that you can regard solar as one of the main forms of producing heat energy while negating its influence on the surface temperatures of planet Earth.
Now some forty years later the satellite observations show that the illogical flawed assumptions that were fed into all the IPCC climate models caused them to fail miserably. All of them grossly overestimated the rise in temperatures (see graph below referenced, John Christie and Roy Spencer):
However, that little fact did not deter you from showing a very misleading image which included obscurely defined error bars with no attached significant levels. You then assured the viewers that it would be quite doable for Australia to use renewable energy in preference to fossil fuels and thus help prevent the earth’s temperature rising above the alarmingly small, figure of 2°C.
We regard that as extremely misleading. You omitted to mention the varying degrees of international non-compliance, the minuscule proportion of actual anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, and Australia’s minuscule contribution to that.
Later in the presentation I commented that wind turbines are a lethal attraction to birds Your response was “all right maybe not zero impact for birds, but …if we are to tie one hand behind our back by not using wind I predict that many, many millions more birds will die in the future”
We regard that statement as very misleading both by omission of relevant facts combined with exaggeration of effects of what will supposedly occur if Australia continues to use fossil fuel as its energy source
I also commented that you cannot fake a moving image see below.
At the end of the discussion while others were still in the room you repeated the false 97% consensus as justification for closing down the discussion that Tony Dale was attempting to have with you.
As you must know, there never was any scientific consensus supporting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). An online petition was launched in 1998 by the first group of dissenting scientists and has over 31,000 scientists signatures http://www.petitionproject.org
The formation of the Non Governmental panel for Climate Change NIPCC founded in 2003 http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-nipcc/#tabs-1-2 also illustrates a significant number of dissenting scientists.
In 2014 there is now such a level of dissent in the Australian Geological Society that it declines to offer a position statement on the issue of human caused climate change.
By contrast There are only a few studies, all methodologically flawed, that claim to have measured overwhelming scientific consensus for CAGW. The two main earlier ones are:-
:where the researchers in a post-hoc analysis selectively whittled down a sample of over 10,000 geologists to just 77 then measured scientific consensus on the basis of two questions neither of which even mentioned carbon-dioxide.
The Anderegg et al study 2010 was not a survey. It was merely a subjective count and categorisation of publications. (Ref ‘Taxing Air 2013 ‘by Robert Carter and John Spooner)
A 2013 study by Cook et. al.was also a flawed count and categorisation of publications. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative.
The definition of fraud is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, quote: “a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”
The Australian people have, still are, and will be suffering “legal injury” for a considerable period of time as a result of the Carbon Tax/ETS/Direct Action Policy and a host of other policies and administrative decisions driven by advice regarding the science of climate change. Is that advice false or misleading? Does it deceive by concealing relevant facts?
There are many scientists and citizens of the world who are skeptical of the purported evidence underpinning CAGW. Many see it as possibly the greatest ever politically driven global fraud against humanity. Many believe that it is perpetrated by those individual scientists/advocates and politicians who are profiting from CAGW.
We skeptics have a warning for them. We will use the evidence to hold them individually accountable. It will take decades to remove the corruption from our Scientific Institutions, Government Agencies and Universities, but we will not stop until the job is done.
In closing, we can only reiterate that we find it almost unbelievable that a top scientist such as yourself is not aware of the evidence that refutes CA GW. But, from this moment on it is on the public record that you have been made aware of that evidence .
So please, if there is anything we have said that is untrue or incorrect click reply all and let us know, and we will rectify our error and apologise.
Dr Judy Ryan
Dr Marjorie Curtis
Members: Global Network of Climate Change Skeptics
PS We think it is prudent to inform you that there are some recipients copied into this email who prefer to be undisclosed.