Aussie Climate Professor Exposed as Dishonest Alarmist

Written by Dr Judy Ryan, Dr Marjorie Curtis

Professor Ken BaldwinBaldwin
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, thats 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

ipcc quote


This graph by Dr Vincent Gray, a long time reviewer for the IPCC, also shows no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature:

vincent gray graph

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):

Christie Spencer graph

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, butif 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 

The formation of the Non Governmental panel for Climate Change NIPCC founded in 2003 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:-

Doran and Zimmerman 

: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.

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.

Yours faithfully

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

Tony Dale

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (6)

  • Avatar



    I thought that “climate professor” and “dishonest alarmist” were always the same thing.

  • Avatar



    It is alarming that a so called professor could be so sloppy with the research that underpinned his presentation.

    God help his students if he is as sloppy in the university lecture rooms as he was with his presentation.

    There is a reason why people like this professor use politically correct climate jargon like ‘carbon emissions’ and present misleading information. It’s because they are trying to play their part in pushing the political agenda on global warming rather than presenting factual information.

    It is great that Dr Judy Ryan and Dr Marjorie Curtis corrected the sloppy professor.

  • Avatar

    Judy Ryan


    If the climate alarmists had a chance in hell of lodging a defamation case they’d have done so by now. The time is right now. Feel free to copy any of the links or text and write your own very public email. Ask the alarmist to click reply all and correct you if they think anything you have said is untrue or incorrect. they won’t respond, but it’s not a good look for them when it’s on the public record. And if they do respond, what can they say!!

  • Avatar



    Well done Judy, Marjorie and Tony.

    And well done a Principia Scientific for providing a Public forum for publication.

    Prof Ken Baldwin should sue for being labelled a Dishonest Alarmist, but I don’t think he will because you are right.

    Peter C

  • Avatar

    Dr Burns


    These climate scammers should be thrown into jail. They have cost the community billions of dollars.

  • Avatar



    Dr. Ryan and Dr. Curtis

    Professor Baldwin is only doing what CAGW scare mongers do. You know they can’t tell the truth or rely on facts to support their argument.

    Thanks for standing up for the truth. I realize that you are putting your professional reputations at risk by doing so.

    And by the way, nobody in the current administration in America wants to hear the truth, either (or at least they are afraid to say so), and I can’t blame them, given what our leaders have to say about it, as follows:

    U.S. Interior Secretary Jewell: “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior.”

    U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz makes it clear there is no room for dissent regarding climate change: Speaking to his department’s employees after he was sworn in, Moniz said: “Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change. I am not interested in debating what is not debatable.”

    President Obama: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society.”

    Secretary of State John Kerry: “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

    Although he is Canadian, here is a description of Dr. Timothy Ball’s experience with questioning the dogma of CAGW:

    “I’ve often thought if I had to do it again I wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Until you have experienced, like some are having with the IRS attacking them in the U.S., you cannot relate to other people exactly what it’s like when you are sitting in your little condo and you’ve spent all of your savings on legal fees. And (when there’s) a knock on the door at 4 o’clock on a Friday and your wife starts crying because she’s afraid it’s the sheriff delivering a legal summons. People have no idea what that’s like. I’m not sure that I would do it again. I’m almost at the point where if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. I’m not going to fight for it again.

Comments are closed