• Home
  • Current News
  • Hidden Opportunities: Exposing false claims by Australian Govt’s Bureau of Meteorology

Hidden Opportunities: Exposing false claims by Australian Govt’s Bureau of Meteorology

Written by Malcolm Roberts, Galileo Movement

New report responds to Senator Birmingham’s apparent reliance on false claims by the Australian Government’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The Senator’s letter dated December 18th, 2014 to Malcolm Roberts is refuted by overwhelming empirical scientific evidence, as outlined in excerpts from the report, below. false claimsMoreover, key players in the climate alarm narrative are exposed as beneficiaries of related financial scams.

Data shows that the much publicised “97% consensus of climate scientists” claiming human carbon dioxide (CO2 ) causes catastrophic warming is really “0.3%” with none having empirical scientific evidence for their claim. 
 
Concerns expressed in the body of the August 2010 report on UN IPCC processes by the world’s peak scientific academic body, the Inter Academy Council undermine all 800 UN IPCC confidence and likelihood statements. 
 
UN IPCC science reports contain no empirical scientific evidence of human causation. Atmospheric temperature measurements show no warming for almost 20 years and ground-based measurements prove no significant warming in natural warming-cooling cycles since the start of measurements in 1660. 
 
Empirical data prove human CO2 cannot effect global temperature or climate variability and show temperature changes cause changes in CO2 levels, the opposite of the UN IPCC’s core claim. 
 
Responses from CSIRO, BOM and academics funded by ALP-Greens commissions contain no empirical scientific evidence of humans causing climate variability yet official reports and statements by a small closely connected group imply such evidence. 
 
BOM fabricated warming by ‘adjusting’ past and recent temperature data. Former CSIRO Chief Executive Megan Clark was on major international bank boards while advocating a CO2 ‘trading’ scheme aiming to create trillions of dollars in profits for those banks. CSIRO ‘scientists’ funded by taxpayers and speaking at international conferences advocated unelected global governance.
 
Unfounded climate claims and advocacy for CO2 ‘trading’ schemes are traced to Maurice Strong, founding Secretary-General in 1972 of the UN Environmental Program that sponsored the UN IPCC and director of the Chicago Climate Exchange trading CO2 credits. He initiated and drove the UN’s Rio Declaration Agenda 212 for twenty first century unelected global governance signed in 1992 by Paul Keating’s Labor government. 
 
ALP and Greens’ party policies include UN Agenda 21 and evidence proves senior ALP-Greens MPs fabricated global warming using misrepresentations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds to legislate their CO2 tax and ‘trading’ scheme. 
 
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet directed tens of millions of dollars to Australia’s largest wind turbine operator owned by the union movement’s Industry Super Holdings Pty. Ltd. that he directed prior to entering government.  

Myths exposed 

 “97% of climate scientists claim human CO2 causes catastrophic warming” is really a 0.3% smattering, all with no empirical scientific evidence of cause. Statements in 2008 by Kevin Rudd, the Greens party and the UN IPCC that “4,000 UN IPCC scientists claim human CO2 caused warming” is really only 5 UN IPCC Reviewers endorsing the core claim of human CO2 as cause.
 
UN IPCC does not rely on scientific peer review as claimed. It bypasses, manipulates and prevents proper scientific peer review. CO2 is not pollution. It’s natural and essential for life. Other key points include:
 
■ Human CO2 is not causing catastrophe. Empirical scientific evidence on ‘extreme’ weather events show no process change in natural variability
 
 ■ The ‘target’ of limiting future warming to two degrees (2ºC) was fabricated 
 
■ The ‘Greenhouse effect’ relied on by the UN IPCC was dismissed by contemporary science and the American Meteorological Society in 1951 
 
■ The science is not settled that human CO2 causes climate variability. Instead, statistical analysis of data shows no process change has occurred in entirely natural climate variability
 
■ Freedom of Information request on CSIRO Chief Executive and Bureau of Meteorology confirm no evidence of human causation was given to members of parliament from 2005-2013
 
■ All three agencies have no empirical scientific evidence of humans causing climate variability
 
■ All three agencies contradict empirical scientific evidence
 
■ BOM tampered with temperature recordings to convert cooling into warming 
 
■ CSIRO scientists advocate global governance at international conferences
 
■ Former CSIRO Chief Executive Megan Clark’s conflicts of interest as a director on boards of two international banks benefitting from CO2 ‘trading’
 

Comments (74)

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      Seems like much to ponder about the intent of Government! Maybe, possibly, benign, harrumph stomp, stomp! Gerr.

      • Avatar

        MalcolmRoberts

        |

        [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Seems like much to ponder about the intent of Government! Maybe, possibly, benign, harrumph stomp, stomp! Gerr.[/quote]

        From what I can see, government has become a tool for people wanting, consciously or unconsciously, to control others.

        Government’s role is not regulation to control — it’s governance, maintaining the constitution so people freely use ideas creating prosperity for all.

        We need to slash regulations and curb government power so free billions of humans to make independent decisions automatically tallied and totalled.

        That’s called a free market in goods and services and ideas.

  • Avatar

    MalcolmRoberts

    |

    Greg, it’s a clever way to check for a word. But as I’ve shown your method did not find the reference I recall.

    Hmmm. Deficient I would say.

    Please provide specific page numbers for your location of these words: ‘greenhouse’, ‘Jupiter’, ‘Uranus’, ‘Venus’ as quoted in your post above on appearance of the words ‘greenhouse effect’. My search using the internal search did not locate any of these words.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Greg, it’s a clever way to check for a word. But as I’ve shown your method did not find the reference I recall.[/quote]

      Yeah… For the third time, Malcolm: Your statement was “The ‘Greenhouse effect’ relied on by the UN IPCC was dismissed by contemporary science and the American Meteorological Society in 1951”. My method found 3 (three) places in the document proving that the American Meteorological Society in 1951 SUPPORTED the notion of the “greenhouse effect”. Hence your statement is refuted.

      Are we done with this particular aspect now?

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Please provide specific page numbers for your location of these words: ‘greenhouse’, ‘Jupiter’, ‘Uranus’, ‘Venus’ as quoted in your post above on appearance of the words ‘greenhouse effect’. My search using the internal search did not locate any of these words.[/quote]

      Pages 391(405), 2×395(409). The number in brackets is what the pdf reader indicates.

      • Avatar

        MalcolmRoberts

        |

        [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Please provide specific page numbers for your location of these words: ‘greenhouse’, ‘Jupiter’, ‘Uranus’, ‘Venus’ as quoted in your post above on appearance of the words ‘greenhouse effect’. My search using the internal search did not locate any of these words.[/quote]

        Pages 391(405), 2×395(409). The number in brackets is what the pdf reader indicates.[/quote]

        Thank you, Greg.

        At last, after looseness from both of us we arrive at agreement. I have checked the pages you list and found the word greenhouse. You are correct.

        I wonder why I could not find the word greenhouse by using the document’s internal search. I could not find the words greenhouse effect. Yet I can find the word effect in many, many locations.

        My suspicions were aroused though about the internal search when it would not find Venus, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter. Hence a request for page numbers.

        OK, thank you for your patience and persistence. I will modify my report.

  • Avatar

    MalcolmRoberts

    |

    G’day Greg.

    Notwithstanding my previous comments about waiting for priorities before checking my notes, I asked a friend for a reference to location of the American Meteorological Society’s comment dismissing the claim that CO2 ffects climate.

    Using the link I provided earlier (https://archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer#page/1015/mode/1up) and that you say you searched using the word ‘greenhouse’, please turn to page 1016, and specifically the bottom of the second column under the sub-heading: “Variations of Carbon Dioxide”.

    In that section’s two paragraphs, please note these quotes of Brooks on the theory that variation in atmospheric CO2 affects earth’s global climate:

    • “but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all of the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is absorbed by water vapour.”

    • “But during the past 7,000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. The theory s not considered further.”

    The specific reference you requested is:
    Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.

    I note, as an aside, that climatologist Tim Ball and others have questioned Callendar’s methods and motives.

    Please note further that since 1951, actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels initiated by Callendar and now cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC for its misrepresentation of climate prove that the level of CO2 in air is independent of human CO2 production.

    This latter fact is explained on page 9 of my report posted above. That’s the page on empirical scientific evidence on CO2 so given your dismissal of empirical evidence perhaps you missed that.

    That page explains two fundamental and profoundly powerful reasons why human CO2 production cannot affect global climate.

    It’s explained in greater detail with plenty of empirical evidence cited (with reference links) in Appendix 4 here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

    Given your criticism of me on the need for specificity on one claim I made, I remain stunned that you draw conclusions about my work and the AMS document by doing a search of a document using one word. Astounding.

    That however, pales beside your comments about not needing empirical scientific evidence.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]
      • “but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all of the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is absorbed by water vapour.”

      • “But during the past 7,000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. The theory s not considered further.”

      The specific reference you requested is:
      Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.[/quote]

      So? Right, that crappy theory was not taught at schools e.g., but some scientific idiots still kept believing in “greenhouse effect”. As you can see in the quotations above, that notion is supported by the document you referred to.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        Besides, the argumentation like “during the past 7,000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature” should better be abandoned, because the notion of “global temperature” is sheer nonsense.

        • Avatar

          MalcolmRoberts

          |

          [quote name=”Greg House”]Besides, the argumentation like “during the past 7,000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature” should better be abandoned, because the notion of “global temperature” is sheer nonsense.[/quote]

          Agreed on lack of global temperature.

          Yet temperature variation is reality. Brooks only discusses, in the quote I provided temperature variation not global temperature as you imply.

          Hmmm

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Yet temperature variation is reality. Brooks only discusses, in the quote I provided temperature variation not global temperature as you imply.[/quote]

            Malcolm, Malcolm. I such a context when those climate geniuses say “earth temperature”, world temperature” or just “temperature” they mean “global average temperature”, one of the most ridiculous things.

            Or what temperature do you think they mean?

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Yet temperature variation is reality. Brooks only discusses, in the quote I provided temperature variation not global temperature as you imply.[/quote]

            Malcolm, Malcolm. I such a context when those climate geniuses say “earth temperature”, world temperature” or just “temperature” they mean “global average temperature”, one of the most ridiculous things.

            Or what temperature do you think they mean?[/quote]

            Greg, my name is Malcolm Roberts, not Malcolm Malcolm.

            I do understand the intent though behind using my name twice. It must be difficult dealing with we mere humans.

            In the context Brooks is clearly and rightly discussing the temperature of the surface as a quality of the surface. He was saying earth’s surface has a quality described by temperature. He was not claiming a global temperature.

            To answer your question, Brooks is discussing, as he says, temperature variability at earth’s surface.

            You really need to be more specific and tighter in your wording.

            🙂

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Well, Malcolm, never mind. It’s OK. Don’t worry, be happy.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]Well, Malcolm, never mind. It’s OK. Don’t worry, be happy.[/quote]

            I am happy, Greg.

            And definitely not worrying.

            Thank for the personal development advice.

            I’ll try.

            🙂

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Very nice. 🙂
            Here in Arkansas, US of A. The name Malcolm would be pronounced Skeeter. Where ya-all from?? 😆

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Go away, evil troll.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Very nice. 🙂
            Here in Arkansas, US of A. The name Malcolm would be pronounced Skeeter. Where ya-all from?? :lol:[/quote]

            Skeeter. Hmm. As in mosquito? Or skater? Or …

            I’ve travelled through all 50 American states. But that was many years ago. All but one Canadian province. Born in India. Been in many states of Australia.

            And other places. I’m from planet earth.

            What do you mean by skeeter?

      • Avatar

        MalcolmRoberts

        |

        [quote name=”Greg House”]

        So? Right, that crappy theory was not taught at schools e.g., but some scientific idiots still kept believing in “greenhouse effect”. As you can see in the quotations above, that notion is supported by the document you referred to.[/quote]

        Pleased to see you disagree with the greenhouse effect. Please provide specific references to the page numbers for your quotations. That is what you expect of others yet fail to do it yourself.

        Hmmm.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Please provide specific references to the page numbers for your quotations. That is what you expect of others yet fail to do it yourself.

          Hmmm.[/quote]

          And right you are, Malcolm!!! Humble me was so naive to expect an expert like you to download the document and conduct the search using a pdf reader, which takes 10 seconds. What a hmmm!

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]…I remain stunned that you draw conclusions about my work and the AMS document by doing a search of a document using one word. Astounding.[/quote]

      This is where you distort again what I have written. I understand, you are not pleased by the criticism, but still…

      I am not familiar with “your work” as a whole, so please…

      I have drawn a conclusion about YOUR PARTICULAR STATEMENT concerning the AMS document, not about the document as such.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        About “using one word”. This is a smart way, Malcolm, to QUICLY find out if there is something particular in the 1334 pages long text.

        As you might guess, people usually use the term “greenhouse effect” when talking about “greenhouse effect”, right? So, I searched the text for the word “greenhouse” because it covers both “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases”. Any problem with this method, Malcolm?

      • Avatar

        MalcolmRoberts

        |

        [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]…I remain stunned that you draw conclusions about my work and the AMS document by doing a search of a document using one word. Astounding.[/quote]

        This is where you distort again what I have written. I understand, you are not pleased by the criticism, but still…

        I am not familiar with “your work” as a whole, so please…

        I have drawn a conclusion about YOUR PARTICULAR STATEMENT concerning the AMS document, not about the document as such.[/quote]

        Greg, in the relevant comment you made reference to my work and not to my quote that — as you rightly say — needs a reference.

        Greg, it seems odd that you find a valid deficiency yet use broad general language in your comments. As previously discussed.

        I’m not at all upset by your comment on the deficiency of mine in omitting a reference. Science advances by criticism. That’s one way to learn, isn’t it?

        I’m asking you to be specific and not general and broad.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Greg, it seems odd that you find a valid deficiency yet use broad general language in your comments. As previously discussed.[/quote]

          OK, formally you are right, so consider it just as a friendly piece of advice. It is not my intention to take apart your appendix (19) causing additional pain. Or just ignore it.

  • Avatar

    MalcolmRoberts

    |

    Continued:

    Greg:

    Fourth, Appendix 19 has been thoroughly reviewed by many people including scientists & engineers. Some reviews occurred before release, others after. I reviewed many times. My aim was to provide a succinct work of empirical points in everyday observation & in contemporary science. I’m told I succeeded.

    Yet you imply errors without identifying any beyond AMS. I wonder why?

    Fifth, I’m shocked by your comment on irrelevance of empirical evidence. It is science’s ultimate arbiter and decider.
    It is objective. That is fundamental. It’s at the core of science.

    While pleased you disagree with the greenhouse effect at the core of UN misrepresentation of climate, I’m stunned by you implying empirical evidence is irrelevant.

    From what I’ve seen, there are alarmists who parrot the UN’s greenhouse claim — with diagrams — & there are sceptics who say the greenhouse effect is real yet insignificant. Debate & diagrams have not resolved the issue.

    I’m concerned that your comments are vague and generalised and imply things beyond your words. I’m alarmed by your comments dismissing empirical scientific evidence.

    I prefer data-driven statements and claims and take little notice of opinions, especially general, vague and implicit opinions.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]I’m stunned by you implying empirical evidence is irrelevant.[…] I’m alarmed by your comments dismissing empirical scientific evidence.[/quote]

      I guess you did not get my point about empirical evidences. Please read it again:

      “As for empirical evidence of non-existence of the IPCC “greenhouse effect”, there is no need of them. The description of the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is sufficient to demonstrate that it is physically impossible, since it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing. I prefer such a demonstration to any reference to empirical evidences, because the readers can easily comprehend it on the theoretical level, but can not generally check the empirical evidences themselves.”

      • Avatar

        MalcolmRoberts

        |

        [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]I’m stunned by you implying empirical evidence is irrelevant.[…] I’m alarmed by your comments dismissing empirical scientific evidence.[/quote]

        I guess you did not get my point about empirical evidences. Please read it again:

        “As for empirical evidence of non-existence of the IPCC “greenhouse effect”, there is no need of them. The description of the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is sufficient to demonstrate that it is physically impossible, since it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing. I prefer such a demonstration to any reference to empirical evidences, because the readers can easily comprehend it on the theoretical level, but can not generally check the empirical evidences themselves.”[/quote]

        Greg, it’s OK entirely for you to not need empirical scientific evidence.

        Fortunately, scientists insist on it. I insist on it. As the UN IPCC has shown, it conveys diagrams contradicting empirical scientific evidence and many people accept their diagram without question.

        There are some esteemed sceptic scientists who think that your comment “since it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing” is nonsense. As for me, I happen to agree with you.

        Yet there are many people who do not simply because they do not understand the Laws of Thermodynamics.

        Hence, always, the empirical scientific evidence. At least for me.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]There are some esteemed sceptic scientists who think that your comment “since it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing” is nonsense. As for me, I happen to agree with you.

          Yet there are many people who do not simply because they do not understand the Laws of Thermodynamics.

          Hence, always, the empirical scientific evidence. At least for me.[/quote]

          This is indeed a very important issue, how we can convince people. Firstly, I do not believe a person/scientist can be that stupid to not understand that warming the source by “back radiation” is physically impossible because it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing. The people who disagree might have their unscientific reasons. From my experience, some evil persons pretend very successfully to be “skeptics”.

          Secondly, e.g. the Wood experiment. What happens is that warmists present their fake ones or misrepresent some real ones so that the public did not know any longer who to believe. People can not check it for themselves. We can not win this way unfortunately.

          On the other hand, this is very easy on the theoretical level. I would say on the high school level. It would take a few minutes to present the “greenhouse effect” and another few minutes to demonstrate what I said above. Of course, some people would block it, so one need to explain it a few times in slightly different ways, that is all.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]There are some esteemed sceptic scientists who think that your comment “since it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing” is nonsense. As for me, I happen to agree with you.

            Yet there are many people who do not simply because they do not understand the Laws of Thermodynamics.

            Hence, always, the empirical scientific evidence. At least for me.[/quote]

            This is indeed a very important issue, how we can convince people. Firstly, I do not believe a person/scientist can be that stupid to not understand that warming the source by “back radiation” is physically impossible because it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing. The people who disagree might have their unscientific reasons. From my experience, some evil persons pretend very successfully to be “skeptics”.

            Secondly, e.g. the Wood experiment. What happens is that warmists present their fake ones or misrepresent some real ones so that the public did not know any longer who to believe. People can not check it for themselves. We can not win this way unfortunately.

            On the other hand, this is very easy on the theoretical level. I would say on the high school level. It would take a few minutes to present the “greenhouse effect” and another few minutes to demonstrate what I said above. Of course, some people would block it, so one need to explain it a few times in slightly different ways, that is all.[/quote]

            In my experience it is not productive to label well-meaning and sincere people as stupid or evil. They seem to become upset and entrench their beliefs.

            I agree with your statement: ” warming the source by “back radiation” is physically impossible because it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing”. Yet some very intelligent people believe warming occurs by back radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.

            They claim ‘net energy transfer’ or ‘net effect’. Nonsense.

            That’s the reason my Appendix 19 deliberately does not raise radiation and laws of thermodynamics apart from touching on it and relies instead on everyday observations of earth phenomena and on empirical scientific evidence.

            I’ve noticed that some people can argue for hours and days in upholding their belief in net-radiation contradicting the Laws of Thermodynamics. It’s well known among serious scientists that even eminent physicists don’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics. So I just bypass it.

            So I let the evidence speak.

            As did Prof RW Wood.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            You know what, Malcolm? Here I am willing to compromise. If a scientist is really as you put it well-meaning and sincere but still believes in “greenhouse effect”, I am ready to take back “stupid” and replace it with “not intelligent enough”.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]You know what, Malcolm? Here I am willing to compromise. If a scientist is really as you put it well-meaning and sincere but still believes in “greenhouse effect”, I am ready to take back “stupid” and replace it with “not intelligent enough”.[/quote]

            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.

            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]
            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.

            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.[/quote]

            Well, yes, that is/was the crux of the whole controversy. Those with a practical/applied understanding of thermodynamics tend to forget/dismiss the fact that they are actually measuring net energy. The somewhat dimwitted global warmers, who have no practical experience, are largely ignorant about the fact that measuring the net is irrelevant since the measuring equipment, already takes this into account as an artifact of the fact we live in a relativistic universe. The engineers (slayers) didn’t understand the conceptual aspects of thermodynamics well enough to the recognize the mistake the warmers were making. For six months the argument raged on, both sides talking past each other, and the word net was not mentioned once.

            Then I figured it out and I explained it to both sides. Once the concept of net was part of the discussion the arguments slowly subsided.

            To this day many of the slayers (engineers) won’t admit that their explanations failed to clearly establish the importance of the realization of ‘net’. And the global warming groupies, being largely ignorant about science in general, have slinked away, with their tails between their legs, refusing to admit that they were confused.

            My point is that the global warmers were not the ones that resolved the issue in regards to ignorance of net. They were confused then and they continue to be confused now. And the slayers lacked a deep enough conceptual understanding to resolve it. I resolved it. And the slayers still stubbornly refuse to admit that they failed to properly conceptualize/explain it to the warmers.

            That is the real story.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]
            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.

            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.[/quote]

            Well, yes, that is/was the crux of the whole controversy. Those with a practical/applied understanding of thermodynamics tend to forget/dismiss the fact that they are actually measuring net energy. The somewhat dimwitted global warmers, who have no practical experience, are largely ignorant about the fact that measuring the net is irrelevant since the measuring equipment, already takes this into account as an artifact of the fact we live in a relativistic universe. The engineers (slayers) didn’t understand the conceptual aspects of thermodynamics well enough to the recognize the mistake the warmers were making. For six months the argument raged on, both sides talking past each other, and the word net was not mentioned once.

            Then I figured it out and I explained it to both sides. Once the concept of net was part of the discussion the arguments slowly subsided.

            To this day many of the slayers (engineers) won’t admit that their explanations failed to clearly establish the importance of the realization of ‘net’. And the global warming groupies, being largely ignorant about science in general, have slinked away, with their tails between their legs, refusing to admit that they were confused.

            My point is that the global warmers were not the ones that resolved the issue in regards to ignorance of net. They were confused then and they continue to be confused now. And the slayers lacked a deep enough conceptual understanding to resolve it. I resolved it. And the slayers still stubbornly refuse to admit that they failed to properly conceptualize/explain it to the warmers.

            That is the real story.[/quote]

            Two things, Greg.

            It’s not as simple as the warmers vs the slayers. There are three broad groups:
            1. those who believe in the Hansen-UN radiative warming supposition. These include the UN’s crooks knowingly and deceitfully pushing BS AGW for political agenda, those who assume it’s true, those who have no clue yet agree with authority or seek more government grants for research, …
            2. those who believe in radiative warming yet think it is insignificant. These include some significant sceptics, scientists, physicists, …
            3. those who do not believe in radiative warming of earth’s surface by cooler atmosphere. These include the slayers, some prominent climate sceptics and scientists including physicists and engineers, and a variety of other people

            Secondly, I don’t think anyone can be given credit for resolving it because the debate rages on.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            The words you quoted were not mine. The were solvingtornadoes’.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Well, it isn’t raging as bad here in PSI as it was at one time. Being mostly engineers, the slayers lack the intellectual muscle to distinguish between what they understand and what they believe. But that is somewhat understandable since they generally receive little training in this regard. That is why they often are incapable of answering a simple question honestly. We have seen that explicitly here in PSI with Pat Obar and Big Wave Dave.

            I think there is a fourth group (and the biggest one by far): Those that aren’t quite sure what they believe but are 100% sure they are right.

            Many people that wear the label of scientists also generally lack the ability to distinguish between what the understand and what they believe. But they at least have had some training in distinguishing between what they believe and what they understand.

            The thing that is deceptive about PSI is that they represent themselves as being scientists and they are not, they are engineers. They don’t have high scientific ideals, they have an agenda to get people to believe what they barely understand.

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Secondly, I don’t think anyone can be given credit for resolving it because the debate rages on.[/quote]

            There is no solution for stupidity. And I never claimed otherwise. All I’m saying is that,having a good enough understanding of both side of the issue, I was the one that recognized the shortsightedness of both sides of the argument. The AGW loons were not the ones that recognized the importance of “net.” They were just as guilty of being clueless as the slayers.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]

            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.
            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.[/quote]

            Indeed, Dr. Roberts, The problem is but Climate Clown gross incompetence.
            The only power absorption that any atmospheric gas can do is low pass filtering of radiative spatial or temporal modulation (variance), as measured. Once re-thermalized, time constant 6 minutes, The atmosphere can affect no thermal or radiative energy flux in any direction. Thermodynamic equilibrium is the [b]null of variance of both flux and temperature.[/b] Surface EMR is but a wee part of that!

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]

            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.
            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.[/quote]

            Indeed, Dr. Roberts, The problem is but Climate Clown gross incompetence.
            The only power absorption that any atmospheric gas can do is low pass filtering of radiative spatial or temporal modulation (variance), as measured. Once re-thermalized, time constant 6 minutes, The atmosphere can affect no thermal or radiative energy flux in any direction. Thermodynamic equilibrium is the [b]null of variance of both flux and temperature.[/b] Surface EMR is but a wee part of that![/quote]
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]

            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.
            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.[/quote]

            Indeed, Dr. Roberts, The problem is but Climate Clown gross incompetence.
            The only power absorption that any atmospheric gas can do is low pass filtering of radiative spatial or temporal modulation (variance), as measured. Once re-thermalized, time constant 6 minutes, The atmosphere can affect no thermal or radiative energy flux in any direction. Thermodynamic equilibrium is the [b]null of variance of both flux and temperature.[/b] Surface EMR is but a wee part of that![/quote]
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]

            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.
            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.[/quote]

            Indeed, Dr. Roberts, The problem is but Climate Clown gross incompetence.
            The only power absorption that any atmospheric gas can do is low pass filtering of radiative spatial or temporal modulation (variance), as measured. Once re-thermalized, time constant 6 minutes, The atmosphere can affect no thermal or radiative energy flux in any direction. Thermodynamic equilibrium is the [b]null of variance of both flux and temperature.[/b] Surface EMR is but a wee part of that![/quote]
            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]

            The problem is they see us as stupid and ignoring their idea of ‘net energy’.
            Argument requires understanding of the basics upon which all agree and thereafter evidence.[/quote]

            Indeed, Dr. Roberts, The problem is but Climate Clown gross incompetence.
            The only power absorption that any atmospheric gas can do is low pass filtering of radiative spatial or temporal modulation (variance), as measured. Once re-thermalized, time constant 6 minutes, The atmosphere can affect no thermal or radiative energy flux in any direction. Thermodynamic equilibrium is the [b]null of variance of both flux and temperature.[/b] Surface EMR is but a wee part of that![/quote]

            Not a doctor, Pat. Hoping that doesn’t reduce my attractiveness to Arkansas girlies.

            Now convince alarmists, sceptics, …

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Not a doctor, Pat. Hoping that doesn’t reduce my attractiveness to Arkansas girlies.

            Not likely, sometimes they even smile at me!!!

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Not a doctor, Pat. Hoping that doesn’t reduce my attractiveness to Arkansas girlies.

            Not likely, sometimes they even smile at me!!![/quote]

            😆

            I don’t know whether or not that’s reassuring.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            I don’t know whether or not that’s reassuring.

            Was not meant to be. Where ya’all from. 😉

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]I don’t know whether or not that’s reassuring.

            Was not meant to be. Where ya’all from. ;-)[/quote]

            Same place I answered to first time you asked.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]I don’t know whether or not that’s reassuring.

            Was not meant to be. Where ya’all from. ;-)[/quote]

            Same place I answered to first time you asked.[/quote]

            I see no answer, ever! Do you have a location?

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]I don’t know whether or not that’s reassuring.

            Was not meant to be. Where ya’all from. ;-)[/quote]

            Same place I answered to first time you asked.[/quote]

            I see no answer, ever! Do you have a location?[/quote]

            Here’s my previous answer to same question:

            “Skeeter. Hmm. As in mosquito? Or skater? Or …

            I’ve travelled through all 50 American states. But that was many years ago. All but one Canadian province. Born in India. Been in many states of Australia.

            And other places. I’m from planet earth.

            What do you mean by skeeter?”

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            OK, In very local Arkansas,but never defending [b]the idiocy[/b]. Skeeter is a nickname for anyone who has a given name considered “funny”. The question “Where ya’all from” is also local, You seem funny, as in not local, or [b]from elsewhere[/b], please defend your funniness.
            Your attractiveness to Arkansas girlies is beyond comprehension. You have never been in Arkansas US of A. Weird folk, I love it.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]OK, In very local Arkansas,but never defending [b]the idiocy[/b]. Skeeter is a nickname for anyone who has a given name considered “funny”. The question “Where ya’all from” is also local, You seem funny, as in not local, or [b]from elsewhere[/b], please defend your funniness.
            Your attractiveness to Arkansas girlies is beyond comprehension. You have never been in Arkansas US of A. Weird folk, I love it.[/quote]

            Was in your fine state of AR many years ago. I worked in USA and then travelled through all 50 states.

            Amazing country.

            Shame the nation is being destroyed by its presidents of both parties loyal to those pushing global governance by panicking people on BS AGW.

            Have fun.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Amazing country.
            Shame the nation is being destroyed by its presidents of both parties loyal to those pushing global governance by panicking people on BS AGW.

            Thank you I agree, except for the nation being destroyed. This is serous attempted destruction, beware!! However much of history has many such attempts. Roaches may replace Earthlings. but the planet is carefully designed to handle that also.
            Squirrels will continue to enjoy eating acorns, while attempting to jump on she squirrels!
            I believe I will have another beer! 🙂

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]

            That’s the reason my Appendix 19 deliberately does not raise radiation and laws of thermodynamics apart from touching on it and relies instead on everyday observations of earth phenomena and on empirical scientific evidence.

            I’ve noticed that some people can argue for hours and days in upholding their belief in net-radiation contradicting the Laws of Thermodynamics. It’s well known among serious scientists that even eminent physicists don’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics. So I just bypass it.
            So I let the evidence speak.
            As did Prof RW Wood.[/quote]

            Quite nice thank you! 🙂
            EMR as proposed by Jimmy Maxwell has its own results as demonstrated by the equations of electromagnetic potential in each direction.
            EM flux is determined by the differential EMR potential. The electromagnetic power transfer [b]can[/b] be independent of temperature.

            But when the EMR potential “radiance” is both thermal and spontaneous, all EMR flux is strictly unidirectional and must obey all your Laws of Thermodynamics. Never is evidence of any violation. Want to go fishin and admire gerlies, skeeter? 😆

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]

            That’s the reason my Appendix 19 deliberately does not raise radiation and laws of thermodynamics apart from touching on it and relies instead on everyday observations of earth phenomena and on empirical scientific evidence.

            I’ve noticed that some people can argue for hours and days in upholding their belief in net-radiation contradicting the Laws of Thermodynamics. It’s well known among serious scientists that even eminent physicists don’t understand the Laws of Thermodynamics. So I just bypass it.
            So I let the evidence speak.
            As did Prof RW Wood.[/quote]

            Quite nice thank you! 🙂
            EMR as proposed by Jimmy Maxwell has its own results as demonstrated by the equations of electromagnetic potential in each direction.
            EM flux is determined by the differential EMR potential. The electromagnetic power transfer [b]can[/b] be independent of temperature.

            But when the EMR potential “radiance” is both thermal and spontaneous, all EMR flux is strictly unidirectional and must obey all your Laws of Thermodynamics. Never is evidence of any violation. Want to go fishin and admire gerlies, skeeter? :lol:[/quote]

            What’s a skeeter, Pat?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            It is but a nickname, for Malcolm, that Arkansas girlies like! 🙂

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]It is but a nickname, for Malcolm, that Arkansas girlies like! :-)[/quote]

            Never heard of it, Pat.

            What’s the nickname that AR girlies/gerlies like for Pat?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]It is but a nickname, for Malcolm, that Arkansas girlies like! :-)[/quote]

            Never heard of it, Pat.

            What’s the nickname that AR girlies/gerlies like for Pat?[/quote]

            Want to go somewhere and mess around!!

  • Avatar

    MalcolmRoberts

    |

    Thank you, Greg.

    Firstly, I usually do provide specific references. See both links previously cited.

    Given that I have produced thousands of pages of accurate material I think I’m allowed a few, non-fundamental errors. My unlike the thousands of pages of UN IPCC trash.

    You are correct: all claims should be documented.

    Greg, your comments on this page are very general yet imply specificity.

    eg, in response to my statement “UN IPCC does not rely on scientific peer review as claimed.” you opined: “I do not think this is true either. The problem is rather that the IPCC reports sheer nonsense that is unfortunately peer reviewed”. Yet now you reverse that and admit “On peer review, the IPCC reports are not supposed to be peer reviewed, since they are not scientific studies.”

    Surely you’ve read of claims by senior UN IPCC & prominent politicians that UN IPCC reports are scientific & peer-reviewed?

    My document was written to hold accountable UN IPCC & allied alarmist academics pushing the unfounded greenhouse effect & for the general public & for some sceptics who assume the greenhouse effect — without questioning — to be true.

    Secondly, Greg, I wonder why you claim that a cursory glance at AMS document cited is now proof my statement is false? Clearly, I need to go back over my notes and update appendix 19. I’m wondering why I failed to provide the specific reference. Tired? Perhaps I do not really think much of the AMS statement because, after all, it is an appeal to authority that really has no place in science & is really meant to cause the public to think.

    I acknowledge again the need to ensure all significant points are referenced specifically. When priorities allow I will review my Appendix 19 re AMS. Given its 15 solid points, it’s not a high priority for now.

    Third, for some reason you have not acknowledged appendix 19 states that the ‘greenhouse effect’ was imagined mistakenly 150 years or so ago. Why?

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Surely you’ve read of claims by senior UN IPCC & prominent politicians that UN IPCC reports are scientific & peer-reviewed?[/quote]

      Malcolm, again, if you report on scientific studies, it is like writing an article in a newspaper. Such things have definitely to do with science, bur are not supposed to be peer reviewed.

      The IPCC state on their homepage: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

      The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”

      http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

      Therefore your “not peer reviewed” argumentation misses the target. I suggest you drop it.

      • Avatar

        MalcolmRoberts

        |

        [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Surely you’ve read of claims by senior UN IPCC & prominent politicians that UN IPCC reports are scientific & peer-reviewed?[/quote]

        Malcolm, again, if you report on scientific studies, it is like writing an article in a newspaper. Such things have definitely to do with science, bur are not supposed to be peer reviewed.

        The IPCC state on their homepage: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

        The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”

        http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

        Therefore your “not peer reviewed” argumentation misses the target. I suggest you drop it.[/quote]

        Greg, you’re being elusive and broad again. This time, erroneous so.

        Greg, you previously cited my document, Quote:
        “UN IPCC does not rely on scientific peer review as claimed.”

        And then stated, this, quote: I do not think this is true either. The problem is rather that the IPCC reports sheer nonsense that is unfortunately peer reviewed, which disqualified the climate science itself. The modern climate science is the problem in the first place.

        As explained, senior UN IPCC contributors and then Chairman Rajendra Pachauri and prominent politicians claim UN IPCC reports are peer-reviewed. Their claims are false, and my statement that UN IPCC reports are not scientifically peer-reviewed is completely true. You confirm it.

        Yet you suggest I drop it.

        Hmmm

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]my statement that UN IPCC reports are not scientifically peer-reviewed is completely true. You confirm it. Yet you suggest I drop it. Hmmm[/quote]

          I suggest you drop it, Malcolm, because you argue that something that sort of per definition is not supposed to be peer reviewed is not peer reviewed. Are we good now or should I repeat it slowly?

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]my statement that UN IPCC reports are not scientifically peer-reviewed is completely true. You confirm it. Yet you suggest I drop it. Hmmm[/quote]

            I suggest you drop it, Malcolm, because you argue that something that sort of per definition is not supposed to be peer reviewed is not peer reviewed. Are we good now or should I repeat it slowly?[/quote]

            Greg, perhaps you could simply accept that in dealing with me you are dealing with an inferior being who has a need to ensure public perception resulting from UN IPCC misrepresentations are addressed and corrected.

            In answer to your question, you could repeat it again slowly for this poor inferior being that I am but I’m going to keep telling the truth to correct the misrepresentations of UN IPCC people and prominent politicians.

            Greg, you can cling to IPCC definitions. The reality is, as explained, that there is a carefully cultivated and widespread perception that the UN IPCC’s reports are peer-reviewed. I’ve had the Lead Author and Review Editor of the UN IPCC’s reports tell me that UN IPCC reports are peer-reviewed.

            My statement is true and correct. IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

            As you see below, I have the strength and integrity to admit errors (reference to AMS should’ve been specific) and admit errors (an author of a paper in the AMS document mentions the greenhouse effect).

            I have the integrity to persist when someone says something so obviously wrong and false.

            Real strength involves both aspects, does it not?

            🙂

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]My statement is true and correct. IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.[/quote]

            OK, if you just mean that some guys said the IPCC reports were peer-reviewed but they were not, than all what you proved was that the guys were wrong.

            Unfortunately this circumstance alone does not in any way cast a shadow over the content of the IPCC reports.

            Because it is one thing if a study is published in a scientific journal without due process and a quite different thing when something that is not supposed to be peer-reviewed is published without being peer-reviewed. In other words, they did nothing wrong even in the “worst” case, that is if they published the reports without submitting them for formal peer-review.

            Are we good now?

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]My statement is true and correct. IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.[/quote]

            OK, if you just mean that some guys said the IPCC reports were peer-reviewed but they were not, than all what you proved was that the guys were wrong.

            Unfortunately this circumstance alone does not in any way cast a shadow over the content of the IPCC reports.

            Because it is one thing if a study is published in a scientific journal without due process and a quite different thing when something that is not supposed to be peer-reviewed is published without being peer-reviewed. In other words, they did nothing wrong even in the “worst” case, that is if they published the reports without submitting them for formal peer-review.

            Are we good now?[/quote]

            No, Greg, I do not mean “some guys said …”

            I’ve been quite specific on this topic in discussion with you

            Similarly in my report, specific. e.g., page 7.

            If that doesn’t cast a long shadow over UN IPCC and its reports …

            Not just me. The Inter Academy Council has similarly stated reservations about UN IPCC peer-review.

            As have UN IPCC contributing authors, Expert Science Reviewers, and, from memory, Lead Authors.

            No one has published empirical scientific evidence that HUMAN CO2 caused/causes/will cause warming.

            It’s become increasingly clear that peer-review in climate has been bypassed and and corrupted at times prevented.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            OK, not just you, but it does not matter, since the argument about “not peer-reviewed” is invalid, like I said.

            As for empirical scientific evidence, it is a mistake to believe that they are always necessary. Let me give you an example. If I said “2,000,000,000 apples + 2,000,000,000 apples = 4,000,000,000 apples”, would you ask me for empirical evidence? I do not have one, nobody has. Is my statement false for that reason?

            So, the absence of empirical evidence is not always a problem, hence your argumentation about absence of empirical evidence is invalid.

            We have to clearly refute their concept. In the most concise manner. The time for “lack of evidence” line is gone.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]OK, not just you, but it does not matter, since the argument about “not peer-reviewed” is invalid, like I said.

            As for empirical scientific evidence, it is a mistake to believe that they are always necessary. Let me give you an example. If I said “2,000,000,000 apples + 2,000,000,000 apples = 4,000,000,000 apples”, would you ask me for empirical evidence? I do not have one, nobody has. Is my statement false for that reason?

            So, the absence of empirical evidence is not always a problem, hence your argumentation about absence of empirical evidence is invalid.

            We have to clearly refute their concept. In the most concise manner. The time for “lack of evidence” line is gone.[/quote]

            Greg, when someone makes a scientific claim, it is decided by empirical scientific evidence.

            If I was making policy or financial commitment based on you claiming to have 4 mil apples I would want physical evidence.

            But if you disagree, that’s fine Greg.

            🙂

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            So, Malcolm, if I gave you 2 billions apples, you would count them first, right, then another 2 billions apples, you would count them as well, it is OK until now. Then if I put them all together, you would start counting again to check if it is really 4 billions, because who knows, let us check it, empirical evidence, right?

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]So, Malcolm, if I gave you 2 billions apples, you would count them first, right, then another 2 billions apples, you would count them as well, it is OK until now. Then if I put them all together, you would start counting again to check if it is really 4 billions, because who knows, let us check it, empirical evidence, right?[/quote]

            You may try to count them each, Greg.

            Instead, I would arrange some volume measurement and wouldn’t quibble about a few apples here or there.

            If I’m paying money for your apples I will measure the quantity.

            If you wouldn’t, I have a bridge for sale. Sydney Harbour Bridge. An icon in Australia, Greg. And if you buy within 24 hours I’ll throw in the free large white wheels nearby, for free.

            Has anyone sold you the Brooklyn Bridge. If not, do you want to buy?

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            I wouldn’t, because in this particular case after I put 2 and 2 whatever together no empirical evidence is needed to know that the sum is 4. But it is just me. Do not rely upon my primitive method.

          • Avatar

            MalcolmRoberts

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”]So, Malcolm, if I gave you 2 billions apples, you would count them first, right, then another 2 billions apples, you would count them as well, it is OK until now. Then if I put them all together, you would start counting again to check if it is really 4 billions, because who knows, let us check it, empirical evidence, right?[/quote]

            Got me, again, Greg.

            I bow to your superior wisdom.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Secondly, Greg, I wonder why you claim that a cursory glance at AMS document cited is now proof my statement is false?[/quote]

      Because, Malcolm, I found 3 places in the document that contradict your statement and QUOTED them in my previous comment.

  • Avatar

    MalcolmRoberts

    |

    Thank you, Greg.

    I acknowledge your comment and view on AMS.

    Regardless of our differing conclusion on AMS comments, the empirical scientific evidence on the UN-Hansen ‘greenhouse effect’ pushed by James Hansen in 1981 and again publicly by him in 1988 is clear — it’s non-existent. Please see Appendix 19 here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

    Please note the work of scientist Timothy Casey referred to in item No. 8 on page 6. I openly stated that the ‘greenhouse effect’ in various descriptions is much older than 1988 and much older than 1951. I agree with you. 🙂

    While at that Appendix 19, please see empirical scientific evidence disproving the greenhouse effect whether that be claims 150 years old or current.

    I look forward to your comments on my response to your initial expression of your thoughts on peer-review.

    And comments on James Hansen’s other climate ‘work’ in Appendix 7.

    And perhaps you could comment on the urgency of the situation we face in the UN’s underlying drivers for misrepresenting climate and science as discussed on pages 19-23 here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/SBbboh.html

    I hope you can see that I am most concerned about that and that the empirical scientific evidence (summarised succinctly on pages 9-11 proves the UN’s climate claims are false.

    And comments on James Hansen’s NASA-GISS work on page 18.

    I hope that both the empirical scientific evidence and the documentation of UN corruption are of importance to you.

    Thank you for holding me accountable. Accountability and empirical scientific evidence are essential for human progress. And essential for freedom.

    Much appreciated.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Malcolm, first of all I would greatly appreciate it, if you found it possible to give precise quotes when making a point instead of directing me to long, long texts and instructing me to look up there for something that might support your point. And it is not just me, maybe I deserve it, but think about our readers who will not do that job either.

      Your Appendix 19 contains the same false statement I have just debunked. I hope that you understand the importance of checking the source now. At least use the search the document function. As for many other statements there, I humbly suggest you review the whole thing critically. Even if it might sound frustrating.

      On peer review, the IPCC reports are not supposed to be peer reviewed, since they are not scientific studies. They are reports on scientific studies, in a nutshell. The IPCC states it clearly on their homepage that they do not conduct any scientific research.

      As for empirical evidence of non-existence of the IPCC “greenhouse effect”, there is no need of them. The description of the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is sufficient to demonstrate that it is physically impossible, since it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing. I prefer such a demonstration to any reference to empirical evidences, because the readers can easily comprehend it on the theoretical level, but can not generally check the empirical evidences themselves.

  • Avatar

    MalcolmRoberts

    |

    Mack: thank you.

    Once one understands pages 19-23 the UN’s purpose and mission in fabricating unfounded climate alarm is clear.

    Greg: Firstly, https://archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer#page/n6/mode/1up

    You’ll need to do the reading yourself. From memory this has been referenced on PSI before.

    Secondly, UN IPCC reports are not scientifically peer-reviewed. Fact. Please see Appendix 2, here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/csiroh-climate-of-deception.html#comments

    Or my original site here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

    Note in particular the works of John McLean as cited in Appendix 2. These are difficult to sensibly refute since he merely presents figures from the UN IPCC itself. See the work of Canadian investigative reporter Donna Laframboise. See the work of UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray and many of his peers who confirm that UN IPCC reports are not scientifically peer-reviewed.

    One of the deficiencies in climate ‘science’ is that people form opinions (“I think …”) without first actually thinking. People expressing opinions publicly then tend to attach to them and lock them in.

    This comment applies to some of the world’s most prominent climate sceptics who assume the (Hansen-UN) greenhouse myth to be true and once they state that publicly find it difficult to retract. Ego.

    This is common in the Human Condition and was preyed upon by the UN IPCC and by Al Gore’s movie to entrench opinions. Gullible youth in particular and those in privileged positions in the affluent west who feel guilty about the ease of our lives then lock in their uninformed opinions. They become immune to facts and data. Similarly those afraid of being labelled anti-environment because the UN IPCC, select politicians, NGO’s and Al Gore carefully cultivated the notion that those who spoke against BS AGW are anti-environment. That silenced critics and stopped thought and curtailed free expression.

    This has been done many times throughout history. As American Pres Harry Truman said: ‘[i]The only thing new in the world is the history you haven’t read.[/i]’

    Easy to do. It’s happening all around us.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”MalcolmRoberts”]Greg: Firstly, https://archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer#page/n6/mode/1up

      You’ll need to do the reading yourself. From memory this has been referenced on PSI before.[/quote]

      No, YOU need to provide the direct quote supporting your assertion. Prove it. You reference to others having made the same assertion is not an argument.

      So, I suggest you either prove it correct or take it back.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        I decided not to wait for the reply and checked the reference archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer#page/n6/mode/1up myself. The result: it is not true that they dismissed the “greenhouse effect” there, the opposite is true. They talk about the “greenhouse effect” as real.

        I downloaded the document. the text can be searched for keywords, so I made a search for “greenhouse effect”. It is mentioned only 3 times in the whole document:

        1.”This circulation apparently succeeds in transferring considerable quantities of heat to the dark side of Venus because infrared radiation can be detected from the night side. Also important in keeping the dark side warm is the large greenhouse effect supplied by such an enormous quantity of CO2.”

        2.”Therefore two possiljilities suggest themselves : either Jupiter is heated from the inside as well as from the outside, or Jupiter has an appreciable greenhouse effect which is relatively much more pronounced than the Earth’s.”

        3.”If Uranus and Neptune were black bodies heated by solar radiation only with no greenhouse effect, their temperatures would be 70K and 50K respectively, low enough to “freeze out” methane. Since methane is not frozen out the actual surface temperatures must be considerably higher.”

        Apparently, the idiotic notion of “greenhouse effect” is much older than the IPCC.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]”UN IPCC does not rely on scientific peer review as claimed.”[/quote]

    I do not think this is true either. The problem is rather that the IPCC reports sheer nonsense that is unfortunately peer reviewed, which disqualified the climate science itself. The modern climate science is the problem in the first place.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    A huge, comprehensive and well thought out report Malcolm. Lots of good work. Let’s hope other Aussie politicians get a read of it too. Well done.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote]Written by Malcolm Roberts: “The ‘Greenhouse effect’ relied on by the UN IPCC was dismissed by contemporary science and the American Meteorological Society in 1951” [/quote]

      I do not think it is true. Evidence please.

      I’d like to see the links and the exact quotes form both “contemporary science” and the American Meteorological Society.

Comments are closed