Open Letter to Secretive Aussie Climate Change Minister

Written by Dr Judy Ryan

In Australia, on or about March 15th this year 2015, a Technical Advisory Forum, appointed by the Environment Minister Greg Hunt (pictured), met behind closed doors with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Scientists. The Forum will deliver its report around June 2015. greg hunt

Below is the public submission that Dr Marjorie Curtis and I submitted by public email. Also for the public record is Greg Hunt’s correspondence accepting the submission.  The world will be watching and waiting for the results of your Forums’ enquiry Minister Hunt.

Dear Minister Greg Hunt,

We are writing to thank you for organising an independent investigation  of the Bureau of Meteorology’s  data management practices.  We trust that you have received good advice and chosen independent and objective  scientists and statisticians to be members of the Technical   Advisory Forum.

We have been very concerned about the advice you are receiving ever since we heard you stating publicly that you rely mainly on the advice from the CSIRO and the BoM.

Unfortunately, as the evidence indicates, scientific integrity in  Australia’s once iconic institutions, such as the Bureau of Meteorology, (BoM) and our Universities has disintegrated.  The scientific ‘peer review’ has also collapsed. For that reason we reference this document to robust evidence based internet sites. This includes Wikipedia, which in the discipline of climatology, is more robust. 

The evidence also  indicates  that the  human caused Global Warming hypothesis and its associated demonisation of carbon dioxide is a global scam.  It is driven by the desire for power by politicians, and money and prestige for the funded climate scientists.

The evidence shows that the CO2 demonisation scam is well established in Australia.  Unfortunately it has continued under your stewardship of the Department of Environment. This is illustrated by the unhelpful response  (dated 19th December 2013 ) to my formal complaint to the Department of Environment http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/jr/4_DOE’sFirstResponse.pdf

It is further evidenced by the Ombudsman’s final response dated 27th February 2014.  http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/jr/11_Ombudsman’s2ndRebuttal.pdf

However, on the 4th September last year at the Fenner School of Environmental  at the Australian National University a prominent  Australian climate scientist, Professor Michael Raupach, publicly conceded that the term ‘carbon’ is shorthand for ‘carbon dioxide’ . He also conceded  that it is definitely not a pollutant. Sadly Professor Raupach has passed away, but we will always remember him  and the words he spoke when responding to a question from the audience. The question and Professor Raupach’s response can be heard here at 1.06.33 into the recording. http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/news-events/event-recordings/climate-change-why-facts-and-opinions-are-both-important 

Dear Minister, we feel that it is necessary to provide you and the Technical Advisory Forum members with the historical evidence to what we believe to be the greatest fraud yet perpetrated against humanity. You may wonder what a bit of history has to do with the  BoM’s data  homogenisation practices, but please read on. We will be as brief as possible

>>  Early 1900’s a young ecologist  Eugene Odum set out test the hypothesis that “Nature is in Equilibrium”. His  data supported that hypothesis. He went on to experience wealth and prestige. He wrote the  book , “The  Fundamentals of Ecology” . It was published in 1953, and became a school text book in many different countries. Consequently, his wealth and prestige increased. The hypothesis that “Nature is in Equilibrium” also known as  the “Balance of Nature” or “Gaia” prevailed.  

>>  However,  with the advent of desktop computers  in the late 1960s the theory was retested by a new generation of ecologists.

>>  The evidence from all the those later studies showed that no matter what the sample size the data showed no such relationship. To the contrary, it showed nature to be a wild thing; a dynamic natural system with huge variance.

>>The nature in equilibrium theory was  not only disproven  but discredited in the 70s  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature   

>>It was replaced by chaos theory which states that “In the disciplines of Meteorology …..and Biology…….Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

>>The problem was that there was much money, power and corruption associated with  the  Gaia theory by that time. Eugene Odum, already wealthy, became a member of the hugely influential entrepreneur orientated ” Club of Rome”. He was highly regarded by the establishment until he died peacefully in 2002 aged 88. 

History shows that it was a  grave error of judgement  by the academic establishment of the time not to investigate Eugene Odum for possible scientific fraud. The ramifications of that error were profound. Chaos theory was quietly discarded and in the early 1970’s the disproven Gaia theory was resurrected and rechristened “Sustainability” .

 One only has to look at the 2009 Australian High School Science curriculum to realise that  the disproven Gaia is still the order of the day in our country http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_-_Science.pdf

To quote the bottom two lines from page 6    “Order and change are necessary ideas to understand systems. Understanding systems provides the basis for appreciating the nature of equilibrium and interdependence.”

Australia dare not allow history to repeat itself in our nation. For if we do, the Gaia scam and all its associated academic funding scams will continue and science in Australia will continue to be mired in uncertainty.

The definition of fraud is, “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.” (Black’s Law Dictionary).

It is true that  the Australian people are experiencing financial disadvantage as a result of the host of policies and administrative decisions driven by advice regarding the science of climate change. Is that advice false or misleading? Does it deceive by concealing or omitting or embellishing or misrepresenting relevant facts?

You may wonder how this definition could  apply to the BoM.  Please read on. During Professor Karoly’s time as editor of Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal he and other scientists published  a paper in AMOJ Vol 62, 2012.    To quote from the paper   “Trend analysis confirmed that the 1.1 °C increase in maximum temperature and 0.9 °C increase in minimum temperature since 1960 are the largest and most significant trends in Southeastern Australian temperature in the last 152 years”.

 http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FLinden_Ashcroft%2Fpublication%2F236886588_Temperature_variations_of_southeastern_Australia_18602011%2Flinks%2F0deec519eacc865f1b000000.pdf&ei=t0TyVMHbFKTHmwWy94H4Aw&usg=AFQjCNF3nfh6btuP1nhM8t_jNGbMmX47_Q&sig2=FPrCXN29S7N7kWB_kLJR_g&bvm=bv.87269000,d.dGY

The evidence indicates that those predictions were based on weather stations where the BoM  may have  maladjusted the data. https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/acorn-sat-a-preliminary-assessment/

This is one of the issues the Technical Advisory Forum will no doubt be addressing.

It is our humble opinion that a legitimate question is; have BoM scientists disseminated information to the Australian people in a deceptive manner.  Does their behaviour  meet  Black’s legal definition above.

An early example of the BoM scientists’  attitude towards the dissemination of information to the  the Australian people, who incidentally have provided the money  for their salaries and grants,  is shown  below. 

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=australia

We believe that Australia with its strong democracy under the Abbott government needs to take strong steps to address the climate change scam. The historical evidence indicates that Australia  should hold the Australian perpetrators accountable. Australia can lead the world  back to scientific integrity and sanity.

In closing we reiterate we are two senior citizens expressing the opinion we formed as a result of our own research. Whether the evidence backs it up or  is for others to decide. The BoM scientists are openly copied in to this email. We request them to respond by clicking reply all if they dispute anything we have said.

Respectfully yours,

Drs Judy Ryan and Marjorie Curtis

Members World Wide Web of Climate Realists.

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    I admire the efforts of Drs Judy Ryan and Marjorie Curtis in trying to establish scientific truth over the misleading climate propaganda being promoted in the public domain by Australia’s BoM and CSIRO and even the Ministers office.

    Minister Greg Hunt, of course, is the man who when asked whether he believed carbon dioxide was pollution, he simply would not answer that precise question. He is a closet global warming alarmist.

    The sad truth is that this whole climate change con is no longer interested in scientific truth. It is now all being driven by political propaganda based on the environmental ideology behind the flawed global warming doctrine.

  • Avatar

    Doug

    |

    Yes, but there’s not a word about the valid physics, based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which explains [b]why[/b] the radiative forcing GH conjecture is wrong.

    I am offering a [b]AU$5,000 reward[/b] to the first in the world to prove me wrong (regarding the physics in my 2013 paper) and produce evidence that the greenhouse gas water vapor makes rain forests about 40 degrees hotter than similar but drier regions as the IPCC in effect claim it should. Read my peer-reviewed papers or my book linked from http://climate-change-theory.com

Comments are closed