• Home
  • Current News
  • University of Queensland Slated over Climate ‘Consensus’ Fabrications

University of Queensland Slated over Climate ‘Consensus’ Fabrications

Written by Malcolm Roberts, Galileo Movement

Open letter from alumni accuses University of Queensland of promoting fraudulent claims by global warming alarmists.

Academics exposed for financial conflict of interest as respected analyst, Malcolm Roberts, asserts, “John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists.” Hoj

The full letter by Malcolm Roberts to Professor Peter Høj,  Vice Chancellor and President of The University of Queensland, is published below.

Dear Professor Høj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/uq-offers-free-course-to-combat-climate-change-deniers-20150422-1mqtic.html

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/SBbboh.html

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offence.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfil your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MBA U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

Further Evidence re Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Høj:

 
Further to my complaint sent to you yesterday and provided below, please note that John Cook’s paper on his fabricated consensus has been disproven by a peer-reviewed paper revealing major arithmetic errors in John Cook’s work fabricating consensus. The peer-reviewed paper is discussed here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ and was written by internationally recognised climate scientists and by researchers into the UN IPCC’s fraud that is at the core of John Cook’s false climate claims.
 
The peer-reviewed work is the source of the data cited yesterday as being on the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html
 
As stated yesterday, I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Malcolm Roberts

Tags: , , ,

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Written by Malcolm Roberts: “Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’.”

    No Malcolm, it does not. This is what you wrote there: “John Cook et al released a paper implying a 97percent (97%) consensus of climate scientists who think CO2 from human activity causes global warming and that it will cause catastrophic consequences. Analysis of their data reportedly reveals their approach and methodology are not scientific and misrepresent reality. [… reference to Monckton, Malcolm??? Never mind]
    Here’s a summary of their relevant data:
    The paper’s co-authors claimed to have examined 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers on climate;
    7,930 did not mention an opinion on climate change. These were discarded. 66 percent (66%) discarded;
    That left 4,014. Of those 3,896 opined that humans caused (1) some or (2) most warming since 1951 or said (3) human activity would cause catastrophic warming. All three categories were combined. 3,896 of 4,014 is 97.1 percent (97.1%). Remember, none have empirical scientific evidence for their conclusion;
    Legates et al show that only 41 papers concluded catastrophic warming would occur. Of the 4,014 papers that’s one percent (1%);
    Of the 11,944 abstracts surveyed, that’s zero point three percent (0.3%);
    Ninety nine point seven percent (99.7%) do not claim human activity would cause
    catastrophic warming.”

    I can not find any sign of fabrication except for one ON YOUR SIDE. I mean these two lines of yours: “7,930 did not mention an opinion on climate change. These were discarded. 66 percent (66%) discarded” and “only 41 papers concluded catastrophic warming would occur. Of the 4,014 papers that’s one percent (1%); Of the 11,944 abstracts surveyed, that’s zero point three percent (0.3%)”. But maybe it was just an innocent mistake, let’s see if you can correct it.

    Now Malcolm, regardless of what you have put in your appendix, any reasonable person who follows the climate debate on various blogs can be sure about one thing: among the professional “climate scientists” there is indeed an incredibly stupid consensus on both physically impossible “greenhouse effect” and nonsensical “global temperature”. Because we have not seen a single example of disagreement on their side. I have not seen it anyway. The climate nonsense is very wide spread indeed, this is obvious.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Written by Malcolm Roberts: “the entirely natural climate variability we experience”[/quote]

    Malcolm, let me guess: you conclude on climate variability from the nonsensical “global temperature” graphs the so called “climate scientists” give you, right? Why exactly do you believe in “global temperature? CONSENSUS? Or did you personally investigate that thing?

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Excellent.
    This should be done everywhere in the world where “warmist” universities; governments and institutions are, likewise, making fraudulent claims about AGW.

Comments are closed