The Double Standards of Climate Alarmists is Staggering

Anyone who takes a keen interest in the goings on of climate scepticism ‘Down Under’ will have heard of John McLean. He’s distinguished himself as a very erudite and balanced contributor to the debate about global warming. But like a lot of us climate commentators he faces constant personal attack from alarmist advocates- many of whom betray their hatred of any form of rational dissent from their idealogical orthodoxy.

I have just received a copy of a response McLean made to a vitriolic attack on his character by someone you’d think would know better – Stephan Lewandowsky, a left-leaning professor of psychology.

 

I present McLean’s response here in full as I feel it gives a superb insight into the how the battle for truth and transparency is being fought:

 

 

 

John McLean’s Response to Lewandowsky

 

Rarely have I seen such vitriol directed at an individual as the 1521 words directed at me by Stephan Lewandowsky here on the The Drum (Monday 29, March), so naturally it deserves a response.

 

Lewandowsky whose expertise is in psychology seems to be continuing the Australian tradition of people in fields with no direct relationship to climate analysis speaking about climate change.  He joins biologists such as Tim Flannery, Barry Brook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.  I only mention these to level the playing field, because like me and trained professionals, they should know that a person’s area of expertise is immaterial in determining scientific truth.

 

Professor Lewandowsky went to considerable effort to investigate me and, while he pretends that it was only to show that science is not elitist, it’s very clear that he intended such detail as a slur.  Yes I do work in IT and yes, I have been an occasional travel photographer, with my images appearing in Lonely Planet’s books and probably over 30 sold to various LP clients.

 

He failed to reveal or perhaps discover that I am also a PhD candidate conducting thesis research on a climate topic.  I accepted an invitation from a university on the basis of my analyses of various climate-related issues such as the IPCC’s history, claims and processes (e.g. "Climate Science Corrupted", see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_corrupted.pdf).  At least one of my documents has been cited in the US senate and my review of various CSIRO climate reports, the only one in existence for some time, was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2006.

 

Unlike Lewandowsky, and the other people mentioned above, my area of expertise, Information Technology, is directly applicable to the analysis of climate data, and my background in logic is likewise useful.  The co-authors of the paper in question, individuals that Lewandowsky was curiously silent about, are a professor of Geography with an emphasis on climate matters (and a former editor of journal about climate) and a professor of Geology, whose research fields include paleoclimatology and who has many years of experience writing scientific papers.  Our skills complemented each other in the creation of our paper.

 

Professor Lewandowsky’s area of expertise appears to be in cognitive science, so I ponder why he has such a fundamental problem with our paper.  Was his failure to understand of his own doing or was he simply too rash in believing the claims of others who themselves failed to properly read and understand the paper, or perhaps understood its implications very well?

 

The essence of the claimed rebuttal of our paper was that we used a derivative technique to filter the data and that our conclusions were based on this filtered data. 

 

We did indeed use a derivative technique, in fact a modified Fourier transform, to establish that variations in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation system, occurred 7 months prior to corresponding changes in the average global temperature in the lower troposphere.  Our use of derivative data ended when the time lag was established. 

 

We subsequently applied that time lag to the original data and examined whether our hypothesis was supported by scientific evidence and previously published papers, which it clearly was.

 

Was that 7 month lag controversial?  Not at all.  Even the rebuttal of our paper said that one of its own authors had established a 6 month time lag in an earlier paper, and other published papers have estimated or referred to time lags varying between 1 and 7 months.

 

Our paper simply used a different technique to arrive at a similar time lag.  It also used lower tropospheric temperatures rather than global near-surface or Pacific sea surface temperatures, and used the SOI calculated according to the Troup system.  Other papers attempting similar analyses have used alternative methods, some ignoring the ad hoc cooling caused by volcanic eruptions and some attempting to estimate it and adjust the data accordingly, rather than simply exclude that period of data as we did.

 

A key aspect of our paper is Figure 7, particularly 7(b) and 7(c), in which we plot the time-shifted SOI with the lower tropospheric temperature and find a very reasonable match except when volcanic eruptions cause ad hoc cooling. If carbon dioxide caused significant warming the temperature graph line would be expected to rise away from the SOI graph line but graph shows no such thing, ergo we state that there is no detectable sign of any global warming driven by carbon dioxide.

 

Yes, Professor Lewandowsky, peer review has spoken, and what a sorry tale it tells about the duplicity of the authors and reviewers of the rebuttal, the reviewers of our response and the incompetence or worse of the journal editor.

 

Drawing on Climategate emails, our exchanges with the AGU editor and various documents on the Internet we found that:

 

In breach of AGU publishing regulations (see http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/policies/index.shtml)

– the authors of the rebuttal posted a formatted version of the document on the Internet prior to publication,

– the authors of the rebuttal nominated potential reviewers specifically because of their anticipated bias,

– several of the supposed authors of the rebuttal appeared to have played no part in its creation.

 

In breach of publishing ethics

– an author of the rebuttal discussed it with a president of AGU, prior to its acceptance for publishing,

– one nominated reviewer was in direct contact with the authors just after they had received referee’s comments about their first draft.

 

In breach of statements from the AGU about its principles and procedures

– a rebuttal was accepted despite it not addressing whether our hypothesis was supported by scientific evidence, which is only documented grounds for a rebuttal (see http://www.agu.org/about/presidents_msg/) ,

–  the editor rejected our response on the basis of three critical reviews that did not address the question of whether we responded evasively to the rebuttal, again the only documented criteria by which our defence should be assessed (see http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/policies/comments_replies.shtml).

 

I find it intriguing, Professor Lewandowsky, that you wish to endorse these actions of our detractors, our referees and the journal editor.

 

Was the rebuttal of our paper in accordance with the ethics of scientific publishing?  No.

Was the review of our response in accordance with the ethics of scientific publishing? No.

Did the journal editor act ethically? No.

 

Do you honestly regard this as "quality control", a term that you so readily flung about?

 

Professor, I am also troubled by your notion that the number of papers in support of a notion determines a scientific truth.  Science has been taken up false paths before by a consensus – think phlogiston or even stomach ulcers – and a consensus, real or only imagined, is no guarantee of truth. That counts doubly so when not one of the plethora of papers that have resulted from the massive funds poured into global warming research has yet managed to identify direct, irrefutable evidence of man-made warming. The output of the IPCC’s vaunted climate models is not evidence, and especially so given that  even the IPCC acknowledges that many climate forcings are poorly understood – which, of course, rules out their being  modelled accurately.

 

We knew of no high quality evidence that would undermine our claim or else we would not have written the paper, but now our critics’ actions are confirming our thinking.   First our detractors  resorted to specious criticism and underhand dealings to stifle publication of our defence of our paper, and now, Professor Lewandowsky, you resort to a personal attack.

 

It’s not just peer review that has spoken but also the Climategate emails and individuals who unknowingly or knowingly preach from very partisan positions.  Taken together these show the depth to which climate science has sunk.

 

 

A full public statement on this matter will be published this week by the Washington-based Science and Public Policy Institute (website http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/)

 

 

John McLean is an IT professional, an occasional travel photographer and PhD candidate with a strong interest in climate matters.

 

 

The Secret Climate Science Now Used As A Military Weapon

Once strictly within the realms of science fiction, growing evidence shows that mankind is deliberately manipulating the Earth’s climate with a sinister undertone. The debate about climate change, once confined to man’s inadvertent warming by fossil fuels, is now within the apocalyptic military dimension and the United States is at the forefront of this new technology.

The growing significance of climate control as a weapon was not lost on former U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Cohen who, in April 1997at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, foretold: "Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves…. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our [counter terrorism] efforts."

Such strategic ‘advancements’ by developed nations not only runs counter to the environmentalist agenda of politicians but may also discredit the notion that all climatologists are working to ‘save the planet.’ We shall see that the hard facts are that the science of deliberate climate modification for military advantage is consuming a multi-billion dollar budget providing mind-boggling results.

As early as 1966 Professor Gordon J. F. MacDonald, serving on the U.S. Presidential Science Advisory Committee and writing ‘How To Wreck The Environment,’ for his book ‘Unless Peace Comes,’ conceded that, "The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy. "

The 1996 publication, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” by the U.S. Dept. of Defense took this a step further and envisioned controlling the ionosphere to create ‘artificial weather.’ The only known technology today that provides MacDonald’s real-world ‘key’ to human-induced environmental instability to bring about ‘artificial weather’ is the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a cutting-edge science involving the artificial ionisation of the Earth’s atmosphere between 15,000 and 30,000 ft. and above.

The Sun’s radiation and ultraviolet rays have to cross the ionosphere to reach the earth thus if man can control the ionosphere then that potentially allows climate control. Thereafter, by manipulating the ionosphere and controlling solar-terrestrial interactions, it would be possible to create much larger effects. Ironically, because of the non – linear effects of climate, this means that a small input into the ionosphere may generate a large output.

Astrophysicist, Adam Trombly suggests an ’acupuncture model’ may be a viable manipulator via a multi-gigawatt pulsing of the ionosphere. While ‘Pravda’ have been quick to report on the sinister nature of this military climate changing technology that they say is, “conducted under the disguise of scientific research or the development of double-purpose technology."

World-renowned research scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell in her book, ‘Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War ‘(2000), confirms the disturbing likely impacts of this new age of climate control: "US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods."

All this has been taking place despite the United States being a signatory of the 1977 UN General Assembly resolution prohibiting the hostile use of environmental modification techniques. The resulting “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique (ENMOD)” committed the U.S. and all other signatories to refrain from any military or other hostile use of weather-modification that could result in widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects.

Dr.Bertell goes on to describe the HAARP as: "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." (Briarpatch, January 2000).

Ironically, the great significance of the ionosphere in climate is beginning to dawn on the climate science community at a time when the greenhouse gas theory is being disputed because, despite ever-increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the past 15 years has seen no ‘statistically significant’ global warming. A more favourable view is now being taken that it is sunspots and the natural electromagnetic radiation reaching the earth via the ionosphere that influences the Earth’s climate more than CO2.

With inevitable consequences on public policy considerations, Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa, warns of the danger of the Anglo-American partnership that controls the HAARP – a partnership between Raytheon Corporation (holding the patents), the US Air Force and British Aerospace Systems (BAES). Chossudovsky points out that: “‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”

Chossudovsky is correct insofar as despite the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) having a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change’ including environmental warfare, neither atmospheric ionisation manipulation nor HAARP is addressed in any of the thousands of pages of IPCC reports or supporting documents.

Business Wire (10 June 2004) describes the extraordinary device as being, “composed of 48 antenna elements and has a power capacity of 960,000 watts. When installed, the additional 132 transmitters will give HAARP a 3.6 mega-watt capacity”

It may turn out to be no coincidence that virtually all climate research is government funded. While on the world’s political stage the mainstream media are reporting on governments trying to reach agreement on limiting greenhouse gas emissions to ‘save the planet,’ climatologists may also be working illegally with military experts to perfect climate modifying weapons. But one thing we can be sure of is that a veil of secrecy has been cast over the whole venture as evidenced by the recent ‘Climategate’ scandal.

 

The Bubble of Climate Change Groupthink Burst By a Cooling World

Recently, I’ve taken to reading ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,’ a highly-regarded history of popular folly by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841. His work can teach us a timely lesson in the current global warming controversy.

 

MacKay warns us of the pitfalls of group think using many notable historical examples when people,

 

 “fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”

 

The wise Scot goes on to cite many notable examples but one case struck me as I remembered it from my school days from the not so merry England of the 18^th century. A total of 462 members of the House of Commons and 112 Peers signed up to the South Sea Company that persuaded vast swathes of the general public to also get sucked into one of the greatest financial scandals in history, the ‘South Sea Bubble.’

Even King George I and two of his mistresses, the Countess of Darlington and the Duchess of Kendal, got taken in and lost a fortune while countless citizens went bankrupt in the ill-founded venture. Thus we see how the ‘great and the good’ can unwittingly lead us all into disaster.

 

Now welcome to the transmografied world of our modern ‘bubble’ where the ‘great and the good’ have again apparently been undone by a groupthink calamity over climate change in which our perceptions have starkly changed almost overnight. From being fearful of so called man made warming it seems the real danger is from cooling. It turns out that since January 2007, the world has cooled so rapidly that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared!

 

The cold facts are confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979. Thus the argument that carbon dioxide emitted by western society that was thought to warm the atmosphere is doing no such thing. See larger image

here.

 Today’s bubble burst when the Climategate revelations exposed a government-funded clique of scientists as utter polemicists, sophists and necromancers. Leaked emails  from this scandal show scientists puzzled by highly-compelling temperature data proving the world is more likely to now be cooling rather than warming contrary to scientific expectations. Rather than make this finding public it was hushed up – until now. We are thus confronted by confusion in a backdrop of the worst economic recession for 60 years and wher tax a weary public have grown thoroughly sick of being nagged by nanny governments to cut our carbon footprint.

 

The facts expose the pointlessness of expending any more hot air over what an increasing number of commentators are calling a non-problem since Britain’s most eminent government climate scientist, Professor Phil Jones admitted the planet has seen no statistically significant warming for over 15 years! Just as in the days of King George I, we see the hubris of ‘experts’ and politicians leaving behind them a profligate money trail exposing their gullibility to the dangers and the myth of consensus- it was all just a climate chimera.

 

Independent analysis of real world data are now urging us to re-think once more the threat of cooling as we are in the midst of a cooling period to match the one we saw from 1940-75, as reported in Readers’ Digest (March 1977) ‘

What’s Happening To Our Climate?’ The there was the Newsweek article of April 28 1975 that warned us of ‘The Cooling World.’

 

 

But far more weight should be given to the CIA report that proved government concern over global cooling in the 1970’s and the impact on world politics. Amongst the host of references is Hubert Lamb – the first Director of CRU- Lamb writes in his many books of the climatic downturns which started sometime aroud 1960. So this brings us back neatly to the words of Charles Mackay and the example of the ‘South Sea Bubble’ scandal that taught us:

 

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

 

Let there be no doubt, the next new paradigm may well be that the warming blip from 1975-195 that global warmists get so hot about may be seen to be an anamoly in the global cooling that can be said to have affected the planet since the

Medieval Warm Period ended in the 1300’s. This is a most credible hypothesis being that we are due to return to an ice age anyway.

 

But the biggest paradigm shift now taking place is the abandonment of the hypothesis that CO2 was a significant driver of planetary warming. The facts prove that  the Earth’s temperature record shows global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979 and this coupled with recent sharp cooling proves that overall, there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus the correlation between temperature rises and CO2 is bust so that the recent warming trend was probably entirely natural. Therefore, the CO2 bubble has now popped!

 

 

 

 

 

 

So You Want to Be a Journalist in South Wales?

Well, as some of you may know, the demise of Climategate.com has come as an unexpected blow. Like a lot of middle-aged men I’m back foraging in the employment cattle market itching to get myself out of this enforced hiatus.

Here in South Wales, where I have lived since last summer with my new love, jobs in journalism are few and far between. But I shall give it a good crack, as they say. Here’s a copy of my latest submission:

 

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Re: Feature Writer Post

 

Having seen your vacancy advertised online at ‘HoldtheFrontPage’ I would be most grateful if you would consider me as a genuine candidate for the position of Feature Writer.

 

I have lately enjoyed international success as an Internet journalist and I am most keen to broaden my experience and take my career to the next level here in Wales. Although I have arrived late to journalism, after 20 years of pursuing the mundane life of a classroom teacher and college lecturer, I have already shown my mettle working to the highest standards and to precise deadlines.

 

Just to illustrate the very wide scope of my work may I urge that you peruse Google by inputting the search term, ‘John O’Sullivan climate’ and you will find me extensively among over 270,000 web page impressions (0.23 seconds).

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&rlz=1R2PCTC_enGB370&q=john+o%27sullivan+climate&start=10&sa=N&fp=48647af4c0cc1709

My articles may be found all over the world in diverse national publications from Britain’s ‘The Sun’

http://www.mysun.co.uk/go/thread/view/88618/22511061/DEVASTATING_REPORT:_The_Institute_of_Physics_condemns_junk_climate_science

through to the ‘India Times’

http://oneclick.indiatimes.com/article/0gzA6cU3LZ3nv

as well as the vast readership of  ‘China Daily,’ where in the following article I displayed thoroughness and diligence in summarising a highly technical ground-breaking scientific paper:

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=656743

 

You will also find me in America’s world famous ‘National Review’

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjNGQ1Mzk2OWM0NWRkZjBmYWU5MWYxNjc2ZTNmNjQ

 

Despite having no formal training in journalism, I have been successful through hard work and determination in making the most of my talents. I also possess considerable life experience so that I hope you may see me as your ideal choice for a “ first class feature writer brimming with ideas and enthusiasm with the ability to deliver eye-catching copy to deadline in a broad range of styles.”

 

Since settling in South Wales last Summer I have sought a post in the established mainstream media where I aim to secure a foothold for myself in my newly chosen career. Having perused walesonline.co.uk, many times to get a better feel for what others are contributing, I firmly believe there exists a niche for me to bring something unique.

 

When the ‘Climategate’ scandal first broke I threw myself into proving my potential and I grew to be recognised as an adept commentator. I have been fortunate to form productive associations, not just with eminent international scientists, but also among respected figures such as the BBC’s senior environment correspondent, Roger Harrabin. I proudly claim to have also collaborated with the Daily Telegraph’s James Delingpole on bringing several scoops to the mainstream media.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021135/climategate-michael-manns-very-unhappy-new-year/

 

In addition, I have further influential contacts that have assisted me in corresponding with, as well as getting important stories, from Climate Minister, Joan Ruddock as well as the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). With the support of scientists within the climate sceptic community I took up a liaison role with the BBC’s Roger Harrabin’s to better inform the questions for the groundbreaking scoop of the Professor Phil Jones interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

 

In the few months since the rumpus of the climate scandal I have gone on to be credited for coining the terms ‘Inquirygate,’ ‘Czechgate’ and ‘Australiagate’ that have become part of common usage.

 

But I must emphasise I have no scientific background, just a keen eye for the facts and a nose for a good story. I am able to write in a broad range of literary styles and have penned two novels including ‘Summit Shock’ based on a true story of a New York female prison officer’s epic 13-year court room battle to prove her employer covered up sex crimes against her.

http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/

 

My short stories have also appeared in American publications such as ‘The Jimston Journal’, ‘Invisible Ink,’ ‘The Secret Attic,’ and ‘The Zip Book.’ Sadly, for reasons unconnected with my own journalistic achievements, my days as a climate correspondent with ‘climategate.com’ were cut short when the financial backer withdrew from the venture.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/12/climategate-com-shuts-down/

 

However, I see a fresh opportunity to use my recent achievements as a springboard to broaden my output. I would relish the chance to opine eruditely on more diverse issues befitting my Celtic artistic and cultural background, to concern myself with local and national political and social issues as well as the unexpected cornucopia of life’s quirkiest conundrums.

 

Further examples of my work may be found online at the following links:

 

‘World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud’

http://info-wars.org/2010/02/23/world%E2%80%99s-biggest-coal-company-brings-u-s-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud/

 

‘Czechgate’  (367,000 Google hits for Czechgate: 0.47 seconds):

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=czechgate&meta=&rlz=1R2PCTC_enGB370&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=48647af4c0cc1709

 

My Czechgate revelations inspired leading Czech physicist, Luboš Motl, to re-investigate my findings and thereupon my story was confirmed as a major scoop:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-czechgate-pragues-klementinum.html

 

I followed on that success with my article on ‘Australiagate’ (14,300 Google hits for australiagate: 0.34 seconds) 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&rlz=1R2PCTC_enGB370&q=australiagate&meta=&aq=&aqi=g-s1g-sx2g-c1&aql=&oq=australiagate&fp=48647af4c0cc1709

 

As well as my article examining the international dimension on prosecuting climate data fraud:

http://algorelied.com/?p=3768

 

I trust you will wish to meet with me so we can further discuss how I may be a fitting addition to your staff and demonstrate above all, how my versatility of style will meet your key requirement as Feature Writer. Please find attached an up to date C.V. for your use.

 

Yours truly,

 

John O’Sullivan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change Consensus: Exposing the Great ‘Catastrophe’ Myth

In this article we will prove there is no consensus among climate scientists about man made global warming. Also, we shall see that it is the highly politicised UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is the root source of the spurious claims of impending climate ‘catastrophe.’

 

The IPCC uses the word ‘catastrophe’ more than 300 times in its 2007 Fourth Report before concluding that we have roughly a 50/50 chance of avoding catastrophic runaway climate change. But only if we substantially reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to prevent global temperatures rising by 2˚C.

 

However, since the Climategate scandal first leaked into the blogosphere in November 2009 we have found, almost on a weekly basis, revelations to support the case that man made global warming alarmism (AGW) is just that: alarmist.

Reeling from the embarrassment of debunked lies over melting glaciers, African crop failures, melting polar ice caps and with no ‘statistically significant’ global warming for 15 years, climate catastrophe fear spreaders have now taken a bunker mentality clinging to their mantra that there still is some ‘consensus’ of scientific opinion backing their nightmare message. Perhaps the most repeated fallacies are:

 

(1.)  ‘most climate scientists’ agree that mankind is ‘catastrophically’ impacting the climate and;

(2.)   that ‘no international body of scientists disagrees with this opinion.’

 

In online debates I routinely challenge alarmist proponents to show me proof of these claims. On the issue of (1.) regarding that ‘scientific majority’ for AGW, I am often referred to two surveys as ‘proof.’ The first is by Oreskes [2004] and the second by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. 

 

Oreskes reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and determined that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. Thus the alarmist ‘majority’ claim was born. Very interesting, you may think. But let’s dig a little deeper with the able assistance of Dr. Benny Peiser, a world-renowned expert on ‘neo-catastrophism.’

 After a thorough analysis of the study by Oreskes it turns out these claims are nothing other than a fraud. Dr. Peiser uncovered from the 928 abstracts that,

 

 “just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming.”

 

But what is even more shocking is that digging deeper using the respected ISI Web of Science database inputting the keywords "climate change" there were over 12,000 relevant science papers that Oreskes totally ignored.

 Apart from Peiser’s [2005] debunking of Oreskes, another eminent climate researcher [Pielke 2005] also was prompt to expose Oreskes for cynically twisting the full diversity of scientific opinion.

 Thus we can fairly conclude that the Oreskes paper is a cherry-picking exercise to enhance climate alarmist propaganda. Nonetheless, the warming lobby fought back and eventually came up with Kendall Zimmerman [2008] that sought to vindicate Oreskes by surveying 10,257 American Earth scientists using a database built from Keane and Martinez [2007].

 

 But, interestingly, only 30.7% of scientists replied to Kendall Zimmerman and in their findings the study was forced to concede that only ‘5%’ of the 30% were actually ‘climate scientists.’ Ultimately, Kendall Zimmerman found a mere 75 pro-warmist climate scientists – yes, you read that right – 75 climate scientists from the 10,000 first approached gave support to the man made global warming thesis.

 Pertinently, a question that now struck me as relevant is how many climate scientists actually are there?

 

On this particular issue, for the sake of time, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmists. If we look to that popular but flawed online resource, Wikipedia, they manage to scrape together the names only 61. Surely that can’t be right. But then, nothing much written about climate is ever reliable on Wikipedia.

 But if we turn to an esteemed alarmist blog, ‘Rabett Run’ that tells us:

 

“the answer in the US is 13,746. However, there is no international register of climatologists so it’s very hard to provide a specific number… but if we look at foreign members we get a total of 19,340”

  

 So, according to numbers put together by AGW advocates, the best face the doomsaying fraternity can put on this is the explicit support of a mere 75 climate scientists from almost 20,000 worldwide. I have to say, as a non-scientist, that this strikes me as the most damning statistic I have found in all the recent revelations about climate change fraud.

 

 But then it’s worth turning the spotlight on exactly what this so called ‘elite’ of alarmist climatologists actually tell us about the specific risks of climate change. For simplicity, we shall take the pronouncements of the IPCC as our starting point.

 

 In the IPCC’s 2007 Report the word ‘catastrophe’ or its conjugated derivatives appears no less than 338 times. Yet that apocalyptic word is conspicuous by its absence from the studies of Oreskes and Kendall Zimmerman. One can only wonder how miniscule would have been the response from the climate science community if the issue were about whether mankind’s impact on climate was potentially ‘catastrophic’ rather than merely ‘significant.’

 

Anyone adept in legal turns of phrase understands all too well that ‘significant’ is an amorphous and overly broad descriptor, a term knocked into a climate cocked hat when stood toe to toe with a full-blown ‘catastrophic’ calamity, a term so beloved by the IPCC. In fact, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary tells us just how powerful the word ‘catastrophe’ really is:

 

 “a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin: a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth.”

 

Thus we have established there exists no proof of consensus among scientists of even ‘significant’ human climate impact let alone that ‘catastrophic’ kind. So let’s now turn our attentions to point (2.) that ‘no international body of scientists disagrees with this opinion,’ although the statement now wields the rhetorical impact of a deflating balloon.

 

 Here is where we begin to uncover the true extent of international politicisation of science. Again, let’s be consistent and again turn briefly to that organ of climate doom mongering, Wikipedia. Wikipedia can muster only 32 national science academies that have made a public statement on this matter. Stand this number alongside the fact there are currently 192 United Nations (UN) member states, each of which is a member of the United Nations General Assembly then we see that 159 nations, a vast majority, presumably don’t even rate the UN’s global warming issue serious enough to formally express a view.

 
But we are here now so let’s take a look at how powerful and compelling are those statements from the most earnest of climate doomsaying international academies. The European Academy of Sciences and Arts (EASA) says humans are “likely” to have some responsibility for climate change. No mention that of any impending catastrophic kind of warming. The Royal Society of New Zealand simply acknowledges mankind is impacting the climate and it may “become more costly” to adapt to change.

 

Meanwhile, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (ICAET) assert that global warming since the mid-20th century is “very likely” due to humans. While the Network of African Science Academies goes so far as to blame humans as the “main source” of climate change. Then there’s the American Association for the Advancement of Science, they tells us that global climate change caused by human activities is “occurring.”

 

 Not once do these 32 international academies endorse the IPCC’s use of the word ‘catastrophe’ in any of the descriptions of the likely future outcomes. But if you want to gauge how pervasive the unsubstantiated climate catastrophe claims have become look for it on Google.

 

I surfed and got 1,430,000 results for ‘catastrophic climate change’ (0.34 seconds). So scare mongering is clearly alive and well outside the science laboratories of climatologists. Perhaps there are many other interested parties beyond that small clique in the scientific community looking to board the climate gravy train?

 

But more worrying to me and to many taxpayers is that we are seeing that Anglophone world leaders remain unrelenting but are ever more shrill in their please to voters to hand them a mandate for ever more swinging and harsh green taxation policies. The trusty British scientific establishment have circled the wagons to help in this endeavour. Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre leads the fight back trumpeting the warning of computer climate models that ‘catastrophe’ faces us in a mere 50 years.

 Betts, like others on that sinking ship, clutch at a handful of scientific papers that have been the core of the alarmist movement. For the past decade junk scientists have been regularly citing the same 13 “core” or “foundation” research papers, from this specialised area of research defined by its co-citation cluster analysis. Yes, again it’s astonishing to note how small the sample numbers really are when you put climate science under the microscope. As proven by Thomson Reuters from its Essential Science Indicators (Research Fronts 2004-09), there are merely a hub of 13 papers that are thereafter cited by a further 534 important climate research papers – that’s the bedrock of this whole scam.

 

So what we are uncovering is again very much the same of what we found when debunking Oreskes [2004] and Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. We now have signposted for us a route map to unpick the credibility of the whole rambunctious climate circus.

 Ironically, it’s all thanks to the concerted endeavourers of a few Internet bloggers. What we are witnessing is a shrewd but tenuous worldwide thread of amateur climate sceptics usurping a far more egregious and monumentally funded professional minority in the greatest scientific debate of modern times. The true ‘catastrophe’ is that how could such a great green juggernaut of international economic policy advocates wielding a research budget estimated to exceed $50 billion be derailed by a bunch of retirees operating on a shoestring budget. Thus is the power of the Internet – it has finally come of age. The blogosphere has at last taken over the mantle of probing investigative journalism that was once the domain of the world’s mainstream media, an irascible crowd exposed as being very much in bed with the disparate interests of the green lobby.

 

 The truth is now out there and although the total demise of the IPCC is yet to be happen, its chief snake oil peddlers are tottering badly. As I write, the American press, like the three ‘wise’ monkeys, is being roundly ridiculed for pretending to see, hear or speak no evil on the matter.

So far impatient sceptics have witnessed few climate conspirators falling on their swords, with the biggest to date being Yvo De Boer, the UN’s climate chief. But more will soon follow as sustaining this outrageous international Ponzi scheme becomes ever more absurd in the face of mounting lawsuits. As the unstoppable collapse continues many more heads are sure to roll, many more casualties in the unpredicted ‘catastrophe’ of the earthquake that shook the climate house of cards.

 

 

Goodbye Climategate.com?

Dear Friends,

 The situation with Climategate.com is that the owner reluctantly took a tough business decision to pull the plug due to the ever-increasing costs associated with its growth. I know it’s ironic, but success was killing us – the site generated no income yet week-by-week our commitment to running it was spiralling out of control with greater server and maintenance costs and mushrooming time commitments.

 We are deeply disappointed by this outcome but in truth, we were burning ourselves out, neglecting our families and getting no financial remuneration, which is unsustainable in today’s harsh economy.

 As you probably know, everyone working on climategate.com did so voluntarily and at the outset we anticipated perhaps contributing a few hours a day. However, soon we found ourselves spending 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week feeding the demand. We also hit a ‘wall’ when the owner, out of principle, respected the readerships’ wishes to stop all the ‘pro-green’ advertising we got and that strangled what little income that was coming in so he was increasingly out of pocket. We had tried getting donations from readers but that didn’t fly at all.

 Nonetheless, we are not quitting. I’m carrying on writing and looking for alternative outlets for my articles. The site owner is seeking a buyer for the domain name which he values at $50k-$100k. All we can do is ask concerned skeptic friends to pitch in and help spread the word to locate an investor willing to get the site back up and running. I personally believe Climategate.com could be HUGE – but it requires a serious backer to take it to the next level.

 I hope this explains the craziness of it. But success always seems to come at price.

 Kind regards,

 John