Category Archives: Climate Unfrocked

Bullsh-t Detector at Work

Climate Doom Turns on the Waterworks

If your airline gives you a seat next to ANU climate guru Dr Joelle Gergis, I’d advise you to do a shift, even down to that awful row by the toilet. That’s because Dr Gergis is prone on flights to unexpected weepings over global warming.

She’s done a piece this week in leftist bible The Monthly. It’s titled, “The terrible truth of climate change”, in which she  wails,

The very foundation of human civilization is at stake. Increasingly after my speaking events, I catch myself unexpectedly weeping in my hotel room or on flights home. Every now and then, the reality of what the science is saying manages to thaw the emotionally frozen part of myself I need to maintain to do my job. In those moments, what surfaces is pure grief … But these days my grief is rapidly being superseded by rage. Volcanically explosive rage. Because in the very same IPCC report that outlines the details of the impending apocalypse, the climate science community clearly stated that limiting warming to 1.5°C is geophysically possible…

We still have time to try and avert the scale of the disaster, but we must respond as we would in an emergency. The question is, can we muster the best of our humanity in time?

To spell out that necessary response, flip to her Sunburnt Country polemic of 2018. In that book she urges the world to embrace “an emergency response, as it did during World War II. During that conflict, countries dedicated more than a third of their economies to the war effort and innovation flourished.” It’s unclear if she’s including the Berlin-based crowd but, anyway, check out flourishing innovations like Germany’s V2’s and the Hiroshima bomb. (For those interested, Ms Gergis can be heard ringing the climate alarm bell in for 42 hyperbolic minutes at the foot of this article.)

Gergis’s outburst is the latest in a long tradition of emoting by the climate gurus. Their hand-written accounts of their passions have even been collated to ramp up the fearful narrative. Here’s ARC Future Fellow, Associate Professor Katrin Meissner, in 2014:

It makes me feel sick. Looking at my children and realising that they won’t have the same quality of life we had. It scares me more than anything else. I see a group of people sitting in a boat, happily waving, taking pictures on the way, not knowing that this boat is floating right into a powerful and deadly waterfall.

Gergis, a vegan, cyclist, and one-time girl-band drummer, is among a dozen Australian climateers who are lead authors for the 2021 Sixth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They’re supposed to make coolly objective judgments about recent papers on global warming. There were around 5oo peer reviewed papers last year disputing the narrative of catastrophism. I hope Gergis & Co. will give them a fair IPCC hearing.

Gergis was a keynote speaker at an Australian climate conference  in Darwin in June. Her brief was to “summarise the post-election political and scientific reality we now face.” (Pesky creatures, those voters). “In short,” she told The Monthly, “I am in the confronting position of being one of the few Australians who sees the terrifying reality of the climate crisis. Preparing for this talk I experienced something gut-wrenching. It was the realisation that there is now nowhere to hide from the terrible truth.”

The “terrible truth”, actually, is that the global warming trend from January 2000 to April 2019 was equivalent to a mere  1.56 degC per century, or 1.32 degC per century after excluding the natural el Nino of 2015-16.[1] The rocketing CO2 emissions this century have had minimal effect. Odd, that.

Instead, Gergis backs the kiddie climate strikers:

There is a very rational reason why Australian schoolkids are now taking to the streets – the immensity of what is at stake is truly staggering. Staying silent about this planetary emergency no longer feels like an option for me either.

Gergis discusses the all-important number involving climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. Ever since about 1980 the “climate community” has been unable to narrow the likely range from a (harmless/beneficial) warming of 1.5degC to a (catastrophic) warming of 4.5degC.  Given the research population and funding allocated to this task for the past 40 years, the climateers inability to narrow the range constitutes an epochal failure.

Gergis now claims a new generation of climate models is putting  the range at 2.8degC to 5.8degC.  “Incredibly, at least eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity of 5°C or warmer,” she says. “When these results were first released at a climate modeling workshop in March this year, a flurry of panicked emails from my IPCC colleagues flooded my inbox. What if the models are right? Has the Earth already crossed some kind of tipping point? Are we experiencing abrupt climate change right now?

“The model runs aren’t all available yet, but when many of the most advanced models in the world are independently reproducing the same disturbing results, it’s hard not to worry.”

In reality, of course, outputs of unvalidated models are just computer games. As Gergis herself says, “What if the models are right?” The fifth IPCC report noted dolefully that 111 of 114 models run hotter than the real world.[2] The UAH satellite-based global temperature measurements (lower troposphere) also show how the models’ warming forecasts have overshot reality — and how the gap between forecasts and reality is widening with every year.[3]

Gergis would also benefit from perusing the Judith Curry and Nick Lewis climate-sensitivity paper a year ago and published in the mainstream Journal  of Climate. This paper used empirical work, rather than modeling, and found a median climate sensitivity of 1.5-1.7 degC. That is half the average IPCC figure and only just above the IPCC’s lowest bound. But from reading the models’ entrails, Gergis wants the Paris (voluntary) pledges for global emission cuts to be trebled or increased five-fold, claiming

Even with the 1°C of warming we’ve already experienced, 50 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef is dead. We are witnessing catastrophic ecosystem collapse of the largest living organism on the planet. As I share this horrifying information with audiences around the country, I often pause to allow people to try and really take that information in.

I went to her Sunburnt Country book to see where she gets this “half the Reef is dead” stuff. The book says (without any footnote),

As of September 2017, surveys of the damage suggested [my emphasis] that 30 per cent of the shallow water corals died following bleaching in 2016, followed by a further 19 per cent die-off in 2017. That is, half of the coral of the Great Barrier Reef is now dead.

If you look up the 2018-19 annual report of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. It says starfish, cyclones and bleaching over the past five years  “have caused declines in hard coral cover to moderate (10-30%) levels across much of the Great Barrier Reef.” It emphasises “the dynamic nature of GBR coral reefs, and the considerable variation among regions in the rates of decline and recovery of hard coral cover in response to disturbances.” I don’t see Gergis’s “half-dead” meme there.

On the principle of never letting a good crisis go to waste, Gergis at the Darwin conference spelt out the costs of Cyclone Tracy of Christmas 1974.[4]  “As I collated this information, it became clear to me that Cyclone Tracy is a warning. Without major action, we will see tropical cyclones drifting into areas on the southern edge of current cyclone zones, into places such as south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales, where infrastructure is not ready to cope with cyclonic conditions. These areas currently house more than 3.6 million people; we simply aren’t prepared for what is upon us.”

This surprised me, as the last year’s special IPCC report included

# “Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy”

# “… there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”

# “There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones.”

Gergis inserts into her climate call to arms a sad personal story about  a CT scan of her father’s serious brain haemorrhage: “ The brutality of the evidence was clear – the full weight of it sent my stomach into freefall. The results coming out of the climate science community at the moment are, even for experts, similarly alarming.”

I sympathise with her family but to compare the confidence involved in a CT scan with  predictions about global warming is nonsense.

The IPCC furth report (2007) admitted the level of scientific understanding of the following climate factors was “low” due to the complications posed by stratospheric water vapour, direct aerosols (medium/low), cloud albedo effects, aerosols, surface albedo from land use (medium/low), snow albedo, persistent aviation contrails, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols. Scientific understanding of tropospheric water vapor from irrigation was rated very low. So was stratospheric water vapor from non-CH causes (very low), aviation induced cirrus (very low), cosmic rays (very low) and other surface effects (very low).

Gergis’s use of the brain scan an analogy is also in poor taste. Climate propagandist Al Gore, to illustrate, introduced personal tragedies into his rhetoric for political ends –  a near-fatal 1989 traffic accident involving his young son, and also the 1984 death of his sister, a heavy smoker, from  lung cancer. Gore failed to mention his own family’s tobacco crops and that he kept taking campaign money from tobacco interests for six years after his sister died.

I’ll just skim over  Gergis’s setback of 2012 when sceptic bloggers found an error in her vaunted “southern hockey stick” paper that forced its withdrawal. Gergis, to knock her paper back into shape, had to put it through nine rounds of revision, 21 individual reviews, and two editors. As Canadian statistician Stephen McIntyre wrote, the exercise took longer than the American involvement in World War II. According to McIntyre, the 2016 revision involved little that was new plus some statistical approaches he considers highly objectionable.

Still, Gergis is the rising star of antipodean climate catastrophism.  All the best with that, Joelle.

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and on-line here

[1] HADCRUT4 monthly data series

[2]  “… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations [computer models]   reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a [temperature] trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend [actual temperatures] ensemble. This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.”   [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[3]  Spencer, Roy, Global Warming Scepticism for Busy People. 2018. Kindle 319/1855

[4] Queensland’s Cyclone Debbie two years ago has also been grist to her “global warming” mill

  • Doubting Thomas

    After the job Steve McIntyre did on her 2012 Gergis eg al paper, it’s surprising that she and Al continue to rabbit on as if nothing had happened. One would normally have expected them to have huddled deep in a cave in tight foetal positions never to face the real world ever again. So much for the ethics of climate “science”.

  • Greg Williams

    As for Greta Thunberg’s latest attempt to rally the school kids to arms, it was an abject failure. The only people who turned up were the organisers. Wondering why?? Well, cunning Greta organised the rally in school holidays, rather than on a school day. I guess most of the school kids who would have gone had it been a school day, were off on some jet plane heading to the Bahamas!

  • ianl

    The episode of the Gergis et al 2012 paper was genuinely disgraceful, but as DT points out, the disgrace was as water off the proverbial duck’s back to the CAGW activists. It made no difference whatsoever, because the people involved knew that the MSM would protect their credibility by refusing to report the episode. Peer criticism was severely muted by the now familiar tactic of threatening livelihoods with menace.

  • en passant

    Let me just ‘bullet point’ some comments;
    1. Gergis reminds me of one of my first consulting jobs. I found a proposed business plan to extract investors money to be pure fantasy – ans said so in a cold analysis. At the meeting of about 20-people the ‘entrepreneur never missed a beat, agreed with me that his figures were wrong and promised a 30% increase in returns. He raised $1M from the naively greedy. I later got a consultancy to save the company from itself – and was cursed by everyone for only recovering 35% of their investment.
    2. think her comments are close to those of the manifesto of a recently active eco-fascist in the USA …
    3. She spoke in Darwin? She cycled there, of course? Goes without saying, dunnit?
    4. What is her proof that even a 5C increase in average global temperature would be detrimental? As I have not worn a shirt for the past 4-days, I find 33C and monsoon rains very pleasant, while the Earth’s average is a paltry 14.9C. Bring on higher temperatures (before I return to Melbourne on an aeroplane).
    5. I presume she is not going to contribute to the future problems by breeding? Having children would be the ultimate hypocrisy.
    Finally, I must strongly disagree with you about sitting next to her on a plane. I would seek her out for a debate. One of us would most likely leave the plane in a straitjacket.

  • 8272

    I answer some of the key questions about climate change (AKA global warming) in my recent video:
    For example, I point out, inter alia:
    1) Carbon dioxide is essential to all life on the planet. CO2 is a plant food and without it there would be no life on earth. And, CO2, together with the other greenhouse gases, raises the average temperature of the planet by around 15 degrees Celsius. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be uninhabitable as it would be covered in an ice sheet.
    2) Studies by the CSIRO and NASA show that mean sea level rises from 1992 to 2017 average just 3.1 mm per year.
    3) Glaciers have been melting since the last ice age and there is little evidence that the rate of melting is increasing. I give the example of explorer George Vancouver who in 1794 arrived at Glacier Bay in Alaska to find it blocked by a 4,000 feet thick iceberg. In 1879 naturalist John Muir found the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay. By 1916 the glacier was 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth. All of which occurred before any significant amount of man-made CO3 entered the atmosphere.
    4) By application of the scientific method, man-made global warming is shown to be just an untested hypothesis.

  • Bill Martin

    Climate alarmism is a fanatical, unquestioning belief in the creed of CAGW, not unlike woodoo or the cargo cult. True believers of the dogma are suffering from a serious metal disorder and while their endeavours to mitigate the looming catastrophe are to be opposed unequivocally, they ought not be regarded as bad, evil people, especially since they are the duped victims of the greedy, completely immoral perpetrators of the mith who are richly rewarded beneficiaries of it. Most claim to be “climate scientists” others present as champions of human wellbeing. These latter are the most despicable of all.

  • Alice Thermopolis

    You would be in or close to tears if your career/pay depended on selling the accuracy of your climate model.
    A decade ago, a group of them got together and published an interesting paper: “Challenges in Combining Projections from Multiple climate Models.” (Knutti, Reno, et al., 2010, American Meteorological Society, DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1)

    From the Abstract: “..”there is little agreement on the metrics to separate “good” and “bad” models, and there is concern that model development, evaluation and posterior weighting or ranking are all using the same [flawed] datasets. While the multi-model average appears [not a proof] to still be useful in some situations, these results show that more quantitative methods to evaluate model performance are critical to maximize the value of climate change projections from global models.” Well, we are still waiting…..

    “An implicit assumption exists that multiple models provide additional and more reliable information than a single model and higher confidence is placed on results…”, although in principle all models could suffer from similar deficiencies” (eg: assumed forcings, etc.) (page 2740)

    What other field would get away with claiming that, because we can’t distinguish “good” from “bad” models, let’s just mix them all up, take an “average”, hope like hell the errors cancel each other out, and tell the public it’s a good approximation of the truth about the Earth’s future climate?

  • Davidovich

    I like the bit where Gergis is reported as saying “But these days my grief is rapidly being superseded by rage. Volcanically explosive rage.”. She could inadvertently be correctly identifying just what is the major driver of global warming and various weather events, viz. volcanic eruptions. Geologist James E. Kamis has a very interesting video presentation of the myriad volcanic eruptions, mainly undersea, along various tectonic plate fault lines which help to explain arctic and antarctic ice changes as well as the significant role the Pacific Ocean plays in earth’s climate (www.plateclimatology).

  • Davidovich

    Sorry, the reference should read

An Extremely Silly Girl’s Cunning Plan

Small children are prone  to say things that are very true but best not voiced in polite company. There’s been a similar embarrassment described in the Washington Post last week. It involves the chief of staff to one of the so-called fresh faces of the Democrat Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, known for headline writers’ convenience as “AOC”. The 29-year-old New York bartender last year became the youngest-ever US congresswoman and maybe also the most socialist.

The progressive media has built her up in half a year to household-name status. She was on the cover of Time as “The Phenom” and twinned in a Vanity Fair cover story in June with veteran Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. Vanity Fair saw AOC as a “beacon of hope” and “youthful, charismatic and uncompromising”.

She continues in the spotlight with the “Justice Democrats Squad” of four black/brown congresswomen claiming last week to be victims of Trump’s racist rhetoric. Actually the Squad itself in recent weeks had been hurling racist insults at less-left Democrat colleagues, even including whistle-clean Nancy Pelosi.

AOC espouses a Green New Deal involving a hundred-trillion dollar mobilization of the US nation to go fully green by 2030. Her ten-year emissions makeover outclasses any two of Stalin’s five-year-plans. Adding to the Soviet ambience, AOC says her Deal would be implemented by groups including “worker cooperatives”. You might think, “Why waste time and ink on this?” Why, because left Democrats and the US media are mainstreaming her.  Five Democrat presidential candidates sponsored her Deal (including Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) and AOC claims a total of nine candidates back it.

AOC’s office is chaotic and run by chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, 33, who seems even more radical than AOC. When he helped organise her election last year, he posed in a T-shirt featuring Indian war-time nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose. That gent raised a legion for Hitler’s SS and recruited troops to assist Japan’s invasion of India. AOC’s radiance in the US media  has lit up Chakrabarti by reflection. Thus he got a 3000-word reverential profile by Washington Post senior reporter David Montgomery last week. After 200 words, in what other journos would scorn as “burying the lead”, the scribe reports an exchange between Chakrabarti and Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington State’s Governor Jay Inslee (Dem), who is running for president almost exclusively on a platform of combating global warming:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally” a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Chakrabarti  is not some insignificant kook. The media  says he “is emerging as a political celebrity in his own right.” It turned out that Chakrabarti himself had been tweeting racist accusations at Democrats, including a gay native-American congresswoman (that’s a trifecta). Chicago’s Democrat ex-Mayor Rahm Emanuel called Chakrabarti a “snot-nosed punk”. Black Democrat congress members demand that AOC fire him. She won’t.

He is far from the first in the global-warming community to acknowledge that the real game is not climate control but expanding government or UN control. Examples are at the foot of this article. But I’ll initially stick with AOC and her Green New Deal. She announced at a Martin Luther King forum in New york  last January that the world would end in 12 years. In her teenager-like syntax she said,

Millennials and people in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II.

The audience rose to applaud. She later tweeted, implausibly, that her “world ending in 12 years” thing  was “dry humor plus sarcasm” and “you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.”

I’d like to think her entire Green New Deal thing was dry humor plus sarcasm but it ain’t. There are two versions. One is an explanatory document with “frequently asked questions”  (FAQs). AOC disowned it, saying, “I definitely had a staffer that had a really bad day at work.” But  Left revolutionary Noam Chomsky calls the Deal “exactly the right idea”.  Version Two, the resolution she put up for vote in the Senate, was the same stuff slightly censored and with get-out clauses like “to the extent technologically possible…”

The office version says that in moving to a just society, the government would ensure the millions of jobs created by the Green New Deal would be “union jobs that pay prevailing wages”. Here are other highlights from the stronger version – hang on to your hats:

# A complete transition to renewable energy by 2030 to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

#  Eliminate fossil-fuelled cars and air travel, in favour of high-speed rail and public transport. (How overseas travel would be managed isn’t explained).

# Upgrade or retrofit all existing US buildings “to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability.”

# Get rid of “farting cows” (that’s nearly 100 million cattle)

# Decommission all nuclear plants

# Guarantee “all people” of the USA (including illegals) a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security. The lifestyle guarantee would extend to those “unable or unwilling to work”.

# Guarantee “high-quality health care”.

# Guarantee all people “high-quality education”.

The only mention of cost is a $US4.6 trillion “minimum estimate” for upgrading US infrastructure (undefined). Ex-waitress AOC shrugs that it can all be paid for like World War Two was financed with 45-to-50 per cent of US GDP, or the financing of the 2007 bank bailout (around $US13 trillion). Government capital would flow to business and communities for green projects via “public banks” and grants. Her Green New Deal plus associated progressive claims now involve universal health cover ($US32 trillion), a federal jobs guarantee ($US7 trillion), cancelling student loans ($US1.5 trillion) and free college study ($US800 billion). These rather large amounts compare with current US national debt of $US22 trillion, also large.

Progressive media of course praised the plan as  “bold” and “ambitious”. It is, after all, climate orthodoxy with a few colourful additions like jobs enforced under the union umbrella. But media sanity occasionally broke through: the leftist Washington Post ran columnist Megan McArdle describing the AOC draft New Deal as “lunatic”. In doing so, the Post included itself  among the lunatics. It  appended to the column what Post editors think are “eleven climate change policies to fight for in 2019” that could “start the planet down a path toward a better future”.  The ideas are from “activists, politicians and researchers for climate policy ideas that offer hope.”

These nostrums include ten wish-list items such as smarter air-conditioners, carbon taxes, electric cars and greener farming. The eleventh, amazingly, is “Pass a Green New Deal”, just like the AOC deal their columnist is satirizing. The Post’s Green New Deal, 0.5 or 2.0, would likewise involve “massive government action” on a world-war scale to put millions to work on zero emissions by 2030, and “upgrade every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency”. The climate contortions of the Post make one’s head hurt.

In the event,  Democrat senators recoiled and hid from the resolution that they had previously praised. Republicans taunted them to bring on the Green New Deal for a vote, knowing it was electoral poison. It then failed 57-0 with not a single Democrat backing it.

Finally, apropos chief of staff Chakrabarti and his disclosure about AOC’s socialism priority, here’s other similar disclosures:

# The oft-quoted classic is from Ottmar Edenhofer, now director of the influential  dark-green Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute, twinned since 2015 with Melbourne University. He was also a top-level IPCC Working Group 111 co-chair and is described as one of the world’s top climate policy experts. I’ve gone to the original in German and here’s Google-translate’s output. (Warmists claim he was “taken out of context”). 

First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole…

# The latest issue of Foreign Policy (US), a magazine whose website scores 49 million page views annually, has a tract headlined, “Democracy is the planet’s biggest enemy”. The text of that article includes

If electoral democracy is inadequate to the task of addressing climate change, and the task is the most urgent one humanity faces, then other kinds of politics are urgently needed. The most radical alternative of all would be to consider moving beyond democracy altogether. The authoritarian Chinese system has some advantages when it comes to addressing climate change: One-party rule means freedom from electoral cycles and less need for public consultation. Technocratic solutions that put power in the hands of unelected experts could take key decisions out of the hands of voters.

The piece is written by  David Runciman, a politics professor at Cambridge University and the author of How Democracy Ends. It’s nice for such people to show their true colors.

# Australians Professor David J.C. Shearman and ecologist Joseph Wayne Smith[1]  published The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. Amazon’s blurbsays,

This provocative book presents compelling evidence that the fundamental problem behind environmental destruction―and climate change in particular―is the operation of liberal democracy.

Originally a research tract, the abstract says the authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power. There are in existence highly successful authoritarian structures–for example, in medicine and in corporate empires–that are capable of implementing urgent decisions impossible under liberal democracy.

# Far-left Canadian author Naomi Klein and her well-titled book This Changes Everything is influential enough to have been pushed into hundreds of Australian high schools’ lessons via leftist curriculum-helper Cool Australia. In an unintentionally revealing disclosure, Cool Australia’s Teacher Notes described the supposed climate crisis as “an opportunity for a new economic model that accounts for both people and the planet in a just and sustainable way…” (My emphasis).

# UNEP or UN Environment Program’s  Maurice Strong told the 1992 Rio UNFCCC Earth Climate Summit[2], “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

 # The then US Undersecretary of State for Global Issues in the Clinton administration was Democrat Senator Tim Wirth[3].  He told the Rio conference ,  “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

# Canada’s environment minister Christine Stewart told the Calgary Herald in 1988, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

# Rio also produced Agenda 21 or the “Sustainable Development Agenda:

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced; a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level … Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice … The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of the society as a whole.

# Here’s Christiana Figueres, when she was executive secretary of  the  top UN climate body UNFCCC (2010-16):

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

# Venezuela’s late president Hugo Chavez attended the 2009 Copenhagen climate-fest and spruiked his brand of socialism:

The destructive model of capitalism is eradicating life… Our revolution seeks to help all people . . . Socialism, that’s the way to save the planet; capitalism is the road to hell . . . Let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.

Maybe Chavez’s model hasn’t worked out so well. Maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal isn’t so practical either. Maybe her chief of staff should have kept his mouth shut. But I’ll say one thing in AOC’s praise: she’s a great dancer.

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here

[1] Amazon says, “Philosopher and ecologist Joseph Wayne Smith with emeritus professor of medicine David Shearman”.

[2] It led on to the Kyoto protocol

[3] He confessed to sabotaging air-conditioning during James Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress that kick-started the global warming scare. The TV coverage showed participants sweltering in the heat.

  • Bill Martin

    Is it any wonder that national populism is sweeping the world? Let’s hope that it will prevail or we will all end up in the gulag.

  • rod.stuart

    The corrupt media is certainly pumping this green nude eel to the maximum. The public aren’t buying it.
    The squad is Potus’ 45’s greatest asset.

  • lloveday

    “..She was on the cover of Time as “The Phenom”
    And she’s already in Time’s 100 The Most Influential People, 5th in the Leaders section behind Pelosi, Trump, the Swedish brat, and Mexico’s President, AMLO!

  • ianl

    > “# Eliminate fossil-fuelled cars and air travel …”

    That’s enough to generate real opposition.

  • deric davidson

    I am puzzled as to why the left is so enthralled with low IQ lunatics like AOC and her mates who also are challenging her in the low IQ stakes. Hopefully this fool will disappear into the dustbin of American political history. In the mean time I say God help us all from the left’s stupidity!

  • Les Kovari

    One hundred percent reduction in carbon dioxide = one hundred percent cessation of life on Earth. How intelligent is that?

Post a comment

Climate Council crestfallen

22 June 2019

Australia’s media will shortly run the following ‘climate crisis’ stories: London’s black cabs are going electric; UK offshore turbines are a howling success; and a coal town in Germany’s Ruhr is loving renewables.

How do I know? Because Tim Flannery’s Climate Council is junketing the love media to Europe to spoon-feed them these tales. CEO Amanda McKenzie says her work’s ‘decoding [misinformation] for journalists, making sure journalists are asking the right questions etc.’.

Last year the Council took two troupes including the SMH, ABC, Guardian, and Women’s Weekly to snorkel artfully-selected patches of the Barrier Reef ‘to see the bleaching first hand’. The reef’s 2,300km long, so the snorkeled sampling wasn’t extensive. The hacks obliged with oodles of ‘high profile’ reports and Council-supplied TV clips, to the fury of reef tour operators. Now on a $3-4m budget, the Council’s generated $100-plus million worth of media, it says, ‘reaching a cumulative audience of 448 million’.

Nine days pre-election, it tried a super-scare with its ersatz ‘peer reviewed’ report that Coalition climate inertia would chop property values by $571 billion by 2030. Voters yawned. McKenzie wrote that the election’s only ‘silver lining [was] seeing one of the biggest deniers, Tony Abbott, swept away’. She spent ‘sleepless nights’ revising strategy, she told a web seminar last month. She concedes people are jaded from decades of claims about 5-10 years to save the planet: ‘These dates are sometimes unhelpful.’

The Council’s Adani-or-the-Reef pretense also backfired. She’s considering an Albo-style ‘listening tour’ of North Queensland to discover why tradies put jobs before climate virtue. She’ll flog them her ‘just transition’ renewables line and ‘nut out how it could hopefully be made bi-partisan’.

She fears her burnt-out activists might vacate the field, as they did after the Climategate-stricken talks ‘fell apart’ in Copenhagen 2009, where she led our youth delegates. Those pesky sceptics might again ramp up to ‘full throttle’ notwithstanding her other claim that five years’ relentless Council work had ‘killed off the influence of climate denialism’.

Why the election loss? Her $4m Council was underdog in the climate wars, she believes. Clive Palmer’s $60m spending was more than the annual revenue of the whole climate movement, she says.

McKenzie’s warmy hypotheses are backed only by federal and every State government, Labor, unions, the Greens, top companies from BHP-Billiton, Woodside and Qantas down (Council director Gerry Hueston also sits on the Business Council), the billions-subsidised renewables, universities and education systems, the ABC, Nine media, arts/entertainment and its funders, doctors’ wives (make that ‘spouses’)… anyone I’ve missed?

The Council masquerades as a body refuting sceptic lies, ‘a voice for evidence-based and science-backed reason’. It introduced the scientific term ‘Angry Summer’ for recent summer heat. Maybe it will appease the angry summer gods by throwing virgins into the nearest volcano.

I thought science was not about inciting brainwashed kids as cannon–fodder in climate wars. The truants are ‘amazing’ and a ‘wake up call to adults,’ says McKenzie, who shot to fame as (adult) co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. The GetUp!-allied AYCC has acknowledged its current school-strike role. McKenzie now discloses the Council’s role too: ‘I know Dinah [Dinah Arndt, Council flak] and some of her team worked with some of the school strikers to help refine their message and make sure they can get out there in the press too.’ I’d queried at the time which agency was penning the kids’ fake-teenager media releases.

McKenzie would even like Greta Thunberg, the mercilessly-exploited unwell Swedish 16-year old, to Skype her apocalyptic ravings to gullibles here: ‘She’s an amazing communicator and absolutely fantastic… incredibly eloquent.’Asked online if the Council would ape the Guardian’s loons and tout a ‘climate emergency’, McKenzie prefers for PR reasons to use the less-inflammatory ‘climate crisis’. This ‘crisis’ is belied by global Hadcrut4 temperatures rising only 0.0156degC a year since January 2000 including natural el Ninos. That’s a mere 1.56degC rate per century.

Talking more ‘science’, she claims to have convinced Australians that big droughts, storms and bushfires are CO2-inspired.

US authority Roger J. Pielke Jr. found no statistical connection between climate change and extreme-weather related damages, after adjusting for population and wealth. Globally there’s still no clear trends in extremes, up or down, he’s found. A Royal Society paper last year concluded that global areas burned are both declining and are less than centuries ago.

Councillor Lesley Hughes (Macquarie pro-vice chancellor) admitted to a Blue Mountains firefighter audience in February that for burnt area, ‘Australian fire datasets [are] generally too short to detect convincing trends’ but she ramped up the climate scare anyway.

Meanwhile, cities and shires have become the Council’s ‘centre stage’ now that voters reject emissions catastrophism. The Council’s project director Alix Pearce tells her ‘local heroes’ in deep-purple prose, ‘In the face of this seemingly impending doom, new leaders are emerging to meet the climate challenge.’ The Council’s got one hundred local bodies to literally sign a climate pledge, with at least two thousand accolades suctioned from the media. The numbers go wild: McKenzie in her ‘The Facts’ webinar claimed the councils represented ‘over 7 million’ people; the Council brief says ‘almost 11 million’.

The shire pledges include not just installing renewables but advocating for large-scale wind and solar farms, and ‘pushing for climate action’ by governments. Specifically, ‘Lobby for state and federal support for a just transition away from coal-driven industry for local workers and the community’. Some 25 councils have pledged to run ‘education and behaviour change programs to positively influence the behavior of council officers, residents and businesses.’

For not signing her pledge I’ve dobbed in my Moonee Valley Council and its large ‘sustainability’ team (my rates since 2014 are up from $2,358 to $2,608). Alix will hassle MVCC ‘in our next round of intake’, her underling emails me. I’ll pack a small suitcase for re-education camp to become an MVCC ‘Sustainability Champion and Environmental Superhero’.

Dirty Rotten Climate Scandals

Shakespeare’s monster, Caliban, dreamed of clouds opening to  show riches ready to drop upon him. Climate scientists don’t have to dream about it – honors, awards and cash prizes rain down in torrents. Other scientists try to help humanity, but while climate scientists may kid themselves and others that they share that goal, their practical intent is to raise energy costs and harm nations’ energy efficiency via renewables. While they posture as planet-savers in white coats, some of them pocket awards of half-million dollars, even a million, and notch up more career-enhancing medals than a North Korean general.

A couple of local prizes are the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science ($A250,000) for ex-President of the Australian Academy of Science Kurt Lambeck last October, and in January UNSW Professor John Church pocketed a $A320,000 half-share of the 400,000 Euro BBVA Prize.

Both have done science work of international repute and their reputations in their specialist fields are deservedly high. However, Lambeck is a long-standing smiter of “deniers” and Church propagates via the ABC such lurid scenarios as  this: “… if the world’s carbon emissions continue unmitigated, a threshold will be crossed which will lead to the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet. This, with melts from glaciers and ice in Antarctica will lead to a sea level rise in the order of seven metres.”

There are many mickey-mouse awards in Australia for climate science and I’d be amazed if any post-doc climate person hasn’t won a gong. It’s particularly obnoxious that even schoolkids are incited to compete for climate awards by regurgitating climate doomism.

On the global stage, my tally of warmist cash awards to US climate doomsayer Paul R. Ehrlich is about $US2.6 million. For the climate scare’s originator, ex-NASA scaremonger James Hansen, about $US2 million. These rewards are not for getting anything right – their doom deadlines have proven to be utter tripe.

If you’re a climate scientist you can blot your copybook horribly but the prizes keep coming. You might not have heard of California’s Dr Peter H. Gleick, but read on. He’s been creaming it with prizes lately, $US100,000 from Israel’s Boris Mints Institute in April for the “Strategic Global Challenge of Fresh Water” and the Carl Sagan Prize last year for “researchers who have contributed mightily to the public understanding and appreciation of science.”  He’s scored more than 30 honors and awards all-up including a $US500,000 MacArthur “Genius” award for 2003.

Nice work, Gleick, but you’re the same man who in 2012 raided e-documents from the minor sceptic thinktank Heartland Institute.  Its CEO Joe Bast said that Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo.” Gleick denied forging the document. The forgery, among other fabrications, showed Heartland receiving  $US200,000 from the Koch brothers’ Foundation, when the reality was a mere $US25,000, and even that sum was actually for a health-care study.

Gleick confessed he committed the thefts because he believed Heartland was preventing a “rational debate” on global warming, even though he had refused a Heartland invitation to a fee-paid after-dinner debate shortly before he stole the documents.  Gleick said

“in a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received … materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name…I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues…My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists .., and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.”

As for Heartland being “well-funded”, its budget that year was $US4.4 million, of which maybe a third went on climate work, funding one conference, a blog and half a dozen climate reports. That compares with, say, WWF’s current budget in the US of $US230 million (Heartland’s, $US6 million), or the Australian Conservation Foundation’s current $A14 million.

The ironies about the much-honored Gleick didn’t stop there.  In 2011 he was founding chairman of a science ethics committee of the 60,000-member American Geophysical Union (AGU) and he immediately resigned membership when outed by Heartland. AGU president Mike McPhaden issued a toe-curling statement. The global community of earth and space scientists, he said, had

witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.

 His transgression … is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public… It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust.

This has been one of the most trying times for me as president of AGU… How different it is than celebrating the news of a new discovery … These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.

Within three weeks of Gleick’s confession, I kid you not, water tech company Xylem awarded him a “Water Hero” award. Thereafter he won a Lifetime Achievement Award from a  Silicon Valley Water Group (2013), was honoured by the Guardian newspaper in 2014 as a world top-ten water guru, and in 2015 he received the Leadership and Achievement Award from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. The same year he received an Environmental Education Award from the Bay Institute. The major Carl Sagan and BMI Prizes followed in 2018 and 2019. Transgressions by warmist scientists are soon forgotten and readily forgiven.

While the Gleick case is one of horror, other climate-award material goes into the comedy file. The Climategate emails exposed two of the climate world’s top “experts”, Phil Jones and Mike Mann, horse-trading for new honors for themselves, via reciprocal recommendations. Jones, at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, ran the HADCRUT4 global temperature data series underpinning the IPCC warming scare. He managed to literally lose raw data (failure to back-up) and hid incriminating emails subject to FOI demands.[1] Michael Mann authored the infamous  “Hockey Stick” paper used as a logo by the 2001 IPCC report as proving current warming is CO2-caused and unprecedented in the past 1000 years. Mann’s paper also managed to ‘disappear’ the Medieval warming[2] and the 300-year Little Ice Age to 1850. Mann’s sceptic foe, Mark Steyn, published an entire 320-page book, A Disgrace to the Profession comprising rejections of Mann’s findings, not by sceptics but by orthodox climate scientists. [3] 

Here are two climateers at work. (emails from 4/12/2007). Mann to Jones:

By the way, I am still looking into nominating you for an American Geophysical Union award; I’ve been told that the Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you’d like me to investigate…

Jones selects his own award:

As for the American Geophysical Union—just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.

Mann then lets Jones know that he (Mann) himself happens to lack a Fellowship of the AGU and adds in brackets, “(Wink)to inspire Jones to do something about it. (pp105, 118).

The matey honors system at the AGU continues to this day. The selection committee last year for the AGU’s annual $US25,000 Climate Communication Prize (won by Mann last year) included prominent warmists Katharine Hayhoe, Stefan Rahmstorf, Richard Somerville and Kevin Trenberth. Recipients included the same Katharine Hayhoe (2014), Stefan Rahmstorf (2017), Richard Somerville (2015)  and  Kevin Trenberth (2013). A network clearly operates.  Winners Gavin Schmidt (2011), Mann (2018) and Rahmstorf (2017) jointly contribute to their blog. The AGU seems aware of incestuousness and has these unusual guidelinesfor the prize-winner selection:

Nominators and potential nominees…are urged to restrain from contacting members of their respective award selection committee while the AGU nomination and selection process is in progress…Persistent or frequent contact on topics related to the award nomination could potentially be viewed as an attempt to influence…

In the big global league, climate bureaucrat Christiana “Tinkerbell”Figueres, who oversaw the 2015 Paris pseudo-agreement from her UN perch, staggers under the weight of honors. They include the  Shackleton Medal, the Grand Medal of the City of Paris, the Legion of Honor, the German Great Cross of Merit, the Guardian Medal of Honor, the 2015 Hero of El Pais award, the Global Thinker Award, Four Freedoms Award and the Solar Champion Award from the woke folk of California. Quite a haul considering she still can’t distinguish between weather and climate. She achieved perpetual quotability with this ripper from  February 2015, in an official UN press release:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

A champagne socialist from the top end of town in Costa Rica, she views a halt to growth in the West with equanimity: “Industrialised countries must stop growing — that’s fine. But developing countries must continue to grow their economy in order to bring their people out of poverty…”

Paul R. Ehrlich, now 87, has been showered with lucrative prizes. He has spent the past 50 years making horrific predictions about planetary and human doom. None of these have remotely been fulfilled, such as his 1969 prediction of disastrous global famine by 1975, requiring compulsory birth control via sterilising agents in food and water.

As a close-to-my-home example, he gave an address at Perth’s Murdoch University on October 2, 1985, concluding that unless Western countries went into wealth-sharing with the Third World, there would be lethal consequences for civilisation such that “the handful of human beings that survive the resultant collapse may, if they are lucky, be able to eke out a livelihood hunting and gathering.” He warned that by 2000, we could have a billion people perishing from hunger, with those famines leading in turn to a thermonuclear war that “could extinguish civilisation”. He continues to this day to be sought out by the media for yet more doomsday mayhem.

Ehrlich big-money prizes for ecological brilliance have included

# 1990: MacArthur Fellows “Genius Grant”, currently $US625,000. At the time the award range was $US155,000 to $US600,000. Ehrlich would have been at the high end.

# 1990: Sweden’s Crafoord (OK) Prize, currently $US745,000. He shared the award with biologist E.O.Wilson. As a guesstimate, $US200,000-plus at the time.

# 1993: Heinz Foundation Award, $US250,000

# 1993; The Volvo Environmental Prize. Currently $US170,000.

# 1998: Tyler Prize, $US200,000.

# 1998: Heineken Prize, $US200,000

# 1999: Asahi Glass’s Blue Planet Prize, 50 million yen (about $US420,000 at the time).

# 2009: Ramon Margalef Prize, 80,000 Euros (about $US110,000 at the time).

# 2013: BBVA Frontiers Award, 400,000 Euros (about $US530,000 at the time).

Total, about $US2.6m ($A3.75m).

James Hansen is known as the father of the CO2/global warming  campaign. He produced, concurrently with Syukuro Manabe,  the first crude computer models of C02 warming. The successor models despite decades of ‘refinements’ continue to significantly exaggerate actual warming.[4]  Hansen’s cash awards total about $US1.5m, including $US800,000 from Taiwan’s Tang Foundation last year. The Tang  citation read

Undaunted by the gravity of high government and the powerful doubts of business, this former NASA climate scientist attended a government hearing in 1988 … His brave, farsighted testimony before congress has since been known as the Hansen Hearing.

The reality was that the 1988 hearing was stage-managed by his pal and Democrat senator Tim Wirth. Wirth timed it for the predicted hottest summer day in Washington, and he also sabotaged the building’s air conditioning to ensure everyone would be sweating for the TV cameras.

Hansen while at NASA in 2001 accepted a $US250,000 award from Theresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democrat luminary John Kerry. In 2004 Hansen endorsed John Kerry as presidential candidate, a doubly contentious act as he was still a government NASA director. Hansen at NASA  also admitted in a 2003  issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue. He’s referred to coal trains as “death trains” (annoying Holocaust survivors) and was arrested twice at climate demonstrations.
Among his windfalls:

# 2001: Heinz Award: $US250,000

#2007: Dan David Prize: $US330,000

# 2008: PNC Bank Common Wealth Award: $US50,000

# 2010: Sophie Prize: $US100,000

# 2012: Stephen Schneider Award: $US10,000

# 2016: BBVA Award:  $US450,000

# 2018: Taiwan’s Tang Prize. $US800,000.

Total $US1.99m.

Climate and environment prizes, honors and awards have flowed to those who are not merely catastrophists but million-dollar fraudsters. Canada’s Maurice Strong, for instance, built some of his huge wealth from stockmarket insider deals and oil developments. He was the godfather of the global environment from when he organised the 1972 Stockholm Environment Conference. He was founder and executive director of the UN Environmental Program which joined forces with the World Meteorological Organisation to create the IPCC. He chaired the 1992 Rio summit and openly advocated for world governance under the UN, financed by a 0.5 per cent tax on global finance to raise $US1.5 trillion a year.

In his 1999 autobiography, Strong predicted that in 2031 nation states will implode, with a breakdown of international order, food and energy scarcity, more climate deaths than from WW1 and WW2, and Americans dying like flies from heat because there is no electricity for air conditioners. Global  population falls to the level of 2001, “a consequence, yes, of death and destruction – but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration,” he wrote.[5]

In 2005 the FBI, investigating the Iraq “Oil for Food” program’s prolific corruption, turned up a 1997 cheque to Strong for $US998,000 from a corrupt  South Korean businessman who later proved to be a bagman for Saddam Hussein. Strong in 1997 was working for UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, and had organised the UN’s Kyoto climate treaty that same year. When the cheque came to light, Strong lit out for Beijing (China has no extradition treaty with the US) and lived out his days there, still honoured as an honorary professor at three Chinese universities. He said later, “I didn’t just run away to China, I already had an apartment here.”

In 2003, just two years before the cheque scandal went public, the US National Academy of Sciences gave Strong its highest honor, its Public Welfare Medal, for “extraordinary use of science for the public good”. This was its first-ever Medal award to a non-US citizen. “Very few individuals have contributed so much to the path toward a sane and sensible future for world society,” the Academy said. “He is an idealist who is truly a citizen of the world.”

He was “very special guest of honor” at the 2012 Rio second climate summit. When he died in 2015, the esteem continued with Canada’s governor-general attending his funeral. No attempt was ever made to prosecute Strong over the cheque.

Strong’s 50 or more honors (apart from his 52 honorary doctorates) included Commander of the Golden Ark (Netherlands), Order of the Southern Cross (Brazil), Order of the Polar Star (Sweden) and Companion of the Order of Canada. In his Beijing era he got a Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Cataloguing all the climate prize stuff going on would involve an essay the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannia. I need to wash my dog so I’ll stop here. To all past and future climate prize winners, my sincere congratulations.

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60sis available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here


[1] HADCRUT4 is still riddled with errors, as Melbourne’s John McLean demonstrated in his Ph.D. thesis last year: “The HadCRUT4 data, and any reports or claims based on it, do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate or for international agreements about supposed causes of climate change.”

[2] Mann, ClimateGate email (4/6/03): I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made … that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back.

[3] Mann two months later (31/7/03) refers to his own data as “dirty laundry” to be closely guarded from examination. He emails a colleague:  “I’m providing these [data] for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking with me first. This is the sort of ‘dirty laundry’ one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things.”

[4] IPCC AR5:  “… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations [computer models]   reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a [temperature] trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend [actual temperatures] ensemble. This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.” [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[5] Strong, M.: Where on Earth Are We Going? Texere, 2001, p21-22.

  • en passant

    I believe! I believe! Omm! Omm!
    In the Post-Popper/Feynman science belief, no matter how stupid trumps facts and your lying eyes every time. Get with Greta and the Klimate Kult Kids (KKK) or the Australian Musicologist from Graz will send you to a Denier Death Camp.
    Woke up!
    What a pathetic world we live in where people exist whose sole function is to daily commit fraud for money and rewards.

  • rod.stuart

    A part of the saga that is relatively unknown is the background in which Maurice Strong was born and raised.
    Following the Russian Revolution and WWI, movements condoning Communism were rampant in many regions in Canada. Strong’s parents were deeply involved, as much of the attraction of the ideology stemmed from the fact that many in Western Canada considered themselves victims.
    The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 was one of the most famous and influential strikes in Canadian history. For six weeks, May 15 to June 26, more than 30,000 strikers brought economic activity to a standstill in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which at the time was Canada’s third largest city. Strong’s parents were involved in the organisation of this event as thick as thieves.
    They no doubt had a considerable influence on Strong’s subsequent development.

  • ianl

    The HARRY READ_ME file from Climategate is phenomenal in its’ description of the frustration of a Harry Harris who incautiously accepted the task of “cleaning up” the HADCRUT4 database. The indecipherable mess he found and describes is awesome in its’ full awfulness.
    The Aus database comes in for special slanging from Harry.
    Harry’s diatribe is the essential reason I know our informing data prior to the 1979 satellite deployment cannot be improved from the weak thing it is. It is hopeless in its’ corruption.

  • Alice Thermopolis

    The “Harry Read Me” file documents a CRU climatologist/programmer’s efforts to update 11,000 files of important climate data between 2006 and 2009. He admits that much of it is utterly worthless. Some of his comments (page number in parentheses):
    – “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)
    – “Cobar Airport AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)
    – “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)
    – “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …”

    Virtual data:data created by computer. See confirmation bias, counterfactual world, evidence, in silico.

  • en passant

    I can feel my blood beginning to boil …
    Must be climate data at work

Eaten by a Tiger? Blame Climate Change

There has to be a peak silliness in the claims of climate cultists, and I suspect it was reached this month in a piece by an Oxford associate professor Dr Nayanika Mathur.  She blamed climate change for a person-eating tigress in Maharashtra who devoured 13 villagers. “Tragic tale of a ‘man-eating’ tigress tells us so much about the climate crisis” is how her fevered thoughts are headlined at The Conversation.

The tigress, like all media-featured animals acquired a name, in this case “Avni”, meaning a Hindu earth-girl. Recall “Cecil”, the lion cruelly shot with arrows by that American dentist-bowman in Zimbabwe in 2015. Australia really must keep up and start naming our newsworthy white-pointers “Malcolm” or “Penny”. But back to the tiger, which the Indian government wanted shot on sight while conservationists ran appeals to India’s Supreme Court. The court ruled that shooting should be the last resort, only if tranquillising and capture failed.

The official team included close to 200 stalkers and trackers, five elephants, 100 camera traps, sniffer dogs, thermal-imaging drones and an observer in a motorized para-glider, none of which could find Avni for three months. The elephant squad was sent home in disgrace after one pachyderm trampled a woman villager.

The expert stalkers used not just another tigress’s pee to interest Avni, but Calvin Klein’s Obsession brand cologne. This perfume emplys a synthetic version of civet musk which is supposed to tantalise tigers. H.S. Prayag, a tiger-specialising vet, claims Obsession spread on camera traps helped catch a desparado tiger in Tamil Nadu. Chanel No 5 also works but costs more, he said. Knock-off fragrances from Delhi street markets don’t work because they lack authentic civet. I hope all this was not just opportunistic product placement.

In the event, the plugging of Avni last November seemed the first resort. The official story was that it was dark in the jungle, the tiger attacked first, the tranquilliser dart didn’t slow it down, and it was shot by expert marksman Nawab Ali Khan in self defence: “Officials went closer to her and later rushed her to a hospital in Nagpur, where she was declared dead.” Locals celebrated with fireworks and handed out lollies.

However, the Indian Express reported that the post-mortem report by four vets showed Avni was facing away from the gun, and the dart found in one thigh probably hadn’t been fired there. In an earlier and notorious over-reaction, a tiger cub entered a village in Sikar, and the people fled en masse to their houses. The terrified cub hid in a shed but was peppered by what was described as “machine-gun fire”. The corpse of the prospective man-eater was paraded to rejoicing villagers.

As a teenager I was riveted by hunter-naturalist Jim Corbett’s grisly memoir Man-eaters of Kumaon with his assignments to deal with rogue tigers in the 1920s and 1930s. One was reputed to have killed 436 villagers. Friends persuaded Corbett to do the book while he was recovering from typhus in 1944. By 1980 it had sold more than 4 million copies. Universal Studios adapted it for a movie in 1946: Corbett claimed the best actor was the tiger.

In his book he recounts a story from villagers:

We were startled on hearing the agonized cries of a human being coming from the valley below. Huddled together on the edge of the road, we cowered in fright as these cries came nearer and nearer, and presently came into view a tiger carrying a naked woman. The woman’s hair was trailing on the ground on one side of the tiger, and her feet on the other – the tiger was holding her by the small of the back – and she was beating her chest and calling alternately on God and man to help her. Fifty yards from us and in clear view of us, the tiger passed with its burden, and when their cries had died away we continued on our way.’

‘And you 20 men did nothing?’

‘No sahib, we did nothing for we were afraid.’

Corbett’s descriptions of tiger attacks on women bear resemblance to the painting by Delacroix (reproduced above) of just such a monstrous beast with jaws clamped on a semi-naked woman’s chest. No wonder my teenage self couldn’t put the book down.

Here’s an account from a villager – with only half a face left — direct from a tiger’s jaws:

“I was stooping down at the very edge of the slope, tying the grass into a big bundle, when the tiger sprang at me and buried its teeth, one under my right eye, one in my chin and the other two here at the back of my neck. The tiger’s mouth struck me with a great blow and I fell over on my back, while the tiger lay on top of me, chest to chest, with its stomach between my legs.

As my fingers grasped the sapling, an idea came to me. My legs were free and if I could draw them up and insert my feet under and against the tiger’s belly, I might be able to push the tiger off and run away… The pain, as the tiger crushed all the bones on the right side of my face, was terrible, but I did not lose consciousness…Very slowly, and so as not to anger the tiger, I drew my legs up on either side of it, and gently inserted my bare feet under its belly. Then placing my left hand against its chest and pushing and kicking upwards with all my might, I lifted the tiger right off the ground and, we being on the very edge of the perpendicular hillside, the tiger went crashing down and belike would have taken me with it, had my hold on the sapling not been a good one…”

His son helped him home after wrapping his loincloth round his father’s head.

“Water was brought, for I was thirsty and my head was on fire, but when it was poured into my mouth, it all flowed out through the holes in my neck…While I waited and longed for death to end my sufferings, my wounds healed of themselves and I became well.”

Corbett comments that the man was a veritable giant, able to lift the tiger and tear its hold away from the side of his head, taking half his face with it, and send the tiger flying down the hill. In surviving, he lamented to be left with “a face no man could look at without repulsion.”

In 2013, on a tour from New Delhi,  I went on a night-photography Jeep safari in Kumaon, where we near-froze and just might have seen the greenish-blue reflection of one leopard’s eyes, tigers being these days too rare to expect.

As for climage change,  Oxford’s Dr Mathur is also engaged in a book project ‘Crooked Cats: Human-Big Cat Entanglements in the Anthropocene.’ She runs an Oxford course on the “Anthropocene”, and is “committed to decolonizing the Academy through my writing and teaching.” Someone should alert her that the “Anthropocene” has no official existence.

She says in The Conversation that the reasons big cats turn into person-eaters may be idiosyncratic but “can no longer be explained outside the context of climate change”. Snacking on humans by crooked cats, she says, can be due to warming’s biodiversity loss (500,000 species at risks, she says absurdly), habitat loss (except that CO2 is expanding planetary re-vegetation), and  extreme weather events (nah, the IPCC says the opposite). “We should look to the case of Avni … for what her life and death tells us about the climate crisis,” she says. She concludes, “Another way to understand the climate breakdown, through the life of Avni and other big cats with similar fates in India, is as an irretrievable collapse of the commonsensical.” Remember, this woman is a professor!

Let’s fact-check. Tigers kill only about 30-60 Indians  annually, often as a result of mistaken identity. If you’re a tiger, someone squatting in the field doing poo can look like a deer. Tigers’ technique is to swat you down with a forepaw and then crush your head with a bite. Tigresses with cubs kill people who wander close. The actual man-eaters are generally too injured or aged to kill natural prey.

Getting these 30-60 deaths a year into perspective, one commentator on Dr Mathur’s piece claimed that tigers were killing an average 826 Indians a year from 1903-1912.  I couldn’t verify his figures, but did find that 850 people a year were killed by tigers in each of 1875-1876, according to the Raj statisticians. Between 1876 and 1912, tigers killed an average 920 Indians a year. There’s even an estimate that over the last five centuries, tigers have killed a million people, i.e. 2000 a year. Hence 1decC of global warming since 1900 must have become an antidote to tiger attacks, rather than increasing them, as claimed by climate-fixated Oxford brainiacs.

On the other side of the ledger, more than 100 Indian tiger deaths have been recorded in each of the past three years. This matters, given tigers in India total only 2,500, up from the perilously low 1400 in 2005. Tigers were once prolific – in the 50 years to 1925, sahibs and nabobs shot about 80,000. But globally elephants kill ten times more people than tigers. Even hippos kill more, and snakes kill most: around 20,000 a year, and that’s just in India.

Maybe Dr Mathur at Oxford will next do a piece on how cobras are concerned about the climate emergency. Actually, I shouldn’t diss Oxford because in 1963 I tried to enroll there myself, via a Rhodes Scholarship from Perth. My Rhodes application was doomed to fail, if only because my nominated “manly sport”– B-division chess at Fremantle’s geriatric club — didn’t really meet Cecil Rhodes’ specifications. In addition, I messed up at the formal dinner for mingling with the selectors at WA Government House, after meeting the Governor Sir Charles Gairdner. Unfamiliar with drink, I thought it was polite to drain the glass that came with each of the five courses. Among the few things I remember was my witty suggestion that portraits of the Queen should sometimes show her brushing her teeth. Our group of eight or nine Rhodes applicants was invited back a few days later for tea and scones. Midway through, one of us, Mr Bruce Bennett, sports star at Hale and fellow WA Uni literature student, was escorted to another room. Someone announced that he had got the Rhodes and we dregs were quickly filtered out to St George’s Terrace.

It’s a pity I never made the grade. Who knows, I might have become an Oxford climate scientist.

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60sis available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here

1 comment
  • en passant

    The most shocking thing about what you wrote is that you thought an academic could make sense in this post-Enlightenment Dark Age Woke Whatever.

Post a comment

‘Doctor’ Hare’s Nasty Green Prescription

Murdoch University[1] and its ex-Greenpeace alarm alumnus “Dr” Bill Hare truly deserve each other. At Perth-based Murdoch, Mr Hare earned a B.Sc. (Hons) in 1983 and in 2008 Murdoch gave him an honorary Doctor of Science for being, among other things, “the best climate lobbyist in the world”. Ever since he’s been paraded around by himself, Murdoch and others as “Dr” Bill Hare.

And here’s the bombshell: Murdoch has authorised and encouraged him to flaunt the “Dr” title generally “to promote the university”. Truly, Murdoch is sui generis, or for non-Latinists, “constituting a class alone: unique, peculiar.”


“The title ‘Dr’ is only used by Honorary Degree recipients when engaged in Murdoch University activities.” – Murdoch University policy document, last revised 14 October 2016.

Murdoch’s response to my query about Hare[2] is below, with my emphasis added:

I have a statement for you that can be attributed to a Murdoch University spokeswoman…

“Bill Hare is a distinguished alumni and Adjunct Professor at Murdoch University working closely with our students and staff on a number of research and engagement projects.

“He was awarded an honorary degree in 2008, which entitles him to uses (sic) the title Dr in relation to his activities in the Murdoch University environment.

“At the time, he was advised that it was appropriate to use the title generally to promote the University …

“I acknowledge that I am working on Whadjuk Noongar Boodjar [country] and pay respect to all Noongar people and Elders, past and present.” 

Murdoch’s abrogation of its own honorary title policy – “The title ‘Dr’ is only used by Honorary Degree recipients when engaged in Murdoch University activities” —  could hardly be more official. But rather than throw Hare under the bus, the university threw itself under the bus.

What will the senate, led by Chancellor Mr David Flanagan AM CitWA make of this?[3] Mr Flanagan earned his Curtin University BSc in Mining & Minerals Exploration Geology and became a distinguished geologist and mining executive.  Suppose a mineral exploration company  prospectus described its geologist with a Murdoch honorary degree as “Dr Fred X , Ph.D”? Next move, I’d say the board would be shirt-fronted by the corporate regulator.

To protect the public from a jungle of spurious academic titles and claims which could even lead to serious harms, the federal-state Australian Qualifications Framework was set up in 1995. Mainstream universities subscribe to its formulae. AQF rules include,

Use of titles by graduates

Individuals who have been awarded a Doctoral Degree at Level 10 on the AQF are entitled to use the title ‘Doctor’. The title ‘Doctor’ will not be used by those who hold an honorary award. An honorary award is not an AQF qualification … As such any certification documentation issued to an honorary award recipient will specify that the award is honorary. (My emphasis).

Here’s how Sydney University puts it in its Honorary Awards Policy,

15A Use of titles

An honorary doctorate is not a qualification under the Australian Qualifications Framework, and therefore does not entitle the recipient to use the title ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’ except when participating in an activity or event associated with the University.

ANU’s policy is the same

Use of title

Use of the title ‘Dr’, associated with an honorary degree of the University, is only permitted when participating in an activity or event associated with the University.”[4]

A year ago Hare’s Climate Analytics group launched its report, “Western Australia’s Gas Gamble – Implications of exploiting Canning Basin and other unconventional gas resources for achieving climate targets.” On the third page, reproduced below, is the imprimatur and co-authorship, “Dr Bill Hare, Director.”

On a Climate Council petition signed by 28 alarmists last month, Hare is among its top tier of 15 professors and doctorate-holder signatories. I challenged the Climate Council about Hare’s “Dr”. The council replied that Hare’s Doctor of Science outranks a Ph.D.

Quoting a Monash University document, the council continued,

The degree [D.Sc.] will give the applicant authoritative standing in that field and the right to general recognition of this standing by scholars in the field.” The council concluded, “Dr Hare is a globally respected scientist who has made an extensive contribution to the field. He is an important and welcome addition to the signatories of the list.

The council obtusely missed the point that Hare’s D.Sc. is honorary. Such honorary D.Sc.’s are two a penny on the stripey-gown investitures of our 40 universities. Advised of the Sydney University ‘don’t-use’ policy about honorary doctorates, the Climate Council declined comment and suggested I contact “Bill Hare” direct.

It might seem overkill to pursue this “Dr” Hare issue. But Hare has been a key influencer in international climate policy-making for the past 30 years.

Hare helped run Greenpeace International as its “climate policy director” (1992-2002) and as a climate adviser to 2009. He was also, strangely, helping to run the IPCC process, dating back to the IPCC’s origin in 1988. He’s been a lead author and co-writer of an all-important summary report. For the 2013 report he wore his hat from Potsdam’s Climate Impact Institute (PIK).

PIK houses the world’s most fanatical climateers, some of whom are now ensconsed in dark green corners of Australian academia, including Melbourne University. The money quote from PIK’s then-deputy head,Ottmar Edenhofer[5], is that climate policy “has almost nothing to do any more with environmental protection” and “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Hare pioneered topics, if not actually invented them, that are now commonplace in the global policy lexicon. Thanks to Hare and his pals at Greenpeace and/or PIK,  we can  all parrot mumbo-jumbo like “global emissions budget” (Hare’s Greenpeace shtick from 1997), 2deg/1.5deg  “tipping points” and most perverse of all, leaving accessible fossil fuels permanently in the ground.

Concerning that emissions budget, he wrote in 2009 to ginger up the Copenhagen conference that the ceiling ought to be only another half-trillion tonnes of emitted carbon: “The probability of exceeding 2°C rises to 53–87% if global GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are still more than 25% above 2000 levels in 2020.” His worst-case crystal ball was pretty foggy because the cumulative emissions went up 50%(never mind 25%) from 2000—2016 alone, with last year’s emissions setting a new record. If Hare and his Potsdam pals can’t get their ten-year assumptions remotely near reality, what credence can be invested in their 20-, 50- and 100-year climate forecasts?

Hare’s dire predictions about warming harms have been designed to frighten Western governments into destroying their fossil fuel industries.  Australia’s policies are consistent with this, the EU’s more so.

His 1997 Greenpeace paper demanded governments  immediately curtail fossil fuel exploration, thus capping reserves at 1997 levels. The goal would be to “limit the long-term committed increase of temperature to less than 1C above 
pre-industrial global average temperature.” 
(Compare that with the current target by extremists of a maximum 1.5degC increase. The 1degC rise has already occurred.)

Hare’s 1997 prescription involved

# leaving all but “a small fraction” of global coal reserves in the ground

# “There should be no further exploration and/or technical development of unconventional oil and gas reserves” [today that would stymie the US fracked-gas revolution]

# “Further exploration and development of fossil fuel resources by industrial nations should be halted immediately, as it makes the problem worse and more difficult to solve and is a waste of money that should be invested in clean energy.”

# To lock in the above measures,  Western countries should sign a legally binding emission cut program at the Kyoto 2005 climate conference.

# The global cost of fossil fuel phase-out for renewables would be equal to or less than business-as-usual.

”This is the carbon logic,” he concluded.

In the event, cheap electricity since 2000 has lifted hundreds of millions of the world’s poor into happier lives. Meanwhile CO2 emissions have greened the planet to an extent even greater than the landmark study of 2016 (with CSIRO involvement) suggested, and agricultural yields and output have hit new peaks. Global temperatures have barely risen, according to UAH satellite measurements, apart from the 2016 el Nino effect. How wrong could a Greenpeace guy be?

But Hare’s extremism has changed little since 1997, and his nostrums are now mainstream among the West’s so-called progressives. Yet this person who would transform the world still can‘t get his title right!

Academics can get enraged about honorifics. Here’s Dr Hannah Forsyth, now Senior Lecturer in History, Australian Catholic University:

A degree that is awarded honoris causa (because Latin boosts snootiness) has never conferred the right to use the degree.

The public can rest assured that there are not medical doctors, veterinarians, accountants or lawyers plying their trade without actual qualifications.

This need for the public to trust university degrees is important. It means that it is considered a shocking faux pas to call oneself a “doctor” on the basis of an honorary doctorate. Don’t expect to see anyone refer to “Dr John Howard” anytime soon.

This does not make it impossible … When this happens, the scholarly community averts its gaze in embarrassment. That may not sound like such a terrible fate, but for the types that are awarded honorary degrees, it kind of is.[6]

The exceptions merely prove the rule, like “Dr” Billy Graham and Lowitja O’Donoghue who, in an excess of kindness, is referred to, even officially, as “Dr O’Donoghue”.[7]

Sometimes since 2008 Hare describes himself as “Dr (h.c) Bill Hare”, acknowledging the honorific element (honoris causa).  In the 2017 annual report of the Climate Analytics non-profit Hare co-founded and leads, he’s written in as “Dr Bill Hare” four times and “Dr (h.c) Bill Hare” twice. However, in the 2016 and 2015 reports, he’s “Dr (h.c) Bill Hare” three times each and never “Dr” Bill Hare. [8]  Do a search of “Dr Bill Hare” (no honorifics) on his Climate Analytics website and it comes up 28 times.

The ANU, Sydney and Murdoch Universities’ protocols say use of honorary doctor titles is OK if the occasion is an event or activity at that university. I’m guessing the drafters had  special ceremonials in mind, like graduations. In practice, the universities bung on hundreds of events and publications targeted at both their own people and the outside public. It would  be unusual for honorary doctors speaking under such circumstances to be described as “Dr”, but Hare again gets the gong. Murdoch’s 2017 Keith Roby lecture was advertised by Murdoch as being by “Dr” Bill Hare. Sally Neighbour, executive producer of Four Corners, has referred me to a Murdoch publication, its alumni news-sheet Murmur. In its Spring 2018 issue it refers to “Dr Hare” once  as B.Sc Hons, Hon Doc Sc, which is accurate, and three times to “Dr Hare”.

The ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy advertised as its public speaker for March 12, 2008“Dr Bill Hare, IPCC author and Potsdam Institute fellow”. Maybe that was splitting hares or jumping the gun. Murdoch presented his Honorary Doctorate five days later on March 17.

Among the publications of  Sweden’s Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat (a combination of Swedish-based nature groups including WWF), a 2009 environmental fact sheet is described as authored by Potsdam’s Katja Frieler, Ph.D., Malte Meinshausen, Ph.D., and Bill Hare, Ph.D. Frieler and Meinshausen have earned Ph.Ds. It’s doubly wrong on Hare’s honorary degree, which is D.Sc.

The fawning media’s been wrongly citing “Dr Hare” since about 1992. The latest example was the  climate propaganda piece on Four Corners last April Fools Day. When I squawked about “Dr” Bill Hare,  producer Sally Neighbour promised to be more wary next time, and she alerted colleague Laura Tingle who had also bruited “Dr” Hare to the world.

Others getting “Dr” Hare wrong include the non-profit independent Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC) “giving journalists direct access to evidence-based science and expertise. We aim to increase the quantity and accuracy of science reporting in the media, and hence the public understanding of science.”[9] AusSMC, you’re inaccurate on this: “Other Australian scientists involved in drafting the synthesis report [for 4thIPCC report] are Neville Nicholls, a Professorial Fellow… and Dr William Hare.”[10]  I never found a single correction to all the times the media, NGOs and academia have mis-labelled Hare as “Dr Hare”.

As for Hare’s main base at Potsdam, Australian journalists have been duchessed to respect the PIK crowd, especially its (recently retired) boss Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has called for the unconditional destruction of the fossil fuel industryand “warned about the end of civilization”. 

For example, in June 2015 the Berlin-based Green thinktank Ecologic organized a three-day Berlin climate-study tour for Peter Hannam, environment editor for SMH/Age, Tony Walker (Financial Review) and Sid Maher (The Australian), as a warm-up for the Paris climate negotiations. Ecologic is funded largely by the EU and German governments, and the tour was funded by the German government and its Canberra embassy. The German  briefers included Bill Hare’s wife, Dr Ursula Fuentes-Hutfilter, who has a senior policy role in the German climate bureaucracy. According to Ecologic, only Hannam delivered with two media features, involving panegyrics to Merkel-adviser Schellnhuber at his “renowned” PIK. Hannam wrote, “Seated in the same Potsdam room that Albert Einstein discussed his theory of relativity in 1916 with fellow pioneers, Professor Schellnhuber said …” and so forth blah, blah, blah. The other piece featured humble-bragging by Schellnhuber about advising Pope Francis on his strange climate encyclical Laudato Si.[11]

As a reality check on the journos’ immersion in 2015 German spin, German energy authority Professor Harald Schwarz was reported this month, “We will not be able to cope with the shutdown of coal and nuclear power in three years’ time and can only hope that there are still sufficient reserves of coal and nuclear power in neighbouring countries to supply Germany when we can no longer do it ourselves”. The Wall Street Journal dubbed Germany’s Energiewende last week as “the stupidest energy policy in the world”.

Bill Hare’s Climate Analytics site, like PIK, is full of modelled projections of our climate doom.[12] For example, he offers a tool for local sea level rise projections, based on the IPCC models. I plugged in Fremantle, my home town and port. By 2100 we’re talking 52cm sea rise, as per Paris Agreement, and a very serious 103cm by 2200. For the 4degC temperature rise scenario, it’s 80cm under the Paris deal by 2100 and 198cm by 2200. The very worst case 2200 outcome is four metres, which would also put most of Perth underwater.

Woe to my two fair cities in 180 years! But I cheered up by checking how much the sea level at Fremantle has actually risen in the past 100 years, as measured by its trusty tide gauge. Answer: 13.6cm, about the length of my palm and middle finger.

The deep explanation for Murdoch University’s suck-up to Hare is that its culture from top to bottom reflects a green mania. Think of “Dr” Bill  as something akin to Murdoch’s patron saint with his decades of jeremiads on global emissions politics. And one gathers that honorary degree of 2008 was too little honor. Hare in 2017 bagged a gig delivering the university’s signature Keith Roby Lecture, preceded in 2015 by ex-leader of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and ex-GetUp campaigner Kirsty Albion, who led the fight against Port Augusta’s now-blown-up coal-fired generator. In addition, Hare collected, along with Greens leader Dr Adam Bandt (earned Ph.D)[13], a 2017 “Distinguished Alumni Award” from Vice-Chancellor Professor Eeva Leinonen.

Time-travel back 34 years and Murdoch’s green delusions were already flourishing. In 1985, Murdoch was a sucker for disseminating the faux Armageddons of Paul Ehrlich, who in 1969 was predicting disastrous global famine by 1975 that would require compulsory birth control via sterilising agents in food and water. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation in the Eighties, and that  the US population would decline by 1999 to 22.6 million.[14] Today’s US population is 330 million. Another Ehrlich climate forecast, from 1971: “If I were a gambler, I would take even-money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”[15] Instead of derision, Ehrlich has wallowed in honors ranging from Murdoch’s lecture to the 50 million yen ($US450,000) 1999 “Blue Planet Prize” of Asahi Glass for environmental conservation biology.

Hare describes himself not just as “Dr” but as a “physicist”.  As a Bachelor (Hons) student he majored in physics for sure in 1983,[16] but for the past few decades he’s been a global-warming politician. None of the peer-reviewed papers he cites in his Climate Analytics’ c.v. are in physics journals, they’re all related to anti-emissions politics.[17]

He refers to his roles as “policy responses to climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion” (my emphasis). Of course, one can call oneself “physicist” or whatever one likes. I’m an economist (B.Ec., 1974). Hire me.

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60sis available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here.


[1] Named after the late Sir Walter Murdoch, great-uncle of Rupert Murdoch

[2] “Does Murdoch have a protocol guide for holders of Murdoch honorary degrees, as to when/how they may be referred to as “Dr”, e.g. ‘Dr Thomas’?”

[3]  “CitWA” is a newie on me. It must refer to his 2014 WA Citizen of the Year Award.

[4] Melbourne University is currently revising its honorary degree policies

[5] Now PIK director

[6] Some gloss came off the historian’s polemic when she described Benjamin Franklin as a US president.

[7] O’Donoghue has honorary doctorates from five universities including Murdoch.

[8] I sought clarifications from Hare but was emailed by his office in Berlin, “Bill is currently on Easter holidays for the next 10 days and unfortunately there isn’t a way to reach him at the moment.”

[9] AusSMC’s “Gold Sponsors” include the Academy of Science, SBS, a law firm and various universities. ABC science stalwart Robyn Williams is a deputy chair. The Australian Museum in  Sydney is under the delusion that Williams’ honorary doctorate is a real one.

[10] AusSMC doesn’t bother to explain to journalists – who don’t want to know anyway — that the all-important Synthesis Reports are written by the politicians from IPCC member states, whose views trump those of IPCC scientists.

[11] “The Pope is interfering in the writing of my book,” Hans Joachim Schellnhuber jokingly told visiting Australian journalists. “The request is a pain in the neck, but you have to accept it, as it comes from above.”

[12] Funding partners of Climate Analytics are a remarkable array, ranging from EU, UN and German and UK government sources to World Bank and Greenpeace. Sceptics’ main funding is from tip jars.

[13] And three others

[14] Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine Books, 1968.

[15] Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For BiologySeptember 1971.

[16] And environmental science

[17] His own c.v. says his peer-reviewed articles are in journals including Nature Climate Change, Nature, Climatic Change, Regional Environmental Change, and Climate Policy.

  • Richard Harrison

    Another along the same lines is “Dr” Karl Kruszelnicki. He has never earned a doctorate in any discipline, but has been referred to as “Dr Karl” by his ABC (and other) enablers since Adam was a boy.

    In 2016 the University of the Sunshine Coast gave him an honorary doctorate, so since then there has been a fig-leaf for his titular pretensions.

  • en passant

    What is the word for cultists so bereft of self-awareness, so certain in beliefs that are designed to hurt their country and its people that they push on year after year despite the overwhelming evidence they are wrong? Is it Greenie? Is it Lysenkoist? Is it hare-brained… I am sure someone knows a suitable word for someone so narcissist that they need a tin title to stroke their ego.
    Fell free to call me ‘Sir’.

Post a comment

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Quizzing our Queen of Catastrophism

KEVIN Rudd once insisted that climate scientists scrutinise and evaluate climate papers purely on the studies’ scientific merit and, therefore, must be considered impartial and above reproach. That’s only half-true at best, considering the IPCC was established to investigate “the risk of human-induced climate change”, pre-judging the case at the outset.

The International Panel (sic) of climate change scientists is made up of four thousand scientists around the world, humourless guys and girls in white coats, okay. These are not politicians. These are scientists. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd , January 29, 2010

To repeat Rudd, IPCC authors are to behave like objective scientists. I paid $15 to hear Melbourne University climate scientist Dr Joelle Gergis at Writers’ Week at the WA University last month, where I learnt she had been appointed one of the 17 IPCC ‘lead authors” on the water cycle chapter for the IPCC’s 2021 report on the Physical Science. She’s also a new councillor in Tim Flannery’s catastrophist Climate Council.

Fresh from an IPCC confab in Vancouver and not long into her talk, Gergis announced, “Climate change is with us right now. Climate change is not a scientific issue, it is  a moral and ethical challenge.” And when wrapping up, she repeated,  “It’s important to understand that this  is  an ethical and moral issue, no longer a scientific issue.”

Fancy that! To be charitable, she’s surely not thrown science out the window, but she does seem to mean that her moral and ethical concerns are pervasive. If she’s required to assess the merit of a peer reviewed paper that rejects CO2-based climate alarmism  (and there were more than 500 such papers published last year), I  hope she would readily jettison those “morals and ethics” and give that paper a fair input into her report to the IPCC.

Gergis’s activism dates back to at least 2007, when she was running a blog brimming with hostility to PM John Howard – “This is a beauty!” she lauded a cartoon of Howard as a stegosaur. On a Wentworth science leaders’ grant and mentored by Tim Flannery, she blogged, “Saturday 24 November 2007 marked the dawn of a new era in Australian politics. Kevin Rudd, leader of the Australian Labor Party, was elected as Prime Minister of Australia. The sigh of relief was audible across the country.”

Her UWA talk was of the revivalist’s hellfire kind. Global climate models predict a roasty fate for Australia as temperatures soar by 4degC (or 7degC in capitals) by 2100. The horrors are starting to happen right now. All too soon our big cities will be enduring 50degC days. Alice Springs will be uninhabitable, along with much of the outback – as vouched for by her CSIRO pals, she said. “I can assure you it will not be pretty.”

She praised the schoolkids for  their climate strikes (next up: March 15): “I am pleased to see the groundswell coming through here in the younger generation. The older generation understand to a degree but young people will be living through it.” She said, “This is a federal election year. One of the most purposeful things you can do is vote and get out and back the people who ‘get’ this.” We didn’t feel she was urging a vote for conservatives.[1]

IPCC people seem to love sympathy. As one fan-piece in the Sydney Morning Herald put it last December, IPCC authors like Gergis “will write thousands of words in careful reports, despite the fact that many of them realise they are working in politically hostile environments.” Well, try being apolitical.

At question time I asked Gergis about the IPCC 2014 report’s finding that 111 of 114 climate-model runs had exaggerated the warming from 1998-2012.[2] I intended to also ask about Dr John Christy’s UAH satellite-based global temperature series showing that the model forecasts have exaggerated actual warming since 1979 by a factor of two.[3]

She immediately disputed my premise from the IPCC about the 111 out of 114 too-hot model results, as though the IPCC had never said so or if it had, the text didn’t mean what I’d claimed.

The audience was 99% with Gergis in IPCC-denial and when I asked if I could continue my question, they roared “No!” The other 1% comprised a perplexed grape farmer who sought me out later to ask, “Why were those people so hostile?”

Gergis in her speech explained that the conviction that CO2 is driving global warming arises from running climate models with and without greenhouse gas inputs. Only models with the gases match the temperature record. [The IPCC itself in its third report  said: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (Chapter 14, Section My emphasis)]

Gergis’s claim matches the Academy of Science’s 2015 unscientific claim that output from models is “compelling evidence” for CO2 causation. Among the models’ countless fudges about unknowns like cloudiness, they assume a high sensitivity of temperature to CO2 doubling (1.5-4.5degC, average about 3), whereas empirical studies have continuously lowered the range. The latest by Lewis and Curry in Journal of Climate  (2018) found sensitivity to be only 1.66degC, about half of what is assumed in the average of IPCC models.

Other Gergis riffs:

# Tackling global warming is like having a loved one with pre-cancer or cancer. Without early medical diagnosis and preventive measures, your loved one will remain in a dire situation.

 # “We are witnessing large-scale system change on our watch that wasn’t expected until mid-21stcentury.” She had witnessed Cyclone Debbie in SE Queensland in 2017, with catastrophic flooding and people having to empty out their mud and silt-covered possessions on the sidewalk to be thrown away.  “Seeing families going through that, climate change is with us right now.”

# Australia must decarbonise rapidly. It makes no sense to be generating only 3% of electricity from solar when we are the sunniest place on the planet. [The International Energy Agency’s study last month comparing full costs of solar vs coal-fired electricity in India showed coal becomes relatively cheaper as the solar share grows beyond 10% – resulting in $US65 per MWh in 2040 for solar vs $US49 for coal].

# Renewables employ double the numbers in the Australian coal industry. [That doesn’t say much for renewable workers’ productivity].

Gergis was at Writers’ Week because she published a book Sunburnt Country last year. To my ear, there was a defensive tone to her talk because she and her team came a gutser in 2012 when their $340,000-funded and peer-reviewed study of Australasia’s 1000-year past climate turned out to have an error that forced her to retract the paper. Amazingly, she won a further $352,000 from the Australian Research Council to do further work on the project in 2013-16. Typically only  15-20% of such grant applications succeed. Did the ARC assessors know the paper was retracted and awarded the extra $350,000 anyway, or did they not know and Gergis got a lucky break? How would either outcome look to unsuccessful grant applicants whose papers didn’t need retracting?

The paper’s claim that the latest thirty-year period was the warmest for 1000 years  was mocked by sceptics. The paper was meant to show unprecedented  warming from CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere, matching the notoriously-suspect ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction for the northern hemisphere by a team led by Michael Mann.[4]  As with Mann’s work, Gergis’ Southern Hemisphere reconstruction also claimed to find no significant Medieval Warming Period. Gergis and her boss David Karoly saw that as demonstrating present climate is outside the range of natural variability. Well OK, the study found Australasia is supposedly warmer now by 0.09degC compared with 1238-1267, but with a massive margin of error of  0.19degC.[5] A tenth of a degree isn’t much for warmists to hang their hats on.

Incidentally, the temperature record for 1000 years ago for Australasia and surrounding oceans was based on growth rings from a tree in NZ and another in Tasmania. One of Australia’s top-ranked researchers, plant photosynthesis specialist Graham Farquhar, said at the time that the Gergis team’s tree-ring temperature reconstructions were “problematic”   and not definitive. He’s a Fellow of the Royal Society, a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences, winner of the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science 2015, a leading Australian Citation Laureate (300-plus papers), winner of the Nobel-equivalent Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences (Biology) in 2017, and Macfarlane Burnett Medal winner (2016).

The coding flaw in Gergis’ 2012 study was first spotted by a blogger “Jean S” on May 31, 2012 at the sceptic website Climate Audit, run by Canadian statistician Stephen McIntyre. When McIntyre asked Gergis for her study’s archived data for further scrutiny, Gergis told him to go get the data from the data’s original authors. She ended sarcastically, “This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.” (It was a bit rich for her to complain later in The Conversation about “deniers” being “people who do not display the basic principles of common courtesy”).

Karoly, however, replied politely to McIntyre: “We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.”

This left as somewhat ambiguous whether McIntyre’s team or Karoly’s found the error first. The priority issue is important in terms of scientific credits and protocols. From the Gergis team’s, emails obtained via FOI, McIntyre claims to have proven his priority. Curiously, Gergis’ paper was not the only controversial one. Karoly’s review of a Michael Mann book was published on-line in Australian Book Review in early July 2012. In it Karoly described McIntyre as a commentator on Mann’s work with “no scientific expertise” who had “repeatedly promulgated misinformation”. McIntyre complained to Karoly that the words were untrue and defamatory, and said that his critique of Mann’s work had been published in the same peer reviewed journal that hosted Mann’s study. McIntyre asked for an apology plus proper acknowledgement of Climate Audit’s role in discovering the Gergis error. Karoly didn’t apologise or acknowledge, and later wrongly claimed that McIntyre had threated legal action.

Gergis, to knock her paper back into shape, had to put it through nine rounds of revision, 21 individual reviews, and two editors. As McIntyre wrote, the exercise took longer than the American involvement in World War II. According to McIntyre, the 2016 revision involved little that is new plus some statistical approaches he considers highly objectionable.

Gergis in last month’s UWA talk bemoaned her victimhood, including having to deal with FOI requests: “I have had hostility and abuse and death threats and rest of it which is not nice. [Murmur of sympathy and indignation from audience]. There are very strong [hostile]  voices out there.  As scientists we are just collating and analyzing data, and putting it out there  before we say anything.  Our work has been through so many sets of eyes. It is easy to blog online, but for us it takes years of work.”

She said her retracted paper led to years of harassment and FOI filings  to see if her team was colluding to bias the results. “It [FOI requests] was quite disgraceful really, disgraceful. Being a climate scientist at that time was very difficult, but now people are more respectful and seeking us out … We need rational and respectful engagement and not just start shooting people down for bearing bad news. You [sceptics] are arguing with scientists who have been working a long time on this, since the 19thcentury. People with no qualifications can take a scientific idea and misconstrue it, and try to tell us how to do our job which I found quite arrogant.”

For some background, ‘Death threats’ were a mantra of Australian warmist celebrities around 2011 and got a more recent run from then-President Andrew Holmes of the Academy of Science in 2015. The reality is farcical. Climate catastrophe guru Will Steffen at the ANU mistook an overheard conversation by shooter John Coochey about culling Canberra’s pestiferous kangaroos as a warning of a sniper attack on Steffen’s people.  The Canberra Privacy Commissioner checked claims of multiple death threats to six ANU climate people, and finally published 11 emails in question, 10 of which involved no physical threat and one described “perhaps” a  possible threat made verbally at an off-campus event (this seems to be the “kangaroo cull” farce).[6]

Anna-Maria Arabia, now chief executive of the Academy of Science, reported a death threat to herself in June 2012, [7] which was nothing more than a serial pest in Seattle spraying templated threats and abuse world-wide. The real death threats are those from Islamists, forcing author Salman Rushdie, Dutch politician Geert Wilders and the late cartoonist for The Australian, Bill Leak, to seek protection and take their families into hiding. I didn’t notice any bodyguards trailling Joelle Gergis.

In Gergis’s Sunburnt Country book, there seems no upper limit to her advocacy. For a female vegan cyclist and one-time girl-band drummer, she seems quite a WW11 buff. She suggests we move to a WW11-style footing to decarbonise:

In reality, moving towards a low carbon economy represents the greatest business opportunity we have ever seen. The economic and social transformation urgently needed over the coming years is possible if the world goes into an emergency response, as it did during World War 11. During that conflict, countries dedicated more than a third of their economies to the war effort and innovation flourished…Perhaps the historic  Paris Agreement is the sign that humanity is now witnessing the dawn of this global fight for an environmentally sustainable future on earth.

She also describes Churchill’s warnings about Hitler in 1939 as a “chillingly accurate description of the climate change crisis we face today.” (By coincidence, in January 2019, the Democrats’ fresh face, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, was also invoking the WW11 precedent as a way to pay for her multi-trillion “Green New Deal”).

Gergis likes the World Bank-recommended carbon price of $US40-80 by 2020, rising to $US50-100 by 2030, consistent with the Paris Agreement.   I hope couples in Sydney’s Blacktown or Melbourne’s Tarneit don ‘t mind such a hit to their family budgets. She shows only a faint recognition that if Australian capitals are to get 50degC summers as forecast by the models, there will be a desperate need for air conditioning. How would that demand be met with expensive unreliable renewables?

Running the tired and never-fulfilled meme about climate refugees, Gergis writes,“Our region’s vulnerability to humanitarian crises resulting from climate change is so high that Asia-Pacific, which includes Australia, has recently been dubbed ‘Disaster Alley’ by experts in the field.” I was intrigued by anyone comparing the Asia-Pacific region to an alley, and discovered these experts were Ian Dunlop (company director and ex-emissions trading adviser) and David Spratt, a lay blogger and author much like myself but less astute.  I last tangled with him in 2014 at a Moonee Valley Council evening session on energy savings. He was advising his audience on tactics for getting rid of Victoria’s Liberal  government in the impending election.[8]

Her book mentions,  “Some of the brightest climate scientists of our time began contemplating suicide  and developed a need for medication to cope with the anxiety of the vicious scrutiny.” She’s obviously referring to Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, who disgraced himself as author of numerous Climategate emails. Those lapses involved not just destruction of emails subject to FOI[9] but contempt for scientific mores. For example, when Australian scientist Warwick Hughes sought important temperature data from Jones’ publicly-funded research, Jones replied, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

She paints a picture of what she calls our “apocalyptic future” (based on those models) resembling depictions of Hell by medieval painters. “Maybe future Australians will look back at our government’s inadequate action on climate change as an intergenerational crime against humanity,” she writes.

# “If the high-emissions trajectory continues, we are headed for a mass extinction event equivalent to that which wiped out the dinosaurs, along with 80 per cent of all other life on Earth, around 66 million years ago.”

# The West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse and pump up sea levels by 2.7m by 2100, putting  bits of our cities, suburbs and infrastructure under water.

# Tropical diseases like dengue could menace 5-8m Australians by 2100, including Sydney-siders

# Countless Australians, battered by weather extremes, will suffer mental health issues, chronic anxiety and hyper-vigilantism “undermining the social fabric of our society.”

# Darwin gets too hot to live in, “unleashing a wave of climate refugees”. (Maybe we could park those fleeing Darwineans in Tasmania somewhere, though there could be culture clashes with the local greenies).

She says she’s found her 18-20-year-old students at Melbourne University to be quite despondent  about the future (I’m hardly surprised). Among  other horrors she deals out to them are abrupt and irreversible tipping points. She told the UWA crowd that she and her co-authors at the IPCC will be focusing on these hypotheticals.

She singled out Guardian Australia to praise its climate coverage. The obverse is some Rupert Murdoch derangement syndrome: “[Carbon pricing in 2012] was met by a very negative media campaign by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which called for a change of government. This eventually took place in September 2013…”

After her 2012 debacle, she had her draft book fact-checked by eight scrutineers, at least one using the legendary “fine-tooth comb”. Well, checked it may have been, but the published text still  fearures a trillion-dollar understatement: parasitic Third World dictators are not demanding a mere $US100b in climate compensation for 2020, as Gergis claims. Rather, they want $US100b per annum through the 2020s.[10]

Gergis book is remarkable for what it omits, namely everything casting doubt on her climate Armageddon. The book fails the test of famed physicist Richard Feynman that scientists when communicating their hypothesis should also put down all the facts that disagree with it. As he put it, “I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity … bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist.  And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”

To take a few examples, Gergis lauds protests against nuclear power, but doesn’t say what’s wrong with this greenest, safest power source. Her text makes no mention of that great emitter, modern China, a crucial part of the climate projection story. She doesn’t mention the landmark 2016 study by an international team including her CSIRO colleague at the IPCC, Pep Canadell, demonstrating that CO2 has greened the planet and rolled back deserts by an area equivalent to  two and a half Australia’s.[11] She doesn’t mention the huge agricultural benefits of global warming to the boreal forest zones of Canada and Siberia.[12] And never mind the holes in her model-based CO2 causation story.

As in her UWA speech, Gergis’ book says Australia’s future “depends on every person in this country voting for governments … genuinely committed to implementing climate change policy that meaningfully addresses the largest intergenerational ethical challenge in human history…Can we live with ourselves knowing that we are passing on an unsafe and unstable future to our young ones? The good news is that Australia has a long history of communities taking a stand for environmental protection and social justice.”

The nadir of the IPCC was its 2007 Fourth Report, with its Himalayan glacier-melt howler and much other slipshod work. As a result of a swingeing audit by the InterAcademy Council,[13] the 5th report of 2013-14 was reasonably balanced and mindful of the uncertainties. But last October the IPCC was back into politicised and hyped “science” with its 1.5deg warming report. (The plenary delegates left hugging each other and bawling about it). Let’s hope the 2021 Sixth Report doesn’t lose its credibility before we’ve even read it.

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ‘60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and on-line here


[1]  Her Sunburnt Country book lauds the 2017 March for Science rally, “calling on political leaders to restore respect for the critical role that science plays in forming decisions that protect the public good.”

[2]  “… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations [computer models]   reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a [temperature] trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend [actual temperatures] ensemble. This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.”   [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[3] Spencer, Roy, Global Warming Scepticism for Busy People. 2018. Kindle 319/1855

[4]  Canadian Mark Steyn, who is fighting a long-running defence against defamation claims by Mann, published a 320-page book “A Disgrace to the Profession” in 2015 comprising only critiques of Mann’s work by orthodox climate scientists, not by sceptics.

[5] “The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.”

[6] One email read, rather harmlessly, “We have had enough! Sometime in the future your days of leeching off the taxpayers of Australia will end and you will be looking for work in the employment office where you might find a real job and contribute to society in a positive way.”

[7] She was then CEO of Science and Technology Australia

[8] They write for the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, a Melbourne think tank promoting “actions to re-instate natural climate processes that generate global  average temperatures and ocean acidity that are safe for all species and civilisation – i.e. preindustrial temperatures and acidity.”

[9] Mike [Mann], Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. – Cheers, Phil

[10] Her text: “The US was also expected to provide a considerable portion of the US$100 billion in aid to developing nations by 2020 to help them cut emissions…”

[11] Both Gergis and Canadell were delegates to the IPCC lead author meeting in Vancouver in January.

[12] “By 2099, roughly 76% of the boreal regionmight reach crop feasible GDD [growing degree days] conditions, compared to the current 32%. The leading edge of the feasible GDD will shift northwards up to 1200 km by 2099”

[13] The IAC report found “significant shortcomings in each [i.e. every] major step of IPCC’s assessment process”.

  • Doubting Thomas

    I read Steve McIntyre’s savage demolition of her paper on his Climate Audit site at the time. He does not suffer fools gladly.

  • Bwana Neusi

    And now they are trying to claim that the solar minimum is attributing to global warming (sorry climate change).

  • Ilajd

    What’s missing from this coterie of alarmists is a passion for science and an appreciation of the scientific method. If we could harness the energy given off by Richard Feynman spinning in his grave the energy crisis would be solved.

  • pgang

    Did anybody see Kudelka’s infantile anti-coal ‘cartoon’ in the Australian today? (Cartoon? His scratchings make any 5 year old a cartoonist).

    Why does The Australian publish him? Good cartoons used to be a newspaper’s greatest asset, but now they don’t seem to even look at the copy before it’s published.

  • ianl

    Gergis’ 2012 paper was skewered by Jean S on Steve McIntyre’s website. The essential “error” (and not really an error so much as hubris) was that the paper claimed to have demonstrated unequivocal anthropogenicall-caused warming without cherry picking the data using an objective data pre-screen technique. Jean S found that core claim was completely untrue – the data was indeed a cherry pick.

    The lesser of the paper’s authors examined Jean S’ comment and realised it was perfectly true. He (lesser author) then actually emailed Gergis et al saying so and suggesting an urgent review. Since this core issue fundamentally destroyed the paper, requiring its’ withdrawal (denied by Karoly even as it was occurring), the “review and rewrite” took some considerable time and deniability. Even then, it was nor republished but referred to in the IPCC Pages 2k as a reference without acknowledgement of its’ leprositic provenance.

    I expect the term “black start” will become understood in its’ true awfulness over the next few years. gergil has helped this to become inevitable.

  • Alice Thermopolis

    “People with no qualifications can take a scientific idea and misconstrue it, and try to tell us how to do our job which I found quite arrogant.”

    Yet so much of the real mischief here comes from people with qualifications who take a scientific hypothesis and misconstrue it to further their alarmist careers. Quite arrogant, don’t you think?

    One only has to look (carefully) at the stuff produced by the experts to see what I mean. Two examples below.

    How many scientists does it take to change a planet’s climate? Judging from this paper published online on June 19, 2017 – “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates” – by Benjamin Santer, Matthew England, Michael Mann and others – at least sixteen, being the number of authors.

    This Santer et al. paper is revealing, both in content and timing. It tries to explain (in six pages) the divergence between actual global temperatures and those projected by climate models during the past two decades. A stunning admission, one confirming what sceptics had been suggesting for years: the models are not infallible.

    The divergence arose, the paper concluded, because they could not predict correctly the magnitude of certain so-called natural forcings, including solar intensity, volcanic activity and internal variability. As for model “sensitivity” to atmospheric carbon dioxide, it was assumed to be correct.

    “We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

    IMO a cheeky, fallacious argument. For if model projections (aka “predictions”) could be explained away on this occasion by evoking “systematic deficiencies”, nebulous phenomena such as “internal variability”, or the poor quality of real-world data, presumably they could be explained away at any time in the future by the gatekeepers of climate-truth and their masters. In other words, the hypotheses hard-wired into the models were/are unfalsifiable, i.e. pseudoscience.


    Secondly, here’s another dark secret in the alarmist attic. The experts apparently have yet to agree on a definition for the word “cause”. Not a good look.

    “Among other lacking items [in the event attribution framework], perhaps the most important one regards the absence of definition for the word cause. Several recurrent controversial arguments in the realm of event attribution may possibly be related to this lacking definition of causality: for instance, an argument often made (Trenberth, 2012) is that any single event has multiple causes, so one can never assert that CO2 emissions, nor any other factors, have actually caused the event. (A. Hannart et al, American Meteorological Society, January 2016, p. 100)

    For the unhinged alarmist, of course, every nasty event on the planet has only one cause: “climate change”.

  • padraic

    If climate scientists need drugs to cope with the coming Armageddon no wonder they come out with such garbage with their addled brains. Let’s assume they get their way and all electricity is produced by Gaia’s sun and wind (they love getting things for free – like the dole, research grants etc). The next step will be to create some other catastropharian vision that needs some sort of social flagellation and repentance – suffering will set you free should be their motto.

    Nothing has changed. I came across some old family letters the other day and this is what my father said in a letter to me when I was overseas. At the time he was living in what is now called an “inner-west” suburb of Sydney:- “Saturday 6 March 1965 – Today (11.30 am) it is already 97 degF in the City and up to 10-15 degrees hotter in the suburbs. The horizon is a pall of smoke from bush fires which are raging all around Sydney. Drought or near drought conditions prevail over most of NSW, which is described as a “tinderbox”. Bad as it is here, Victoria is worse. 2,000 people, including troops are fighting huge fires in East Gippsland where homes have been wiped out and a couple of firefighters have lost their lives. As I write, another two are missing, thought to have been cut off by a sudden change in the wind. Marulan and Towrang (near Goulburn) are both threatened by huge fires and are appealing for firefighters. Nearer home, the Galston Gorge and the Manly reservoir area are both ablaze. Nearer home, the scrub out at the Sutherland-Menai-Georges River area is blazing. The gusty hot nor-easterly would not help and in fact just dries you right out when you step out the door. It is too hot to run the kids down to the beach. We tried the other day, but the paths and sand were so hot that even the dog jibbed at walking on the paths or beach. The kitten, which we took along for the ride, ended up a case of heat prostration.”

    My Note: These were the days when homes were not generally air-conditioned nor were cars, when people used to drive with the driver’s window down with a small wind deflector attached to the front of the driver’s window. So why do these delicate flowers of today think anything is different. It has always been thus in Australia.

  • Bushranger71

    Herewith some clear thinking (sanity) from Patrick Moore, the co-founder and former President of ‘Greenpeace’:

    ‘Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign — well, fear and guilt — you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two.

    And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children, and then you’ve got the green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials, and then you’ve got the green businesses, the rent-seekers and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this, and then of course you’ve got the scientists who are willingly, they’re basically hooked on government grants.

    When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false numbers, but most of the scientists — put it in quotes, scientists — who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money. They are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it — build a better mousetrap type of idea — but most of what these so-called scientists are doing is simply producing more fear so that politicians can use it control people’s mind and get their votes because some of the people are convinced, ‘Oh, this politician can save my kid from certain doom.’

    It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff. If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.

    So this was around the beginning of what we call the Enlightenment, when science became the way in which we gained knowledge instead of using superstition and instead of using invisible demons and whatever else, we started to understand that you have to have observation of actual events and then you have to repeat those observations over and over again, and that is basically the scientific method.

    It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.’

    Australia is a vast land subject of course to regional climatic variations with huge oceans on 3 sides of the continent generating seasonal changes due to sea temperature effects since time began. Droughts, flooding rains, lightning initiated bushfires, etcetera are just part of our natural tapestry.

    A good thing began happening in 2008 with progressive compilation of spatial mapping of groundwater and surface water throughout the catchments of the continent. This should enable better appreciation of crucial hydrology within all of the basins.

    Although the multiple government agencies involved are infested with many brainwashed ‘warmistas’, the raw scientific data should be invaluable, if objectively interpreted.

  • johanna

    “People with no qualifications can take a scientific idea and misconstrue it, and try to tell us how to do our job which I found quite arrogant.”

    This is utterly dishonest. People like Steve McIntyre and Jean Sibelius are highly qualified in their field. It is so-called climate ‘scientists’ who either do not understand or deliberately misuse statistics who misconstrue data. That is why so many of their papers got shot down in flames at McIntyre’s blog.

    As for the accusation of arrogance – arrogance is treating legitimate requests for the data and methodology underlying your conclusions as a form of persecution, instead of the embodiment of the scientific method.

Post a comment

Sign me up for the newsletter!