More on Greenhouse signature MIA

The following was forwarded to me with the following introduction: This is in my view an important letter from Prof. Don Parkes (Ret), to some of the nations politicians. I think that we should all in our own words and in our own way, make all of Australia's politicians aware that we need a decent, effective and well informed opposition in particular.

It is a statement on the article I posted regarding the opinion piece in the Australian, ‘No smoking hot spot.’

By D.N.Parkes PhD Human Ecology (Retired Professor, Australia and Japan)

Not only is Evans well qualified in academic terms: but he has been at the very heart of the interface between science and national politics as a Consultant to the Australian Government's Greenhouse Office, albeit during the term of the previous government.

In this role, among other things no doubt, he personally developed the very climate change related land use and forestry models that are a basis for the Rudd Australian Government's outrageous policy on what is now called, with typical sophistry, 'pollution reduction'!

Evans makes two critical statements:

“.... most of the public and our decision makers [see comment * below from Professor Pitman] are not aware of the most basic facts."

"The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary."

It is now up to the news media to report. Though welcome as an 'Opinion' piece in The Australian newspaper, this is a far cry from that same newspaper showing any real courage and reporting the views as a NEWS item with equal weight given in column measurements to that afforded the discredited science of IPCC, day after day. Every now and again an Opinion piece is published - few voters will read it as they would a news item version.

It has been as a direct result of the media's selfish and opportunistic selectivity, world wide, that an independent scientist and engineer, with a Doctorate (Stanford) in Electrical Engineering and therefore no doubt well able to write the sort of complex system models he prepared for the Greenhouse Office of the Australian Government, has been persuaded to be so forthright.

In fact what Evans is saying is devastating NEWS for the Australian and global public. Many of us who have doubts about the strength of the IPCC science and who questioned individual IPCC scientists (see below) find nothing new in what Evans writes except for his explosive revelation of the growing unsuitability of models as a basis for policy.

One Australian scientist, Professor Pitman is an IPCC lead author and in the field in which Evans developed his modeling : land use and forestry sector as affected by so-called anthropogenic global warming.

On April 14 2008, Corbyn (UK), Hendriksen (Greenland), Parkes (Australia) and Schreuder (UK/Netherlands) wrote to IPCC's Dr. Pachauri and included D'Aleo's now famous graph showing no relationship between temperatures and atmospheric CO2 over a 10 year period. http://www.uncapsa.org/Topics/IPCC_letter_14April08-1.pdf) .

We asked for an explanation. We received an immediate and aggressive reply from IPCCs Pitman [*]: not only did he unequivocally reject our concern about the IPCC science and its implications but admonished us saying we had no right to 'confuse decision makers'. Evans is right! Perhaps Pitman will now write to him and explain why decision makers are unaware of the 'salient facts'!

Of course as we know this is more or less straight out of the IPCC's Procedural Documentation, as is the consensus requirement for those preparing the Summaries for Policymakers. Pitman must be aware of and have used Evans' models. He will not however have the courage to write publicly on the matter, admit that there is no warming, admit that models he uses are not sufficient for policy making at the draconian level now intended by Prime Minister Rudd. Yet he is well paid to do just that.

Professor Karoly of Melbourne University is also an IPCC lead author, paid by Australian taxes. He will not answer our question on CO2 and its causal properties in global warming: we are also waiting for him to provide the review of a recent article by Dr. Vincent Gray, a former IPCC expert reviewer who has been extremely critical of IPCC science.

AT first Karoly said he 'did not review articles that were not peer reviewed! He finally agreed - but he is now well over the agreed date and no longer responds to emails. He too advises Australia's Prime Minister.

Another Australian climate scientist is Professor Brook of Adelaide, his title is almost laughable as "Professor of Climate Change" - laughable because for Brook there is no chance of change, and laughable because it befits the bias of the South Australian State Government that funds the position.

Brook was simply outrageously abusive to us when he was asked to comment, by a colleague, on our letter to Pachauri and D'Aleo's now famous graph: eventually he provided an unreserved apology: following threats of action against him through his University. It is this sort of extraordinary behavior that those who question the 'high priests' of an albeit flagging religion, receive.

Another example of the disdain with which Australia's AGW scientists treat questions of public significance was evident at a meeting of the Royal Society of NSW in Mittagong on April 5 2008. Dr. Pearman, formerly of CSIRO but now a fund raiser and public speaker for Monash University and the so-called Climate Institute (not to be confused with the real one!) is an adviser to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, P.Wong, but when asked a question about when 'cooling' might be expected from his 'models' replied facetiously in 20,000 years or next year!

This is arrogance driven by ignorance and fear of a loss of the good times if an honest answer is given: Pearman should have said, 'Well observations show that there is cooling now: our models did not project it'.

In the wake of such extraordinary behavior for publicly funded scientists on a matter of such significance, [behavior that would not be tolerated by medical science or pharmaceutical science]: Evans has been truly refreshing.

In the article, that I hope Benny and Marc and Kate and others will distribute widely, Evans itemizes 3 "salient facts", with additional clear exposition. In brief as, 1) The greenhouse signature is missing. 2) There is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming [some scientists would go further and propose that there is NO causal link at all]. 3) The satellites [NOT models] that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001.

Ignorance of or disregard for any ONE of these 'salient facts' do indeed expose the Australian Rudd Government as 'criminally negligent' (Evans 2008) - will any news media in Australia or worldwide have the courage to present this as a news item? The Australian will not use it again no doubt but at least it has made a start. The Daily Telegraph in UK perhaps, the National Post in Canada, The WSJ in the US?

Evans asks, "What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue to rise?" [As seems ever more likely from the pattern of observed temperature data and the signals on solar activity rather than flawed models]. He asserts, and it seems with some grounds for doing so in the light of the recent Garnaut report and Prime Minister Rudd's absurd labeling of the gas that is essential for ALL life on earth, as a 'pollutant' - that Rudd's Labor government is about to 'deliberately wreck the economy in order reduce carbon emissions'.

However it is not only the Government that will deliberately wreck the economy but the Unions also. The Union leaders will be privy to much of the spin on 'climate change' data - but their members will not. They are going to lose their jobs in the thousands - but Rudd is going to 'compensate them'! Copy of this letter and the Evans article is being sent to the AWU, earlier correspondence to them on the matter of Rudd's needless policy that threatens its members, was not answered.

The political party, here in Australia or in the US, Canada or UK that espouses the points that Evans [and many other scientists have made] will win the next elections in their respective countries. The need to conserve fossil fuels for 'movement' is now well understood and will be supported simply on the basis that fuel for transport vehicles, as we know them today is in short supply - that is the reason. The scrapping of all carbon capping, trading, taxing nonsense - unheard of no more than 10 years ago - will be both easy and well received - and votes will prove it.

Readers who are unaware of a recent letter signed by scientists from South Africa, Canada, USA, UK, Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Greenland including one Nobel Peace Prize winner 1988 (shared), and 3 former IPCC expert reviewers might like to refer to the following site where the Letter and related data can be found.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

Copies have been sent to Australian MPs including MP Greg Combet, formerly Sec-Gen of the ACTU.

Remember Mises' great quote:

Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigourously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.