Independent Experts Demand Junk Climate Science Inquiry
Global temperatures have flatlined for the last 16 years. Increased public dissatisfaction with what is seen as junk climate science has put policymakers very much on the spot.
For the last six months Judy Ryan (a retired Epidemiologist) and Marjorie Curtis (a retired Geologist) have been engaged in a public letter writing campaign against prominent scientific climate alarmists, in Australia. The strategy is working.
Now, with the Federal election a week away Judy and Marjory have lodged a formal complaint to the Ombudsman against the Department of Climate Change and the Climate Commission. Over one hundred media outlets, opposition politicians and University student newspapers are openly copied in, so that it is on the public record.
Judy and Marjorie say they will keep applying pressure for a full investigatation of their formal complaint with the Ombudsman, and they have another formal complaint in the pipeline. Below we are delighted to publish a full copy of their latest correspondence in the matter.
Dear Ombudsman,
As you are aware, I lodged a formal complaint against the Department for Climate Change (DCC),which is the government agency responsible for the Climate Commission, on the 2nd August 2013. Neither DCC or the Climate Commission (CC) have responded satisfactorily within the twenty-eight day time frame so I am exercising my right to bring this matter to the ombudsman.
My formal complaint to you is :
(1) that since its inception DCC/CC’s scientists have not followed due process or applied scientific rigor in measuring scientific consensus on CAGW. Their method has been biased, unscientific and inadequate. They selected fundamentally flawed and methodologically weak surveys such as the Doran and Zimmerman Survey published in Climate Change’ http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf as evidence, while omitting many methodologically sound surveys on the basis that they are not published in the peer reviewed literature (see point 3 below).
Further, the DCC/CC’s scientists failed to consider studies in the scholarly peer reviewed literature that did not support the CAGW hypothesis. Just one of the many selective omissions is the research conducted by Armstrong, J. S., Green, K. C., & Soon, W. (2011). Research on forecasting for the manmade global warming alarm. Energy and Environment, 22, 1091–1104, which is very critical of the flawed methodology underpinning the measurement of scientific consensus for CAGW.
-
DCC/CC scientists have also included fundamentally flawed literature reviews such Oreskes 2004, Anderegg et al 2010, and Cook et al 2013 as robust measures of 97-98{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} scientific consensus for CAGW. All three of these studies has been heavily criticized in the scientific literature for flawed methodology which distorted the results.
-
The Australian people have been lead to believe that when the DCC/CC uses the term ‘peer reviewed literature’ (see point 1) they are referring to the scholarly peer review process as described in Wikipedia. However, under the auspices of the DCC/CC the definition of scholarly peer review now includes the summary reports of corporate organizations and non-government organizations such as Greenpeace. But, again under the auspices of the DCC/CC, scholarly peer does not include the work of Professor Murry Salby which is satellite data that clearly supports the null hypothesis. Professor Salby’s work has been subjected to scholarly peer review by his colleagues and accepted as valid empirical evidence against the CAGW hypothesis. His work is submitted for publication but is indefinitely delayed in the scholarly peer review process. The evidence indicates that DCC/CC scientists have been, and still are, engaged in the scholarly peer review process in Australia, in organizations such as the Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html Therefore,I am requesting the Ombudsman to investigate whether correct procedure has been adhered to.
To summarize, the DCC/CC has behaved in a misleading manner towards the Australian people by applying a biased, inadequate, unscientific methodology to the measurement of supposed scientific consensus. They have then continuously repeated the resultant false overwhelming scientific consensus for CAGW as if it were fact. There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is based on scientific rigor applied to testing alternative hypotheses against the null hypotheses and accepting the results of the data analysis. Only then does science progress with integrity.
Dr Judy Ryan & Dr Marjorie Curtis
Trackback from your site.