Open Letter on Question of Australian Climate Science Fraud
Dear Professor Steffen,
We read your comments in the Canberra Times on Saturday 26th October. As you have not responded to our earlier letter we now add our further concerns.
Is it misleading the Australian public when you say that the science on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmining/(CAGW) alias climate change/ extreme weather events etc. has been settled for decades?
You completely omit to mention the NIPCC Report which shows robust evidence for the null hypothesis.
You omit the historical events detailed in the climate gate emails which clearly indicate that the science was not settled as far back as 2009. Is it a coincidence that the bipartisan support for CAGW started to decline as from 2009?
You omit to mention the recorded signatures of more than 30,000 scientists (www.petitionproject.org) who have maintained over a considerable period of time that there is no convincing evidence for CAGW.
You omit to mention that many of these scientists are considering legal action against Al Gore for fraud (Preview on YouTube).
The Australian people trust you to provide them with reliable, evidence-based information. That means no exaggeration of effects, no misleading allegations and no omission of evidence that does not support your hypothesis.
Fraud is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, quote: “a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”
The Australian people are suffering “legal injury” as a result of the Carbon Tax/Direct Action Scheme and a host of other policies and administrative decisions driven by advice regarding the science of climate change. Is that advice false or misleading? Does it deceive by concealing relevant facts?
For almost one year we have been providing methodologically sound research and solid evidence for the null hypothesis to Professors Karoly, Flannery and now you. We are requesting simply that you provide robust evidence to support your CAGW hypothesis.
In our opinion your statement in the Canberra Times that you never go to secondary resources like Wikipedia for referencing is also misleading. You omit to mention that the Climate Commission/Council reference the reports of international agencies, greenpeace activists and university students whilst not referencing the work of respected scientists such Scott and Green et al, Murry Salby and Bob Carter. to name just a few.
In our opinion, in this issue, Wikipedia is more accurate and has more scientific credibility than the scholarly peer reviewed literature that you refer to.
For example Wikipedia describes carbon dioxide accurately as a transparent gas. By contrast your peer revised papers, including your most recent one (see previous letter) consistently portray carbon dioxide as black (see image: right). Isn’t that really misleading?
Once again, if you think there is anything we have said that is untrue please click reply all and let us know and we will apologise.
Regards,
Dr Judy Ryan & Dr Marjory Curtis
Trackback from your site.