Tenacious Dr Ryan and the Battle for CO2 Sanity
Dr Judy Ryan is proving to be remorseless in her battle on behalf of Aussie climate realists. Once again she’s turning up the heat via official bureaucratic channels over government misrepresentation in official literature over carbon dioxide (CO2).
The cause of her ire are those discredited alarmist professors Steffen, Karoly and Flannery who seem to be the instigators of a blatant misrepresentation; science fraud, if you like. We’ve provided coverage of Dr Ryan’s ongoing saga here, here, here, and here.
By either deceit or plain ignorance, Australian officialdom has for long been portraying CO2 as a pollutant in taxpayer-funded literature. This is graphically potrayed in misleading campaigns depicting an industrial chimney stack belching black smoke (see right).
But the emotive image is utterly false. CO2 emissions are colorless. But, more crucially, this benign atmopsheric trace gas (< 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) is non-toxic, being the very stuff we exhale as we breath and plants require as food.
As a scientist, Dr Ryan, forthrightly put such facts across in her correspondence berating the dunderheaded professors. But the Ombudsman’s apparent continued disregard of her Formal Complaint, originally lodged against the then Department for Climate Change (DCC) on 29th August 2013, won’t deter Dr. Ryan. She reports:
“The DCC had 28 days to respond before we could exercise our right to take it to the Ombudsman. The elections intervened and DCC became the Department of the Environment (DOE). Nobody from DOE contacted us so we took the formal complaint to the Ombudsman on the 10th October 2013.”
Nothing happened for a while, but Judy was assured over the phone that her complaint was waiting to be attended to.
“Time passed, and passed, and passed, until on the afternoon of the 26th November 2013, I left a message on the Ombudsman’s answering machine, stating that If the matter was not dealt with within the next 48 hours we would lodge it again by public email. The following morning 27th of November an officer from the Ombudsman’s office contacted me, deeply apologetic because evidently even though they had received it, the original formal complaint to DCC had somehow got lost in the change over.” Sounds like “Yes Minister” doesn’t it.
“So we had to go back to square one and resubmit the complaint to the DOE, which we did.”
But then getting an unsatisfactorily reply from the DOE officer Dr. Ryan” took the complaint to the Ombudsman on 14th January 2014.
“As we know, it takes patience and tenacity to be a skeptic, but nevertheless it will be interesting and informative to see how they respond.”
Dr Ryan remains resolute advising, “Each formal complaint is a learning process for the next one.”
Dr Ryan suggests concerned readers should feel free to copy and paste her lates letter (below) to use in their own formal complaints.
Dr Ryan’s latest letter:
Dear Ombudsman,
I lodged a formal complaint against the Department for Climate Change on 29th August 2013, receipt number CAS-820624-0JLWGQ. The Department for Climate Change is now absorbed into the Department for Environment and it’s policies and procedures still exist albeit under a new title “Direct Action”.
I have not received any response to the formal complaint from any officer from either the Department for Climate Change or the Department for the Environment, therefore I exercise my right to bring this formal complain to the Ombudsman for investigation.
I have it on record from Elisha Hill that the ombudsman cannot investigate any content of a formal complaint against a government agency UNLESS the complaint identifies policies and procedures, conducted by the relevant department, that are/were obviously incorrect. I bring it to the ombudsman’s attention that the policies and procedures addressed in this complaint are obviously incorrect and have been so since inception.
Firstly, Carbon dioxide is a transparent gas not black as is portrayed in the examples shown in the complaint. Secondly, the emissions from coal fired power stations around 90 -95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} carbon dioxide which is a non toxic, environmentally beneficial, trace gas. Its solid state is Dry Ice, therefore impossible to be emitted from a coal fired power station.
The term ‘carbon’ when used as shorthand for ‘carbon dioxide is a complete misnomer. as they are two different things. Consequently, the terms ‘Carbon Emissions’ and ‘Carbon Pollution’ are based on obviously incorrect policies and procedures.
Any Australian can look these facts up in Wikipedia or any reputable science text book, then deduce that the policies and procedures of the relevant departments have been, and still are, fundamentally flawed. These incorrect policies and procedures have been crippling Australia’s industries, and financially penalizing and impoverishing ordinary australian citizens.
In closing, the examples in the attached complaint are only two out of many that are obviously based on obviously incorrect policies and procedures.
Regards Dr Judy Ryan
Trackback from your site.