Cover page from Melinda Rene
Melinda:
Letter as first four pages. Needs different font and layout.
Different footnote
Same date and my name in footnote on each
1
Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.
180 Haven Road
Pullenvale QLD 4069
Australia
61 7 3374 3374
61 4 1964 2379
malccolmr@conscious.com.au
www.conscious.com.au
www.galileomovement.com.au
Steve: Austin.
Radio Compere
ABC-Radio 612 4QR
114 Grey Street
South Brisbane QLD 4101
(GPO Box 9994, Brisbane QLD 4001)
Australia
“Let the beauty of what you love be what you do” Rumi
Dear Steve:
Re: Management Consultant’s Report on CSIRO Document:
‘The Science of Tackling Climate Change’
Appreciation and Scope
Your openness and challenge are appreciated. Of journalists contacted in recent years
you’re the only ABC person to reach out. Such care and connection sustains and protects
personal and national freedom.
Thank you for commissioning this management consultant’s report on what you
described as CSIRO’s ”climate change scientific theory”. You provided CSIRO’s
document entitled ‘The Science of Tackling Climate Change’ and advised that it “is the
official CSIRO document provided by the head of CSIRO, Dr Megan Clarke”. You
specifically requested me to, quote “please read through the Australian scientific paper
and identify where you believe the CSIRO data has been falsified or is wrong”.
2
Investigating for this report identified daunting challenges for Australian governance.
These are freely shared. One future path provides huge opportunities for Australians.
For all recipients, your invitation and my acceptance are accessible here:
**(1) XXXXXX LINK TO STEVE’S EMAIL & MY REPLY
Every Australian academic, politician and Australian agency named herein is being sent
a copy by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation. Others are receiving copies
electronically. People being sent copies are listed in Appendix 1b at:
**(2) XXXXXXXXXXXX DISTRIBUTION LIST
Accuracy is important. I have endeavoured honestly to ensure statements are accurate.
This document’s recipients are invited to advise me in their own words specifically of any
claimed material or factual errors. Notification method is outlined at the preceding link.
To minimise reading time, resource usage and costs, electronic supporting appendices
are provided via links in sections of the report. Access URL links are provided. A
dedicated web page provides further supporting material.
Approach: People seek clarity, understanding, trust, reassurance, security
Australia’s CSIRO is respected across many fields of science domestically and overseas.
Although work started immediately after receiving your request, it quickly became clear
that an effective report would require exploring the document’s context. That demanded
deeper, broader understanding of climate work by CSIRO and it’s intimate partner the
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC.
Other priorities delayed completion. I discovered more about the science and about
historical, cultural and systemic drivers of the UN IPCC and of government. These have
shocked me yet been worth the wait. They’re now shared freely.
People today accept that the genuine environmental movement is one of Earth’s most
important movements. It needs to be restored. People value cutting pollution. Global
warming (aka climate change) is a separate issue.
Sadly propaganda, hype and spin are entrenched in federal politics. Community feelings
on climate vary widely: confusion, uncertainty, discomfort, anger, guilt, concern, ...
Children reportedly feel scared about future climate. So-called experts contradict
themselves. Will changing a light bulb or adding a tax change Earth’s temperature?
Confusion can be replaced by clarity by using solid data, sound analysis and considered
judgment. Openly sharing these deepens understanding of climate science and enhances
its communication to Australians. Those who cherish our country will find reassurance
and opportunity. Facts protect: when we trust what we’re being told we feel secure and
at ease being comfortable with our conclusions.
3
This report is structured to deepen and broaden people’s understanding. If I can assist
you or your listeners please feel welcome to discuss with me privately or on air.
I am willing to discuss or debate this topic with the CSIRO’s Chief Executive, Dr. Megan
Clark or any individual or team of three people you wish to nominate to debate key
aspects of global warming (aka climate change). These are: (1) The UN IPCC—the basis
of government climate policy, (2) Real-world science—the only sound basis for climate
policy, (3) The economics—the impacts of climate policy, followed by an open forum for
the audience to hold speakers accountable for data sources. For some debate guidelines:
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php#S
Openness and compassion for accountability
The world is changing. Information is shared widely. People demand openness. Needs
for integrity and accuracy require me to freely share five years of voluntary, independent
research including correspondence and discussions with prominent scientists from both
sides of the global warming debate. Many disturbing discoveries provide enormous
opportunities.
The report presents empirical data and logical scientific reasoning needed to connect
cause and effect. These cornerstones of the scientific method are combined with facts
and observations leading to honest, frank conclusions and invitations for readers to
decide.
Understandably some people have invested emotionally in this controversial topic. For
some this report’s frank openness may initially trigger hurt. From what I’ve seen truth
removes that burden because conscious, caring directness offers the kindest, honest and
most respectful path. Yet the nature of the situation I’ve discovered is such that those
perceived to be acting without integrity or diligence will need our compassion.
Difficult conclusions are drawn while avoiding value judgments that alienate. We cannot
know people’s inner thoughts and motives other than to know that every person does
what they perceive to be best.
Free from alienating value judgments about others’ intent we can assess situations
objectively to ensure future scientific integrity. Consciousness, objectivity and
compassion enable real accountability, creativity, freedom, connection and care. These
drive society’s ultimate protection and advancement.
Hurt brings hope
Personal experience and observation reveal that fear is driving dishonesty in attempts to
suppress and control people. These methods vary. None are new. They have plagued
humanity for millennia and manifest in many ways. I have personal experience of two
prominent Australian reporters misrepresenting people including me. That hurts. Yet
their attempts to control others as detailed in appendices illustrates the constant tussle
between perceived fear and inherent human freedom and care.
4
Hurtful control unfolds to experience understanding. Meeting many diverse groups
across Australia triggers joy, strength, integrity and hope. Citizens are restoring freedom
in many aspects of life. It’s easy to be swamped by unfounded myths yet a new world of
freedom is emerging. Daily people confirm the core challenge is to restore freedom. They
demonstrate human deservedness and readiness for freedom. They restore faith in
inherent human traits of freedom, connection, care, and universal love.
Antihuman myths and ideology painting humanity as evil are overridden as human
creativity daily confirms compelling empirical data from authors such as Robert Zubrin
and Matt Ridley. They provide abundant solid evidence of humanity as deserving trust
and freedom. The data gives hope for a world energised by honesty and objective
science: freedom’s allies and liberators.
My exploration of CSIRO reveals the core challenge and its closely accompanying
solution. I’ve tried to remain objective through use of data and factual observations. I’ve
attempted to convert some seeming intangibles to measurable analysis. Readers will
decide. I have faith in people and the emerging reality of human goodness.
I’ve been fortunate to be educated in objective use of data. I’ve had responsibility for the
lives of hundreds of people based on my statutory qualifications and knowledge of
atmospheric gases including carbon dioxide. Yet my roots in an education system that
nurtures the reality of the human soul and heart combine recent exploring of Eastern
ways to more comprehensively and objectively interpret data and objectivity. What
emerges is a constant struggle to replace control with a balance that enables truth to
emerge. An opportunity for control to be overcome by true forgiveness: freedom.
That quest across society mirrors the quest within each of us between sub-consciousness
and consciousness. Human reality can emerge as part of a growing consciousness and as
part of the universe’s reality.
Author’s background
My work is voluntary and independent. My background, approach and methods are
available in Appendix 1c.
**(3) APPENDIX AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND
My intent has been to serve and assist you and your listeners. I hope this report meets
your needs.
“The time is always right to do what is right” Martin Luther King, Jr
Yours sincerely,
5
Malcolm Roberts
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)
Enclosure:
CSIROh! Climate of Deception A report on CSIRO’s document entitled
‘The Science of Tackling Climate Change’
Supported by Appendices available at:
www.galileomovement.com.au/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (4) GOVT PAGE
6
CSIROh
Climate of Deception
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as
would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining
to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven,
thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Tolstoi
1. Structure
To review CSIRO’s ”climate change scientific theory” and its official document entitled
The Science of Tackling Climate Change advised as being, quote “the official CSIRO
document provided by the head of CSIRO, Dr Megan Clarke” requires analysis in
context. To “read through the Australian scientific paper and identify where you (I)
believe the CSIRO data has been falsified or is wrong requires understanding empirical
climate science and the broader presentation of climate science by CSIRO and its close
associates in the climate industry and in government.
Research repeatedly revealed the need to use terms accurately describing findings.
1.1 Clarification of terms
Except where otherwise stated, the views and conclusions are my opinion based on facts
discovered, on observations and on correspondence during five years of voluntary
research.
Fraud is defined as: the presentation of something as it is not, for personal gain.
A lie is defined: as a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive such as an
intentional untruth; or intended or serving to convey a false impression; or an inaccurate
or false statement, reckless or otherwise.
Crook is defined as: a dishonest person, especially a sharper, swindler or thief.
In Australian vernacular crook describes someone dishonestly pursuing a dishonest
objective, often for personal benefit.
Corruption is defined broadly as: the removal of integrity undermining trust, confidence
and/or morality.
Propaganda is defined as information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to
help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
The first step is to assess the global body spreading claims that human carbon dioxide
(CO2) caused global warming. This body, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
1
on Climate Change (UN IPCC) works intimately with CSIRO. In turn many CSIRO staff
and people associated with CSIRO contribute to UN IPCC reports. Thirdly, CSIRO and
its senior executives publicly endorse UN IPCC reports.
2. UN IPCC and its intimate collaboration with CSIRO
Detailed supporting material and references are provided in Appendix 2 UN IPCC. My
key conclusions on the UN IPCC are based on the findings of many bodies, scientists and
my correspondence with contributors to the UN IPCC. My conclusions are:
1. The UN IPCC is damned by the August 2010 report by the world’s peak scientific
academic body, the Inter Academy Council, IAC. That exposes many serious
issues including bias, poor management, unfounded claims of scientific certainty
and conflicts of interest;
2. The UN IPCC has no evidence for its core claim of warming by human CO2;
A UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer reveals no evidence exists;
A UN IPCC Lead Author claiming human CO2 caused warming has no evidence;
3. The former President of America’s National Academy of Sciences condemned the
UN IPCC;
4. There is no scientific consensus claiming warming by human CO2;
5. UN IPCC Guidelines require science to be modified to suit the politics;
6. There have been fundamental breaches of UN IPCC Guidelines;
7. UN IPCC data on its reporting processes reveals UN IPCC is unscientific;
8. The Climategate scandal reveals prominent UN IPCC scientists hiding data,
excluding empirical data from UN IPCC reports, preventing access to data,
misrepresenting data, interfering with and destroying scientific peer-review;
9. History reveals the UN IPCC was born in corruption and is rife with corruption;
10. The UN IPCC corrupts, often bypasses and sometimes prevents ‘peer-review’;
11. The UN IPCC’s rot starts at the top with conflicts of financial and other interests;
12. UN IPCC Lead Authors and contributing scientists reveal UN IPCC fraud;
13. Canadian investigative journalist reveals UN IPCC as unscientific, tainted,
unworthy, deceptive;
14. The UN IPCC relies on and endorses reports by ideologues, extremists, and
political activists;
15. India dumped the UN IPCC;
16. UN IPCC researchers now seek immunity from prosecution;
17. A prominent UN IPCC Lead Author misled the USA Congress;
18. Each of the four UN IPCC reports to national governments and media is based on
an unscientific falsity. ie, 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007;
19. The UN IPCC’s corruption of climate science originated in the United Nations
Environmental Program, UNEP led specifically by UNEP’s first SecretaryGeneral, Maurice Strong;
20. The so-called ‘climate science’ was settled politically before the science even
started;
21. The UN IPCC’s apparent reporting strategy deceptively misled key people;
2
22. Many real scientists were initially fooled by UN IPCC fraud. Many have since
awoken. Many journalists continue to fall for and promote the political scam;
23. Is big government using big tobacco’s tactics and methods to hide the data?
The UN IPCC purports to be scientific. Yet it was given a Nobel Peace Prize by a political
committee of the Norwegian parliament. It was not awarded a Nobel prize in any
science.
In the UN IPCC’s latest report, the sole chapter implying warming attributed to human
CO2 contains no empirical scientific evidence. The UN IPCC contradicts empirical
evidence, science’s ultimate arbiter.
The UN IPCC pulls off a remarkable feat: it uses language to defeat science. Consider
that climate contains many massive scientific uncertainties and unknowns. Yet many
massive uncertainties and unknowns are dishonestly transformed into the basis of a
global emergency supposedly requiring drastic global action through global treaties
controlling national, regional, local and personal rights.
Arguably the UN IPCC’s most senior person on climate science, David Karoly has
repeatedly failed to provide evidence that human CO2 caused global warming.
UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray concludes, quote: "The (IPCC)
climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
Yet CSIRO relies on and endorses UN IPCC reports.
My analysis of the UN IPCC produces two main conclusion and one simple question:
1. UN IPCC reports are fraudulent and deliberately misleading. The UN IPCC’s
implied core claims contradict empirical science. They’re based on beliefs. The
UN IPCC is driven by ideology and is an ideological tool.
2. Through a clever network in developed nations, the fraud is being perpetrated by
misappropriating government spending and resources. Some involved are dong
this deliberately. Many others are unwitting supporters.
3. Why? What’s the motive? Could it be Maurice Strong’s stated goal: establishing
centrally controlled socialist global governance?
These conclusions provide reassurance on climate. As explained in later sections, it
provides huge opportunity for improving human life and for caring for the natural
environment. Restoring science will pave the way for resumption of humanity’s proven
relentless march to safer, easier, more comfortable, abundant, secure and fairer lifestyles
with even greater understanding, respect and care of our planet and our natural
environment.
The UN IPCC contradicts empirical evidence answering all four fundamental questions
The UN IPCC propagates all three core climate alarm misrepresentations.
3
UN IPCC reports are fraudulent. They misrepresent climate, apparently deliberately.
Details and references are provided in Appendix 2.
3. Al Gore’s inconvenient falsities in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
Appendix 3 reveals four independent detailed analyses of Al Gore’s movie ‘An
Inconvenient Truth’. They reveal what I conclude to be Al Gore’s deliberate
misrepresentations of climate and science to promote a global political agenda aligned
with and supporting his own political and financial interests.
As a result of Al Gore’s lies and deceit, climate alarm became entrenched. Opposition
was silenced in the media due to three carefully fabricated misconceptions that are now
unravelling.
Al Gore contradicts empirical evidence answering all four fundamental questions
Al Gore propagates all three core climate alarm misrepresentations.
Al Gore’s movie and claims misrepresent Nature, apparently deliberately.
Details and references are provided in Appendix 3.
4. Fundamental Climate Science and Basic Questions
In summary, observed changes in climate fall well within the range of natural variability.
There is no observational (empirical), physical or logical basis for the claim that human
CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. The claimed supposed theoretical basis is now
hotly disputed by physicists, climatologists, geologists and scientists from many fields.
For any claim advocating cutting human production of CO2, four basic questions ALL
need to be answered yes:
1. Is global ATMOSPHERIC temperature warming unusually in either amount or rate of
warming and is it continuing to rise?
2. Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air control or determine Earth’s
temperature?
3. Does human CO2 production determine the level of CO2 in air?
4. Is warming catastrophic or even damaging?
The foundation of science is logical reasoning proving or disproving causal relationships.
The core and ultimate arbiter of science is scientifically measured repeatable empirical
evidence. It provides answers to all four questions.
Empirical scientific data unequivocally answers each of the basic questions with a
resounding NO.
4
Empirical scientific evidence reverses fundamental claims by the UN IPCC and CSIRO.
Taken in order, global atmospheric warming ended in 1998. Or, according to various
experts it ended in 2002, 1997, 1995. It ended.
The UN IPCC’s claim of supposed global atmospheric warming relies on unscientific
manipulation of ground-based temperature data.
It seems ‘experts’ fail to agree on recorded past and current ground-based temperatures.
Yet they pretend consensus on temperature in the year 2100. Why?
Changes in the air’s CO2 levels do not cause temperature changes. They are a
consequence of temperature changes. Nature empirically proves that temperature drives
and determines atmospheric CO2 levels. As temperatures change, CO2 levels change.
This is revealed seasonally and in the overall trend on a 1,000 year lag.
Human production of CO2 does not determine atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature alone
determines atmospheric CO2 levels.
Warming is highly beneficial for most individual people, humanity, civilisation and the
natural environment. Earth’s past warm periods are described scientifically as climate
optimums.
There is no empirical evidence that human CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic
global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended 14 years ago in 1998.
There is much evidence that humans do not and cannot control Earth’s thermostat. Nor
can we control CO2 levels in air.
If we could we would select higher temperatures and select higher CO2 levels.
Details and references are provided in Appendix 4.
4a. Empirical Data on Alarming Climate Claims
In summary, observed changes in climate fall well within the range of natural variability.
From this appendix I draw two conclusions and ask four questions:
1. Empirical science reveals that nothing unusual is occurring due to human CO2.
We have nothing to fear from producing CO2. There is no need to cut CO2 output;
2. Unfounded, unscientific alarm has caused considerable losses;
3. Why is government contradicting empirical science and funding dishonest claims
of catastrophic consequences from human industry and activity?
4. Did government fail to do its due diligence? Why is it wasting taxpayers’ funds
echoing fraudulent claims by the UN IPCC?
5
5. What is the impact on mental health and especially on children constantly bashed
with unfounded fear and guilt?
Details and references are provided in Appendix 4a.
5. Three massive misrepresentations. All completely false
Appendix 5 reveals that the UN IPCC, Al Gore and agencies and academics funded by
government deliberately fabricated and spread three fundamental misrepresentations of
climate, science and Nature. These are:
1. The core unfounded claim of UN IPCC reports that human CO2 production caused
atmospheric warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. This is false. It
contradicts empirical science.
None of the prominent academics and agencies promoting unfounded climate alarm has
any scientific empirical evidence for their claim. All are funded by government. Seven of
the nine have close ties to the UN IPCC. See Appendices 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
2. Warming caused by human CO2 will at some unspecified future date cross an
unspecified threshold to cause catastrophe. This is unscientific and contradicts empirical
evidence.
3. There exists an overwhelming consensus of scientists agreeing with the UN IPCC’s
core claim. This is blatantly false.
An associated false claim is that scientifically peer-reviewed literature supports the UN
IPCC’s core claim. The UN IPCC’s reports are not scientifically peer-reviewed. The UN
IPCC and/or its contributors have corrupted, avoided and prevented scientific peerreview.
David Karoly has actively spread all three misrepresentations and continues to do so
despite having no evidence for the UN IPCC’s core claim and despite being advised in
writing of his misrepresentations.
Will Steffen has actively spread all three misrepresentations and continues to do so
despite being publicly exposed for contradicting the Inter Academy Report.
Government politicians have actively spread these misrepresentations and lied to
parliament. The government’s misrepresentations appear to by synchronised with the
UN IPCC’s global campaign and relies on UN IPCC reports.
Details and references are provided in Appendix 5.
6. CSIRO
6
Summary from Appendix 6 for main document
(To be shortened in third draft)
My specific conclusion on CSIRO’s climate work include the following:
Based on past achievements in many scientific fields CSIRO enjoys a fine reputation
within Australia and internationally. It employs many fine people. In areas outside
politicised aspects of climate change CSIRO reportedly does much credible work.
Graham Williamson’s analysis of CSIRO’s work on climate is detailed and
comprehensive. He cites 198 references. He draws on extensive personal communication
with CSIRO climate scientists and executives. He combines that with extensive
investigation of associated Australian and overseas bodies. He draws four key findings:
 On climate, CSIRO is political, not scientific;
 CSIRO is deeply enmeshed in corrupt UN IPCC processes;
 CSIRO’s glossy print and website brochures are not objective and not scientific.
They merely advocate the ‘alarmist’ or ‘political’ view on climate; and,
 CSIRO scientists act as political advocates within Australia and speak at overseas
conferences as advocates of global governance.
CSIRO relies on, endorses and supports the disgraced and fraudulent UN IPCC.
CSIRO’s support for UN IPCC reports contradicts the body of the Inter Academy
Council’s (IAC) scathing August 2010 report. The IAC is the world’s peak academic
scientific body.
CSIRO’s commitment of human and financial resources to the UN IPCC has been a
major undertaking over the past 20 years. CSIRO is a fervent and uncritical endorser
and advocate of the UN IPCC. Despite the UN IPCC’s many scandals with the hockey
stick graph, dysfunctional peer review processes and prevention of scientific peerreview, data distortion, Climategate, Glaciergate, Chairman’s documented extensive
conflicts of interest, infiltration by activists, … and the IAC’s condemnation of processes
and procedures for UN IPCC reports to national governments and media, the
relationship between CSIRO and the thoroughly discredited UN IPCC endures.
CSIRO is heavily involved in the UN IPCC’s tainted, unscientific work that contradicts
empirical evidence. Like the UN IPCC, CSIRO practices cargo-cult ‘science’. Their
climate reports are political propaganda. Their work amounts to political advocacy.
Real scientists have revealed that temperatures are routinely overstated, evidence
selectively denied and truth concealed, yet CSIRO’s relationship with the UN IPCC is
rock solid.
CSIRO has failed to do its due diligence on the UN IPCC and on UN IPCC reports. A
truly scientific organisation in CSIRO’s place would have asked questions and done
7
extensive detailed due diligence on UN IPCC reports and claims. It would have
condemned the UN IPCC.
UN IPCC fraud is systemic, systematic, pervasive and centrally orchestrated. Many
CSIRO scientists have been, and remain intimately involved in UN IPCC processes.
CSIRO makes unfounded public statements advocating cutting human CO2 and
contradicts empirical science.
On climate, CSIRO misrepresents science. CSIRO lacks empirical science to support its
advocacy of government policy. It contradicts empirical science. It appears to be doing so
knowingly and with the support, endorsement and apparent encouragement of its Chief
Executive.
Empirical scientific climate data reveals that there is no justification for CSIRO climate
alarmism. Yet CSIRO falsely promotes current climate trends as “accelerating”,
”unequivocal” & “unprecedented” together with claims of imminent catastrophe.
Empirical science is evidence based and transparently exposes doubts and uncertainties
in current knowledge. Empirical science depends on valid observations, corrective
criticism, competing hypotheses and rigorous testing.
In their replies to my requests for empirical evidence and for answers to specific
concerns on climate, CSIRO’s Chief Executive Dr. Megan Clark and its Group
Executive—Environment Dr. Andrew Johnson repeatedly failed to provide evidence that
human CO2 caused global warming. Their responses contradict empirical science and
observed facts.
CSIRO advocates and its Chief Executive spread implied or stated misrepresentations of
climate through the media.
I conclude that CSIRO’s dishonesty extends to, and is likely driven by, what I conclude to
be the apparent dishonesty of members of CSIRO’s executive.
Analysis of ‘The Science of Tackling Climate Change’ as requested
One of CSIRO’s roles is as guardian of Australia’s scientific integrity and sovereignty. In
the past it scrutinised overseas claims purporting to be scientific.
Your request Steve for a report on CSIRO’s “climate change scientific theory” is with
respect to climate science. My review of CSIRO’s glossy booklet entitled ‘The Science of
Tackling Climate Change’ is restricted to comments on its pages 2-11. I do not comment
on CSIRO’s work on alternative energy and other topics discussed in remaining pages.
Analysis of this document reveals it contains no empirical scientific evidence nor any
logical scientific rationale for the claim that human CO2 caused global warming. The
8
document misrepresents climate and science. Given the context provided by preceding
sections I conclude that misrepresentation to be deliberately deceptive.
Statements in ‘The Science of Tackling Climate Change’ were analysed and classified
into one of six categories. Although many statements could be categorised into multiple
categories, each CSIRO statement was assigned only one category. eg, a statement could
be false, unfounded, contradict empirical science and falsely blame human CO2 yet is
assigned to only one category.
Providing a management and leadership service internationally to people having widely
varied education and backgrounds, experience shows data is often most effective when
graphically presented for easy and rapid scrutiny, interpretation and summary.
This is the summary of CSIRO statements categorised.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Falsely Contradicts Computer
False
Unfounded Meaningless
blames
empirical Model basis statement
human CO2 science
It is amazing that the Foreword by Dr. Andrew Johnson and the succeeding ten pages
(numbered 2-11) contain so many misrepresentations of science and climate.
Appendix 6a presents my detailed analysis of the CSIRO document. It includes
justification for each categorisation. Please check and assess for yourself.
Significantly, in the page discussing climate alarm’s biggest unfounded scare—projected
future sea levels—CSIRO makes 12 statements contradicting empirical evidence. This
was followed closely by the page on temperature and climate projections with its ten
contradictions of empirical science.
CSIRO knows how to scare people. Yet it has no empirical evidence of human causation
and often contradicts empirical science. It seems self-evident doesn’t it that intent and
real skill are needed to cram so many misrepresentations into such short text?
9
If a sixteen year-old student submitted a science report similar in quality to CSIRO’s
glossy booklet the student would fail for absence of scientific reasoning and
contradiction of empirical science.
Submitting a financial prospectus to the standard of CSIRO’s glossy brochure would lead
to investigation by authorities. I conclude that CSIRO’s report is such that it is
deliberately dishonest. It’s intent, I believe is to deceive.
How can any significant climate statements in this CSIRO booklet be believed? It is a
cocktail of falsities, contradictions and unsubstantiated conclusions based on low levels
of understanding.
CSIRO’s deceit destroys science’s credibility
The seriousness, depth, breadth and brazen nature of what I see as CSIRO’s orchestrated
deliberate deception of taxpayers and parliament leads to questions about CSIRO
‘science’ in other areas such as the Murray-Darling Basin, fisheries, agriculture, ...
Smashing science by corrupting it to push an ideological political agenda and especially
to suppress and control people destroys freedom. CSIRO’s current climate deceit will
severely impact science and the Australian way of life in 10-20 years’ time
It undermines and prevents care for the environment and destroys economic well-being.
It increases waste of resources to needlessly increase humanity’s environmental impact.
It limits our ability to respond to real humanitarian and environmental challenges.
Authors of glossy CSIRO brochures have connections to activist groups deeply enmeshed
in and advocating human CO2 as causing global warming. The document’s reviewers are
all from CSIRO or its sister organisation the Bureau of Meteorology, BOM. The latter is
similarly government funded and often collaborates with CSIRO.
Funding of the document’s underlying supposed ‘research is from:
 Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency;
 Bureau of Meteorology; and,
 CSIRO.
All are funded by government.
David Karoly is widely known for his many statements that misrepresent climate
science. His funding depends on the UN IPCC’s core claim that human CO2 affects
climate catastrophically. Yet he has a role in publication of some glossy CSIRO reports
and is Editor-In-Chief of the BOM’s journal.
On climate, CSIRO fails to fulfil its function specified in the ‘Science and Industry
Research Act, 1949’.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/au/legis/cth/consol_act/saira1949279
10
It contradicts its own ‘Public Research Agency Charter’.
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/How-we-work/Governance/PublicResearch-Agency-Charter-with-the-CSIRO.aspx
Reportedly scientists around the world are now questioning CSIRO’s falsities purported
as science. I conclude that CSIRO’s falsities are deceptive taxpayer-funded political
advocacy.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/csiro-abandons-science
CSIRO has no evidence of human CO2 affecting global climate or national climate. It
seems clear that CSIRO management has deliberately pretended or falsely implied
CSIRO does have such evidence.
They are intelligent people yet avoid, deny or dodge repeated public and private
attempts to present scientific evidence contradicting CSIRO’s claims. Given their
pervasive and persistent contradicting of proven empirical scientific data presented to
CSIRO, this deception by senior CSIRO management appears to be deliberate.
In their responses to my requests for evidence that human CO2 caused global warming
(aka climate change) CSIRO’s Chief Executive and CSIRO’s Group Executive—
Environment have both failed to provide any empirical scientific evidence for CSIRO’s
core claim. They have both failed to provide any logical scientific reasoning for their
unfounded claim contradicting empirical science.
Dr. Johnson, CSIRO’s Group Executive—Environment has failed to provide either
empirical evidence or scientific reasoning on four occasions. He has failed twice to refute
my specific conclusion that CSIRO and references he provided contain no evidence or
supporting logical scientific reasoning. I conclude that in doing so he endorsed my
conclusion that CSIRO has no evidence.
CSIRO’s Group Executive—Environment is aware of the Inter Academy Council’s August
2010 review of the UN IPCC. Yet CSIRO has not withdrawn support for the UN IPCC
despite the body of the IAC report revealing alarming deficiencies in UN IPCC processes
and procedures.
In the climate field CSIRO contradicts empirical science by subordinating it to
projections from unvalidated and erroneous computer models. Yet CSIRO has implied
the models are accurate when they are not. At times it has apparently misled people by
not stating its projections are based on models.
By its own admissions, CSIRO’s models are not adequate for risk assessment. Thus one
wonders why they are being used as the supposed basis of climate policy. Reliance on
CSIRO is not scientific. It is not sound management, it is political.
I conclude that precautions necessary to produce a credible, unbiased scientific
assessment were ignored by the IPCC and CSIRO. Contrary to claims by both
11
organisations, neither UN IPCC nor CSIRO reports and glossy brochures rely on 100%
peer reviewed science. CSIRO’s booklets and pamphlets cite many of the same references
as cited by the discredited UN IPCC. CSIRO presents no evidence that global warming
was caused by human production of CO2. CSIRO ignores massive empirical evidence
that human CO2 did not cause the warming.
CSIRO’s document entitled The Science of Tackling Climate Change, its many other
documents, its climate statements by its Chief Executive and Group Executive—
Environment contain many misrepresentations, lies and corruption. Their public
position is fraudulent.
The scale, direction, content, context and structure of the falsities cannot be sensibly
attributed to incompetence. I conclude that the falsities are orchestrated, deliberate
deceit, possibly combined with weakness. We cannot trust government funded climate
research.
I conclude that together with the UN IPCC, CSIRO indulged in advocacy for climate
alarm, cutting human CO2 production and pushing global governance.
CSIRO contradicts empirical evidence answering all four fundamental questions
CSIRO propagates all three core climate alarm misrepresentations.
Glossy CSIRO climate booklets misrepresent Nature, apparently deliberately.
Details and references are provided in Appendix 3.
When it comes to climate, as far as CSIRO is concerned it seems we can disregard both
the 'S' and the 'R.
Or change it to CSIROh!
We’ve seen the depth of deceit at Australia’s once-proud scientific organisation. Let’s
consider others on the climate industry’s bandwagon of beneficiaries.
7. The Australian government’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)
The UN IPCC contradicts empirical evidence answering all four fundamental questions
The UN IPCC propagates all three core climate alarm misrepresentations.
The UN IPCC’s Assessment reports to nations and media are fraudulent.
12
The BOM contradicts empirical evidence answering all four fundamental questions
The BOM propagates all three core climate alarm misrepresentations.
Copy to all my organisation and alarmist conclusions
New slogans as sub-headings:
Axe the Tax (as reason people are so angry)
Beat Deceit (corruption and politicians)
Humanity over Insanity (Motives section)
13