Why haven’t climate scientists been jailed for fraud?


Evil banksters have been burnt at the stake over the last 30 years. Some would argue that not enough of these swindlers saw the inside of a jail cell. Maybe. Still many have faced multi million dollar fines, two decade prison terms and barred from ever operating again in the financial industry. Yet time and again climate scientists who receive millions in funding to scare us with fraudulent reports never face any repercussions. In fact many end up suing for libel believing their reputations have been tarnished by exposutenof the truth.

In a sense the taxpayer money used to bailout the financial system is not much different from the billions being plowed recklessly into energy policy based on wonky research. Even government sponsored climate organizations (NOAA, NASA, BoM, UNIPCC) have fallen for the sins of huge grants and recycling updated bogus studies by fiddling previous data to keep their Ponzi scheme going. Junket travel has been a big feature in the recent exposures of NASA and BOM. Can’t be seen missing the conference in the Maldives!

So again, why haven’t any scientists “busted” for manipulating data been charged for fraud? If it is ok to send bankers to jail for white collar crimes, why not scientists? Because they can wrap their malfeasance inside models that are sold as well intentioned studies to saving the planet! Who can prove their did predictions might not come to pass?

WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years based on nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and false regulatory filings to the tune of $11bn. Enron’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 35 counts of fraud, insider trading and other crimes related to Enron and sentenced to 24 years prison and fined $45 million. Madoff got 150 years, Stanford got 110 years jail time.

Will whistleblower scalps found guilty of fraud be charged, fined and jailed? It is highly unlikely. They’ll claim anomalies in data and forecasting is indeed difficult.

In any event if there was a Climate Science watchdog that monitored fraud (not to mention massive conflicts of interest which are mentioned in previous pieces) like the SEC how much fraud would scientists try to get away with? Why not have a body which mandates funding sources to check for potential conflicts of interest? That way dishonest scientists would be restricted in their movements and those with legitimate findings wouldn’t see their work drowned out by the rogue elements,

Interestingly most of the court related activities in the scientific fields have been exposed scientists looking to sue for libel after emails proving the fraud were leaked.

Yet scientists don’t have to worry. The media has little interest in chasing something that might ruin their narrative. Even worse they’ll cite scientists (Australia’s former climate commissioner Tim Flannery comes to mind) who have made countless dud predictions (in many cases the complete opposite has occurred ) and act as though it’s gospel.

Once again climate science is a religion. No wonder it’s got so much protection. Hence the vows of silence in the halls of the scientific church. They’re untouchable. However that by deduction makes me a heretic.

Bureau of Meteorology also in on the junk(et) climate science


Below is a piece from The Australian today on the woeful behaviour at the Bureau of Meteorology. The work of yet another one of these venerable institutions (e.g. NASA, NOAA) which we are told to respect without question. Turns out that last year the BoM spent $7.8mn on travel expenses or just shy of $5,000 per head. No doubt flying on taxpayer coin to exotic locations to fight the cause of global warming. As written yesterday a whistleblower at NASA claimed that climate change junkets are more important than the science. Why wouldn’t you fly around the world promoting baseless fear in order to keep your frequent flyer miles up?

Maurice Newman writes,

“Enough is enough. The Bureau of Meteorology yet again stands charged with fabricating temperature records.

This time, thanks to the diligence of scientist Jennifer Marohasy, the bureau has been caught red-handed regulating temperatures to keep them above a predetermined minimum — at least for two NSW automatic weather stations, one located in Goulburn, the other at Thredbo.

The BOM initially admitted it had set an arbitrary limit of minus 10C for the Goulburn station, but then changed the story to the equipment being “not fit for purpose” — because it got too cold — even though the same instruments are used in the Antarctic. The actual temperature measured was a record July low for Goulburn, at minus 10.4C, so why, if the equipment was faulty, didn’t the bureau leave a blank instead of rounding up to minus 10C?

Allowing the bureau to defend itself, Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg called for an internal review.

In 77 pages, it acknowledged that, indeed, Goulburn and Thredbo were governed and, minimum limits were set. This was blamed on a filter being installed into these weather stations 15 and 10 years ago respectively. No limits were imposed on maximum temperatures. Yet implicitly, we are asked to believe that the historical temperature record has not been compromised.

Before filters were installed, Goulburn recorded minus 10.9C in August 1994 and, in that cold winter, Thredbo went down to minus 13.6C and nearby Charlotte Pass to minus 23C on June 29, a record low for Australia. Charlotte Pass weather station was decommissioned in March 2015.

Ironically, the bureau’s newest location, near White Cliffs in NSW, home to some of the nation’s hottest temperatures, last August recorded minus 62.5C, due to a “hardware fault”.

A BOM-friendly technical forum, part of former minister Greg Hunt’s plan to buy time and “kill off” a proposed Abbott government probe, has foreshadowed “the need for a major revision of the dataset”.

Predictably, though, it did not address specific claims by Marohasy and others, and seems satisfied the bureau’s dataset is well maintained. Really? This may fool ministers, but for a sceptical public, time has run out.

British author and journalist Christopher Booker says: “When future generations look back on the global warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records — on which the entire (global warming) panic ultimately rested — were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.” He says this practice has been observed by experts around the world and “raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface temperature record”.

He is joined by John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, who testified before congress that “some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.”

Take the article NASA published in 1999 showing 1934 was the US’s warmest year. Across the ensuing decade, by cooling the past and warming the present, 1998 jumped five places to become the warmest. Whistleblower John Bates, recently retired principal scientist at US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures.

Why should Australia be any different? We remember the Climategate emails from despairing programmer Ian Harris: “Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data, so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references”.

Science writer and blogger Joanne Nova has raised scandal after scandal concerning the BOM’s record-keeping.

She refers to historic data being destroyed, and the influence of adjustments on Australia’s warming trend. She reports private auditors advising the bureau of almost a “thousand days where minimum temperatures were higher than the maxes”.

Taxpayers outlaying $1 million a day for reliable temperature data deserve better than this.

When Australia’s bureau transitioned from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors more than 20 years ago, to ensure readings from these devices were comparable with the old thermometers and complied with World Meteorological Organisation guidelines, parallel studies were undertaken at multiple sites.

A key conclusion was that readings from the new electronic sensors needed to be averaged over one to 10 minutes. However, rather than implement practices consistent with their finding, the bureau records one-second extremes (or noise), which can be announced as new record highs.

Inherent inconsistency aside, this calls into question whether Australian data is WMO compliant. Marohasy discovered this as part of her investigation and believes it is more damning than even the imposition of minimum limits, as it affects the recording of temperatures from all 695 automatic stations.

Marohasy is a respected scientist, known for her forensic work. While attempts will be made to dismiss her evidence as an arcane academic skirmish over recording methodology, it is a smoking gun that threatens the integrity of global temperature records.

It affects every Australian. It strikes at the heart of renewable energy policies. Globally, trillions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

The government has a duty to inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should it have sufficient grounds, that the bureau is not complying with WMO guidelines. Sooner or later, closed eyes must open.

Now, with Marohasy’s evidence adding to the credible findings of other experts, there can be no confidence in any future official assurances. Further delay of a proper independent audit, which includes dissidents, can be interpreted only as a cover-up. One way or another, the truth will out.

80,000 litres of diesel an hour to save renewable energy failure

You have to laugh at the irony. In order to make up for South Australia’s misguided renewable energy policy which has been the cause of numerous blackouts, 9 diesel generators costing $111mn will use 80,000 litres of diesel per hour to keep the lights on during power shortages. Had the Port Augusta coal fired plant not been ceremoniously dynamited as a virtue signaling exercise, South Australian tax payers would be $100mn better off as a start. Energy Plan Implementation ED Sam Crafter said after the initial 13-month period, there was an option to extend the lease for a further 12 months. There also was an option to walk away at the end of 25 months. So if South Australia chooses to extend the lease of the generators for another 12 months the cost won’t be included in the $111m. It is hard not to laugh at the irony of governments who make such appalling choices and cover up their mistakes by stealing more from taxpayers who they never properly showed costings to in the first place. Is it any wonder South Australia has the highest energy costs in the world, the highest unemployment rate in the country and the slowest growth. Don’t be surprised if Premier Jay Weatherill sees this as a fair price to pay to save the planet, even if South Australia is crushed in the process.

When scientists expose the obvious


Below is a resignation letter written by a scientist who pretty much proved what I’ve often thought of the climate alarmists. It is a money game. Look no further than the hypocrites like Al Gore warning of disaster yet using more 21x more electricity than the average home or Leo DiCaprio flying in private jets all around the globe. No doubt there will be replies to this post that seek to discredit Hal Lewis as often the case when climate alarmists want to shut down a debate. One of the best books I read on the climate change hoax was ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ written by Donna Laframboise which exposes just how shameful the climate game is, exposing that internal studies conducted by the UNIPCC proved how it is all about politics, not science. Yet here we have a scientist who had a conscience and made his feelings thought

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

Honey, can we shrink the kids?


Andrew Bolt has posted an interesting video which highlights a loony who thinks that climate change can be abated by growth stunting hormones and other chemical cocktails which would allow mental conformity to more climate change friendly activity. The article states,

People unwilling to act on the climate-crisis narrative should be assisted with drugs that improve and promote conformity, according to eminent bio-ethicist Professor Matthew Liao, of New York University, who also wants to see parents dosing their children with hormones and diets to keep them shorter and less of a burden on the planet.”

It would be funny if it was a joke. Sadly it isn’t.

China data leaves warmists in the cold


As far as curioisity on any subject goes if 19 out of 20 agreed and one dissented wouldn’t you wish to work out why the lone body thought that way? Is he or she mad? On what grounds? Do we simply suck up the consensus and accept it? That’s worked well over time. Well the Chinese Meteorogical Administration has dropped a bombshell on the warmists confirming there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998. The CMA put forward the following analysis,

“In preparing the new database…the CMA say they addressed a number of problems with other surface temperature databases, in particular the relatively poor coverage of stations across Antarctica, Africa, South America, and Asia. They note that the IPCC AR5 report concluded that the warming trends in these regions are associated with a lower confidence level. They also improved the absence of early period stations, especially before 1940….The researchers find very clear evidence for the recent warming hiatus. Their results show linear trends of 0.104 °C per decade, 0.247 °C per decade and 0.098 °C per decade for the three periods, respectively. The trends were statistically significant except for the period 1998–2014, the period that is also known as the ‘‘warming hiatus”.

I would imagine Premier Xi will listen to his internal CMA over others when setting climate abatement policy. Maybe 2030 becomes 2040 or later…so why are so many governments engaged in group think where they clearly fail to heed reality? Perhaps they are so knee deep in their own poor policy decision making that they don’t want to admit they’ve acted in haste. South Australia and Tesla anyone?

Group think alive and kicking


It is hard not to laugh at the headlines in media these days. Group think pervades. The headline that 19/20 nations agree by definition must mean the 1/20 (no guessing who) is dead wrong. Sort of like one kid answering the question incorrectly to a teacher and being ridiculed by the rest of the class). This is sadly the kind of mentality which carries far more risk. Consensus is bunk. Consensus is basically the euphemism for complacency. No matter how many scandals break about homogenized temp data (even from government bodies (i.e. IPCC & NOAA to name two), deliberate concocting of data which serve a purpose or confirmation that 98% of the models using this bogus data have overestimated ‘warming’. The point is that so deeply entrenched are 19 nations in group think that they are basically falling into cognitive dissonance. That is to say they only look for the confirmation bias rather than truly seek alternative theories which might hold merit.

If one objectively reads the Paris Climate Accord the US is spot on to refuse chipping in $3bn to a pot where the three other largest polluters have openly confessed they are doing   next to nothing to combat climate change. Sure rosy press releases push the idea that they’re fully on the climate crusade bus but reality is China has no plans to actively reduce CO2 emissions til at least 2030. Do people honestly believe Premier Xi will guarantee he’ll sacrifice Chinese economic prosperity for climate abatement? President Putin? PM Modi? Will they risk putting a bullet in the brain of the economy to save the planet? Not a chance.

The French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars after 2040 is also laughable. If you want to bury relatively technology starved French automakers like PSA Peugeot-Citroen. 23 years isn’t much of a lead time in the auto industry if one is decades behind to catch up. Will the grid be able to handle the 2mn new cars France sells annually? Will anyone do the math on the toxic gunk that goes into a Li-ion battery? Will special provisions be given to emergency services which require combustion engines to power the heat exchangers that help life saving equipment function?

No. But think of it the other way. How smart is Trump to make the rest of the world do all the hard yards  at no penalty to the US? That is the art of the deal.