Articles Tagged "Open Letter/Fax"

To: Senator Christine Milne
cc
All federal parliamentary Greens
All federal MP's, newspaper editors, Friends

Dear Senator Milne:

Attached is a brief summary of Eco Fraud's environmental casualties.

Since May 21, 2009, via Australia Post, facsimile and e-mail I have drawn to your attention overwhelming and growing evidence of UN IPCC fraud. I conclude that your position is either consciously fraudulent or negligently misguided. Assuming for now that your politics is motivated by care rather than your care motivated by your politics, I hope you will care enough to change your policy. It needs to be based on scientific facts and genuine environmental and humanitarian needs.

Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

PDF Attachments: Eco Fraud's environmental casualties: TheEcoFraudPt2.pdf

For Part 1 see Open Letter: To Senator Milne - why do Greens senators divert responsibility onto you? from Malcolm Roberts BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)

To: Senator Christine Milne
cc All federal parliamentary Greens, All federal MP's, newspaper editors, Friends

Dear Senator Milne:

Your senate Greens colleagues, Scott Ludlam (August 12th, 2009) and Sarah Hanson-Young (no date) advised me by Australia Post that you are responsible for the Greens' climate policy. Although they, like all MP's, remain personally responsible for their every vote in parliament, it is clear you are driving the Greens party's climate agenda.

Please refer to the attached brief Timeline of UNEP and UN IPCC fraud.

This supplements extensive fully referenced documents previously sent you itemising UN IPCC falsities and fraudulent corruption of science and climate.

Contrary to your letter of September 28th, 2009, the UN IPCC has no scientifically measured real world evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest, modest, cyclic warming that ended around 1998. I please request that you justify your statement and position by advising of one specific piece of scientifically measured real-world evidence proving human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.

Given overwhelming and growing evidence of UN IPCC fraud sent to you, I conclude your position is either consciously fraudulent or misguided. Assuming for now that your politics is motivated by care rather than your care motivated by your politics, I hope you will care enough to change your policy to base it on scientific facts and true environmental and humanitarian needs.

Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago) Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)
PDF Attachments:The Eco Fraud - Part 1: A Timeline of international fraud &Climategate 'Inquiry' References

On 17th November 2009, over a thousand emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were published on the internet triggering the scandal that has now become known as Climategate.

Between 8th and 18 of December, hopes of a globally binding agreement on carbon emissions reduction died at the Copenhagen Summit. On 3rd December, the UEA appointed Sir Muir Russell to conduct an ‘independent’ review of the activities at the CRU.

And on 6th January 2010, Professor Richard Tait, a BBC trustee and chairman of their flagship Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) announced a review of the accuracy and impartiality of science coverage, with particular attention to climate change, and a report was scheduled for Spring 2011. For climate sceptics this was a timely and welcome development. Over the last few years, bloggers have been reporting on an apparent synergy that exists between the BBC and the environmental movement which has led to blatant distortion in reporting climate change.

During the following few weeks, an extremely rushed inquiry into Climategate by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee took place and, while giving evidence to the Committee, the Vice Chancellor of the university, Professor Edward Acton, announced yet another review, specifically concerned with the scientific research undertaken by the CRU. This was to be chaired by Lord Oxburgh.

A bombshell from the Oxburgh “inquiry”.

Obviously, the most contentious issue in the Hockey Stick controversy has been, uh, the hockey sticks – an area where CRU scientists Jones, Briffa and Osborn have been intimately involved as authors of key proxies, authors of multiproxy studies in the IPCC spaghetti graph, peer reviewers of journal articles and IPCC assessment authors. The core position of Climate Audit in respect to these studies is that the data and methods used in these studies do not permit assertions about the medieval-modern relationship to be made with any confidence. This gets played out in numerous disputes over individual proxies and individual statistical methods, but these do not deflect from the overall issue.

I heard from a reliable source that, during the Oxburgh interviews, Phil Jones admitted that it was probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy. Obviously, this would be a hugely important admission relative to this debate, but the Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel “inquiry” did not report this admission even though UEA had announced that the Science Appraisal Panel would “re-appraise CRU’s science”.

I accordingly sent the following letter last week to Oxburgh (both to his House of Lords email and the UEA email address used for the “inquiry”), copying the letter to two members of the Parliamentary Committee and two journalists and forwarded it to the Muir Russell inquiry.

Dear Mr Monbiot

Following the publication of your post here, I have written to your newspaper by e-mail, expressing my concerns about the piece, and inviting the newspaper to contact me to discuss it informally, to avoid the need to take expensive and (to you) potentially damaging action in order to protect my professional reputation.

Since your newspaper has not troubled itself to contact me, I am forced to take the step of contacting you and the newspaper more formally, which I am in the process of so doing.

In the meantime, however, I am writing here as the most direct means of contacting you, to ask you to remove from this post all references to myself, as being libellous and highly damaging - the precise details of which will be passed to your newspaper shortly.

You may, of course, leave this message visible or remove it, but you may wish to note that the addition of further comments arising as a result of references to me remaining in your post, and which are also of a libellous or denigratory nature, may form part of any subsequent action which I choose to take.

Commentators who choose to comment on this post may also wish to note that I would be happy to enjoin them in any legal action taken against Mr Monbiot or The Guardian newspaper if they too are of a libellous or denigratory nature. You have been warned.

Yours sincerely,

Richard North (Dr)

I have now skim read the adjudication of the Editorial Standards Committee. A careful reading is not warranted. It is plain that the adjudication is no more than a rehash of the Stage 2 response which, itself, was no more than a tissue of distortion, lies and equivocation. Two substantive points are worth making, however:

• It has been abundantly clear throughout this process that outcomes for me and for other complainants would be pre-ordained and predictable.
• With a constant succession of delays and excuses therefor, it has taken your Committee a year and a half to deliver its demonstrably partial and flawed response. This time lag the Committee has acknowledged, and has offered an apology. The apology is not accepted. In itself, however, what these evasions underscore is the intellectual bankruptcy of the Corporation’s position and its essentially mendacious approach to dealing with complaints of prejudice - not, one might add, simply in relation to the global warming controversy. The bedrock on which the BBC has been relying has rested on the proposition that “the science was settled” by a consensus of scientific opinion, fortified in its case by reference to the fraudulent assertion that a seminar of climate experts convened by it on 26 January 2006, had so declared.

Download PDF file to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham to the BBC

Lord Rees
President
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG.

Dear Lord Rees

Science is organized scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence." Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society (May 28, 2010)

To be sure, what an inspirational message – the more so in the light of another from your manifestly objective predecessor (Oh yes, indeed!) that we should “Respect the facts.” Perhaps you, he or The Royal Society collectively would care to educate and enlighten “crackpots” by defining which facts, or should one perhaps say “Whose facts?”

In the meantime, let us move on. You have been busy of late, and another quotation follows, albeit taken from the verbiage surrounding this letter’s opening statement. You state:

“The Society has always encouraged debate particularly through our discussion meetings and our journals.” [My emphasis]

That is a lie. Far from encouraging debate, the RS has proactively done everything within its power to suppress it. For this uncompromising accusation, you are invited to revisit enclosed correspondence from 2007 (below). Let me remind you that, on 31 July 2007, the Society, overnight and without warning, closed down its website forum – not simply the so-called climate change string but in entirety. Why? Because, after a few exchanges, it could not countenance well sourced contra-contributions – as it happens, mostly from me. Specific to this episode, your attention is directed to my letter of 1 August 2007 - for ease of reference enclosed herewith.

Click source to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham

Mr Tony Abbott MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT

Dear Mr Abbott,

Although I am travelling in the US at the moment I have become aware of the controversy over your comments at an Adelaide school last week, including the public response by [a] scientist with an alarmist global warming bent.

You might be interested in the graph below. The data are temperatures reconstructed from Greenland ice cores and published in the peer reviewed literature. The data confirm pre-IPCC understanding of the climate history of the Earth: Earth warmed from the last glacial maximum about 15,000 years ago when great ice sheets covered North America and northern Europe and sea level about 130 m lower than today. By 9,000 years ago Earth had warmed to the Holocene maximum when temperatures were warmer than today; the Holocene maximum lasted until about 4,000 years ago and there has been irregular cooling since.

To: Department of State

Date: 23 April 2010

Re: U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. 5th ed.

Many states around the nation are trying to enact laws to restrict carbon emissions, and industries too numerous to mention have begun making changes hoping to be fully prepared to comply with laws they haven’t seen yet. Congress is considering laws in hopes that they can avoid having EPA impose its own version of CO2 restrictions.

Before jumping on this bandwagon, we should be certain that we understand the science. U.S. Climate Action Report 2010, 5th ed. might be understood by some Americans to be the definitive word; however nary a word in the report even pretends to

establish a link between CO2 and putative global warming

show that the increase in CO2 concentration is due to human activity instead of natural causes (such as natural warming of the oceans)

show that either an increase in CO2 concentration or an increase in temperature is, on balance, bad (or worse than laws restricting CO2 emissions) or

do any science whatsoever.

Dear Jenny,

RE: A09-106726/106458/JA/Id - Act on CO2 adverts

Thank you for sending me the Final Adjudication with regards my complaint about the government's "Act on CO2" campaign.

Within that final adjudication there are blatant untruths, the greatest of all being that 40% of atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from human activity.

Please refer to a table from the US Dept of Energy, as used by the UN IPCC themselves, clearly indicating that the best estimate is around three percent only, nowhere near the 40% that is claimed in the adjudication.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf page 26: