Message on Climate - Galileo Movement

Message on Climate - Galileo Movement

A ong>Messageong> on Climate for Journalists and Politicians

for whom SCIENCE is not their first language

This is about the CARBON TAX— devised by economic pygmies, driven by

idealogy, supported by flawed and hotly disputed science, and providing

NO measureable reduction in emissions and temperature despite the

outlay of billions of dollars. All this, in a country that calls itself ’CLEVER’.

“If liberty means anything at all,

it means the right to tell people

what they do not want to hear”

George Orwell

G M Derrick BSc, PhD (U of Q)

Consultant Geologist March 2011

These following pages are prompted by the ongoing ignorance of basic science that is displayed day to day by

politicians at all levels, and some journalists of the main stream media, (MSM) especially where climate skepticism

and alarmism and most recently the carbon tax are concerned. This phenomenon can be observed in

newspapers, journals, radio and television, and in interviews and speeches given to print, radio and TV outlets.

No one media or political group has a monopoly on this lack of understanding, and nor is the ignorance confined

to the most lowly. It pervades the commentariat in morning television on all commercial and ABC outlets,

and is, I suggest, independent of IQ. Some very intelligent people are capable of making the most asinine statements

on the big issue of global warming and a carbon dioxide tax (CDT), mainly out of political imperatives.

It is clear to all who do not need immediate eye treatment that the media generally, and some groups in particular,

will never allow their doors to be breached by skeptical science arguments. You know who you are.

Politicians as a group are commonly linked to a party policy line, and thus may not be allowed to express their

personal views, but media groups, consisting of a lot of journalists, would be normally expected to cover an issue

impartially and without bias— ‘without fear or favour’, as they say, searching for the truth. But on this issue,

pigs might fly. It may be an ego thing or it may be a policy thing, but media groupthink is now with us all the

time regardless of the evidence. For too long elements in the media have

been happy to accept whatever science or science fiction they have been fed,

without question. The word of the science-challenged favourite media celebrity

is accepted without question, and journalists have their pet sources.

So these pages are for you; get ready for X axes, sunspots and greenhouse

compositions, but do not retreat into your cosy philosophical bunk. There is

important stuff here to be read and understood—it is, after all, the great

moral challenge of our time, more to BE CHALLENGED however by science

INDEPENDENT of the IPCC, and which must pose serious doubt about the

directions we are taking as a country, on the basis of an imperfect, modeldriven

IPCC story.

Dr Geoff Derrick March-April 2011



“We’ll all be rooned”. .

So said Australian poet Patrick Hartigan (1878-1952), writing his book of

poems “Around the Boree Log” under the nom-de-plume of John O’Brien. He

was a Catholic priest in the Goulburn and Narrandera districts of NSW, and

one of his best known characters is HANRAHAN, predictor of dire consequences,

from drought to flood and bushfires in never-ending cycles.

And so around the chorus ran

"It's keepin' dry, no doubt." Droughts. .

"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,

"Before the year is out."

And every creek a banker ran,

And dams filled overtop;

"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,

"If this rain doesn't stop."

Floods. .

Father Hartigan and John O’Brien could not

have known that Hanrahan’s famous phrasing

describing the laconic and resilient nature of Australians

would be taken up by the International Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) some 50 years after his passing.

and fires. .

"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,

There will, without a doubt;

We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,

"Before the year is out."

The IPCC says that unless the world reduces the amount of carbon dioxide

emissions we are all going to be ROONED — the world will heat up

uncontrollably, and we are all going to fry. This scaremongering by the

IPCC is simply an exercise in wishful forecasting and virtual reality based

on flawed computer modelling. As more real world data emerges, the IPCC

forecasts are becoming an exercise in scientific vanity, accompanied by

potential transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations and destructive

transformation of economies — for virtually NO reduction in temperature

or emissions, at an enormous cost measured in trillions of $$.


Let’s start with the basics:


is not a pollutant.

Those who use the term “Carbon

pollution” or “Carbon Tax” are

immediately identified as not having

Science as their first language


PS: Terry McCrann (8.3.11) suggests that on this basis, rain (H 2 O) should be

called ‘hydrogen pollution’; we should also remember that CO 2 itself is 72.71%

OXYGEN, so the alarmists really want a tax on oxygen as well.

However , to be fair . . .

Carbon was part of a smog

and air pollution problem in

the past . . . .

(as particles of soot from inefficient home heaters

and even from the old steam trains of Brisbane up

to the late 1950s. . .)


This can be caused by particulate carbon. .


Old London and (inset) the famous pea-souper

smog of 1952, cleaned up by growth of coal-fired power

stations and efficient ‘scrubbing’ technology in flue stacks

This page resembles carbon dioxide






Carbon is the building block for all life on earth, so

it is irrational & ignorant to call it a pollutant !!

Petroleum (carbon) products power the country

My carbon heart

valve keeps me



And carbon at

great depth and

pressure becomes


This is NOT

pollution !!

CARBON is stored in areas like this kauri

forest at Margaret River, WA


How many times can we say it ?


is NOT a pollutant.

CO 2 gas in the atmosphere sustains all life; it is a

colourless, odourless non-toxic form of carbon, and

without it all plant and animal life cannot survive.

The so-called ‘CARBON TAX’ as

proposed by global warming

alarmists is really code for a


one of life’s essentials


What is the guiding principle for

imposition of a ‘CDT ?

The sole premise is that issued by the IPCC, namely that “Dangerous

global warming is caused by human (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide


This doctrine is also described as ‘AGW’, or ‘Anthropogenic Global

Warming’, and is said to be ‘consensus science’, which is oxymoronic.

In 2005, the IPCC decided to change the term ‘global warming’ to

‘climate change’, because science other than that used by IPCC

showed emerging cooling trends in global temperatures.

However, climate is always changing, and has done so from Earth’s

origins 4.5 billion years ago.

The null hypothesis, that global climatic changes observed

today are within natural variation, has yet to be disproved.


In the following pages, we examine this IPCC premise, because

billions of $$$ are proposed to be spent transforming national

economies around the world, for what??

To turn some imaginary world thermostat to lower global tem-

peratures by 2 0 C or more by 2100??

What if the degree of ‘dangerous global warming’ has been

exaggerated? What will be the cost of useless mitigation ?

What if rising CO 2 levels can be shown to be independent of any

increase or decrease in global temperature?

If the latter proposition can be demonstrated, then the whole IPCC

premise becomes invalid. It is already clear from the words of Jill Duggan,

European Community expert on Carbon Markets, that in targeting 20%

reduction of CO 2 emissions by 2020, she has no idea of the cost, nor any

idea of the effect. (News clip 10 March 2011)


Both sides of the argument should agree that

Climate Change is real—it has changed all the time

since this planet was formed 4500 million years ago



Holocene to

Recent times—

cooler than

past warming



(“Before present”)


These are temperature—time graphs derived from Antarctic Vostok ice cores from 400,000 years ago to almost the present. Temperature

is derived from oxygen isotope measurements of entrapped air bubbles in the ice. Past warming and cooling periods are

clearly indicated. The argument, then, is about whether any warming is dangerous, and whether carbon dioxide is responsible.

This shows Greenland ice-core data, showing temperatures versus time

for 10,000 years. Carbon dioxide levels are superimposed (thin grey lines),

with red line showing overall trend. On this timescale, temperature varies

widely, with no obvious relation to CO2 levels.

Temperature trend, actual

Graph from

CO2 trends

Temperature trend,


Similar relationships hold for Antarctica


INFORMATION regarding carbon dioxide on our planet. .

Percentage of greenhouse

gas in atmosphere

What are greenhouse gases?



Where does CO2

come from?

What is the human share

of the Greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse

warming is about

34 o C, of which CO 2

contributes about

10%, or 3.4 o C., only

some of which may be

due to humans (e.g the

urban heating effect).

CO 2 is a very small proportion of our atmosphere, but some is necessary, together with the more important

water vapour and other minor gases to create sufficient ‘greenhouse’ warmth for our planet to be habitable.


MORE INFORMATION regarding carbon dioxide on our planet.

There is NO CO 2 in this image of the Bayswater power station in NSW. This picture, so beloved by TV programmers

to support a message of dirty coal and CO 2 emissions, is in fact water vapour in cooling towers. Stop it!!

MORE INFORMATION regarding carbon dioxide on our planet.


Y axis

From: Archibald, D. 2007, Climate Outlook to 2030

Energy and Environment

Doubling of CO2 produces only a fraction

of degree of warming by the greenhouse




X axis

CO2 is increasing steadily in our

atmosphere, at a rate of about 1ppm per

annum; the inset shows how CO2 varies

from summer to winter. In the past, CO2

levels have been much higher e.g.

5000ppm or more, without any evidence

of runaway global warming

This graph is said to be ‘logarithmic”. It shows that 20

ppm of CO2 will produce some degree of warming,

shown as about 1.5 o C in this graph. Note that if one was

to double the CO2 content from 180 to 360ppm, then

temperature rise would be a small fraction of a degree

(see the vertical axis); a doubling of present levels of

CO2 would cause almost no temperature rise. This is an

example of the law of diminishing returns.


So how much of a pollutant is CARBON DIOXIDE?

We drink and enjoy the fizz !! This is just

CO 2 bubbling out as pressure is released

as the cork or ringtop is pulled.

We go camping

with it as dry ice!!

And kids play with it—just like

creating smoke in live theatre !!


And even Julia has a little secret. . .

Shush now comrades; did

you know I have 40,000

ppm of CO 2 in my breath?


The world of industry knows there is nothing to fear from CO 2 . . .

This graphic shows

how much CO 2 is

in our normal

office environments,


any problems at

all. 1,000 ppm

CO 2 is OPTIMAL !!

Recommended Hygienic Limit

From, a

Swedish air quality

monitoring company

At current trends, it will take 4,500 years for CO 2 levels to

reach the hygienic limits noted above, of 5000 ppm.


in 2011 !!


The world goes about it’s business in a range of CO 2 concentrations. . .

Submariners work up

to this level of CO2




See Burt Rutan,

Aerospace engineer



Jan 2010



Our present levels of CO 2




Heston Blumenthal lists carbon

dioxide in the list of ingredients

for many of his signature dishes

at “The Fat Duck” restaurant.

“It is a major pollutant” say the


Lapsang souchong ‘fog’

So carbon dioxide is most definitely NOT a pollutant . .

Ms Gillard, Mr Combet,

Dr Steffen

All these people declare that CO 2 is a

pollutant. They are speaking with no

respect for, and ignorance of, the science.

American Indians had a name for this.

Mr Oakeshott, Mr Windsor,

Ms Milne 23

By way of a geological interlude, and

before discussing carbon dioxide and

temperature, let me share with you a

geological highlight—the magnificent

ramparts of the Devonian Barrier Reef

in the southern Kimberleys— a great

complex of limestone deposited from

oceans saturated in carbon dioxide, in

no danger from the other scary monster

of the alarmists — ocean acidification !!


This is Nature’s way of dealing with excess CO 2 in the oceans


Carbon is ’fixed’ in our landscape when it forms

great limestone reefs—calcium carbonate forms

from ocean waters containing carbon as carbon

dioxide. These are the Devonian reefs of the Napier

Range in the Kimberley— 400 million years old,

and now displayed in much the same attitude as

modern barrier reefs. This breath-taking view is

towards the northwest.

This beautiful reef complex is cut by Windjana

Gorge (centre of photo), seen below in more detail.

The cliffs are composed of grey limestone representing

the core of the reef, flanked by the steeply

layered limestones in front of the reef, and flatlayered

limestone behind the main reef.

Fore reef

Limestone= calcium carbonate

Chemical formulae

Reef mound core

Back reef

Ca CO 3

Here is the carbon, symbol ‘C’


Let us now look at the

relation between time, CO 2

and temperature—this is at

the heart of IPCC alarmism..

It is claimed that dangerous anthropogenic global

warming is caused by the ‘pollutant’ carbon

dioxide. We examine this claim by reference to

some global temperature records


The concept of an average global temperature is

difficult to comprehend—it is something like an

average telephone number. Night-day-summerwinter-equator-north

pole—how do you get an

average temperature of such diverse areas (landocean-country-city)

of our entire globe?

Regardless of the shortcomings, graphs are made of

the ‘global’ data, and climate alarmism is based on

this imperfect data. Early data since 17th C was

thermometer-based; modern data is satellite-based,

but both are used to create these time-Temp graphs.

Because of uncertainty in determining an ‘average global temperature’, a good case

can be made for looking at individual country records less compromised by technical

difficulties and inherent biases that result from the global ‘averaging’. (e.g see UK, USA, Netherlands)


So we join the graphologists for the global

and country picture, in search of


Climate model predictions

GLOBAL Temperature trends from

1880 to 2008—about 0.8 o C. Is this a

dangerous acceleration of warming?

This data is from the NCDC—the US National

Climate Data Centre. The thin blue line after 1950

represents the ‘unadjusted’ temperature curve

No dangerous

warming here

folks — move



Graphs from

In England, we have the Central England

Temperature Record (CET) - 351 years of

continuous measurement from 1659


1500 TO 1700

Spiky data is year by year temperature variations,

with 5 year intervals shown on the X axis.

Blue line is smoothed

(averaged) temperature data

No dangerous warming trends here, and no relation of temperature

trends to rising CO2 trends (dotted line); see also Page 14.

CO 2 trend

Graphs from


The Central England Temperature Record (CET)

- shown with a more compressed time scale along the X axis

This is the same graph as previous, but with the X axis compressed a little, to show a

warming trend of 0.25 degrees C per 100 years. So ‘global warming’ has happened,

but the trend is so masked by natural variation as to be almost undetectable; the rate

may also differ from country to country — European trends differ from US trends

CO 2 emissions build up

from about 1946


The pink line shows the smoothed average trend; the

warming trend since Little Ice Age is +0.25 o C per century

No dangerous

warming here

folks — move




1500 to 1700

Meanwhile in the USA, we have many examples of raw and

long term data to help us find ‘dangerous global warming’





Data for SUMMER temperature, Texas,

USA—months of June, July and August. Data

from the US National Data Centre

The graph shows that some summers were HOT, some were COOL., and many near-NORMAL.

There is absolutely no

evidence showing the

last 10 years have

been the ‘world’s hottest

decade’ — at

least in TEXAS, USA.

The 1930’s, 1950’s and

1980 all had hotter

summers than the

most recent decade.

Graph from

Conclude: over the past 117 years there is absolutely NO trend in the State’s summer temperatures.



Data from Willis Eschenbach, 13.4.2010; temperature data from the US

Historical Climate Network : published in WUWT web blog.

MORE Temperature, Graphs and

Statistics for the USA

Homer says ‘Oh my God, look at that temperature

rise’ from 1890 to 2010; this is not as scary

as some would tell you. Note that the

graph is from the USA, and Y axis is degrees Fahrenheit.

The temperature CHANGE is about 1

degree F or 0.5 o C over 120 years.

The exaggerated rise in the linear trend (red line)

happens because the time line (X axis) is highly

compressed, and vertical scale extended.

Despite the trend, the amount of change in 120

years is only 0.5 o C, so small that we would not feel

it, let alone blame anthropogenic CO2 emissions for


But can the data be presented in a way that relates

better to our own experiences of month to

month of living through the 4 seasons, repeated for

120 years of record keeping ?

Please turn the page

1895 to 2009

Photo: Vernal Falls, Yosemite

This is the SAME data showing

summer to winter trends for

120 years in the USA

Graph shows average monthly temperatures from

1895 to 2009 (114 years). It is a thermometer

record, and each colour curve is a different year.

There are 115 lines here all overlapping with each


Because it is northern hemisphere, the hot months

are June-July


and the cold months Jan-Feb

and Nov-Dec.

Temperature scale is Fahrenheit.

The graphs show NO SIGN of any dangerous

warming or dangerous changes over 120 years, despite

CO2 content of the atmosphere rising from

280 ppm to 380ppm . The average monthly temperatures

for July 2009 (month 7) and December

2009 are about the same as they were in July 1895.






Data from Willis Eschenbach, 13.4.2010; temperature data from the US

Historical Climate Network : published in WUWT web blog.

Please turn the page again


1895 to 2009

Willis Eschenbach then

graphed the data by decades


Graph shows average monthly temperatures from

1895 to 2009, but this time grouped in decades.

Each decade is a different colour line.

Temperatures for the decade 2000-2009 are

about the same as the decade from 1900 to

1909, despite rising CO2 levels.

Willis says: ‘The temperature changes of half a degree

C for the past century are trivially small, and

are not a problem that “eclipses that of

terrorism” (Guardian quote).

Photo: Half Domes, Yosemite

‘For me, poverty, injustice, recurring warfare, lack

of clean water and rampant disease vastly eclipse

the possibility of a degree or two of warming

happening at night in the winter in the extratropics

fifty years from now”


Data from Willis Eschenbach, 13.4.2010; temperature data from the US Historical Climate Network :

published in WUWT web blog.

Only the alarmists would

argue against that

Thus far, we have seen NO dangerous warming trends globally or for

central UK and the USA, for timespans ranging from 1659 to the present.

The organizations which present these data are as follows:

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—a US Federal agency focused on

oceans and the atmosphere

NASA/GISS: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, with

GISS being an agency—the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (at

Columbia Uni, New York. Also sent men to the moon)

NCDC: National Climatic Data Centre—

part of NOAA, and archives climate data

HADCRUT: The Hadley Centre of the UK Met

Office, which archives monthly temperature records,

combined with the Climate Research Unit of the

Universe of East Anglia (of Climategate fame)

This is what happened when James Hansen and his

group decided to ‘adjust’ the NZ temperature record

Most climate organizations use data

collected by these organizations; the

data has been known to be manipulated

from time to time by various groups,

mainly by ‘adjustments’ of temperature

records downwards in early years of the

data, to give an artifical and exaggerated

warming trend overall.

Graph from:


To recap, we have seen NO dangerous global warming for the past century or


RED squares are upper limits of ‘predicted’

alarmist temperatures to 2100—about 6 o C

BLUE dots are temperatures in 2100 if

current trends continue

Black dots show the

carbon dioxide trend

Graph from



Satellite Temperature Data since 1978: moderate 1.4 o C warming trend.



CO 2 levels



trend (green)

Graph from

The short term trend compares with global trends over 300 years of about 0.3 o C/century. Note the warmer

temperatures during El Nino cycles, and cooler temperatures in La Nina cycles and periods of volcanicity. The latter

spreads dust around the upper atmosphere, limiting incoming sunlight. There is little or no relation to CO2 levels


However, since 1998, there appears to be a change in slope of the

temperature-time curve, strongly indicating a neutral or cooling trend.


Graph from

Temperature change

Top right:

This is satellite data for the last

30 years—global warming has

NOT OCCURRED for this period

despite rising CO2 content.

The reasons for this trend

change could be due to solar

cycles and /or large circulation

systems operating in the Earth’s

atmosphere and oceans.


Climate models are in generally bad odour; in 1999, NASA modelled that winters

would warm across the hemisphere ; Robert Kennedy Jr said in 2008 that his

children would be robbed of their childhood joys of sledding and skiing in Washington

DC., due to global warming. And Al Gore addresses his adoring minions. .

Winters in 2009-2010 produced record and near-record cold

temperatures across the UK, Europe and the USA. A record

low minus 18.7 o C was recorded on 23 December 2010 at

Castlederg, County Tyrone in Northern Ireland.


What is happening in the oceans ?? Not much it seems

This chart shows the traverses

made across the tropical Pacific

measuring water temperatures

to 300m depth, using buoys.

The traverse extended from longitude

130E to longitude 80W


No dangerous

warming here

folks — move



Graph from

The ocean temperatures

at least in this part of the

Pacific show no significant

warming trends for the

past 32 years. 1998 was a

major El Nino year. La

Nina ocean warming

occurred in NE Australian

waters in late 2010—early


CLIMATE MODELS also attempt to predict the effect of CO2 emissions into

the atmosphere; they predict a global warming hot spot in the troposphere

as KEY PROOF of their hypothesis that CO2 causes dangerous warming.

60 S


Predicted HOTSPOT

12 km height



Here is the troposphere,

extending up to about

12km above ground..

Graph from

This chart ABOVE shows modeling by 4 agencies predicting a hot

spot at about 12km height ( 200 millibars of pressure), as a result of

increased CO2 emissions and extra water vapour. The hotspots are

predicted to occur either side of the equator, from latitudes 30S to

30N, and also at surface levels at higher latitudes (e.g. 60N and

60S, left and right hand lower corners of each graph)



What do actual observations from balloon measurements show?

(9 to 15km)


Temperatures from balloon

recording (radiosondes) show

NO HOTSPOT—in fact a decreasing

temperature trend is

evident in the troposphere.

Graph from

These charts compare

modelled rates of atmospheric

warming versus


rates of atmospheric

warming, as determined

from balloon measurement

(only to 1999).



There is NO HOTSPOT.

There are also NO

surface hot spots.



remains a factor of

concern and error.



Data from Thor;ne et al., 2005


* Garbage in Garbage out

And then there is the

CHAMELEON factor !!

Watch my colour change !!

This comes about when alarmist climate modellers

push and torture data to the extreme in trying to

overcome the embarrassment of NO HOTSPOT.

These authors published this diagram below right,

saying the hotspot has been found in the troposphere,

but there is a fudge factor at work here.

The normal way of representing temperature trends

is like this—zero trends are the light colours.

Allen and Sherwood (2008, Nature Geoscience) claimed to

have found this hotspot, but a closer look shows that they

moved the colour scale to show zero trends as RED. In reality,

this diagram shows NO conclusive hotspot at all—it is mostly

all near zero. This is the CHAMELEON FACTOR.

This is simply BAD and DATA-BENDING science, as climate

modellers struggle to find what they predicted, and which is

in fact very elusive. CO2 emissions are NOT creating

dangerous warming in the troposphere, or anywhere else.

As revealed by


And what exaggerations are being made about sea-level rise??

Moreton Bay

Stradbroke Island

Sea levels fall in ice ages, and

rise in the interglacial periods.

In the last 200,000 years there

have been up to 10 changes of

sea-level, some up to 100m below

present levels. The highest

levels would have flooded the

site of Brisbane, and the lower

levels saw the coastline move

40km out to sea. Our sea-level

history is independent of CO2.


This is the Enterprise sand mining operation on North Stradbroke Island (view to NW), where

bands of valuable rutile and zircon are being mined from old beach zones, where heavy minerals

(“black sand”) were concentrated by wave action. This high dune area was part of the beach

140,000 years ago, when the sea level was about 5m higher than today.

Sea levels are said to be rising dangerously, to flood our towns and

cities — so say the IPCC, Mr Garnaut, Mr Combet, Dr Steffen, the showboating

President from Tuvalu and all the other alarmists out there. .

Tidal gauge data over

300 years globally give a

rate of sea level rise of

1.6 to 1.8mm per year.

More recent satellite

data give a rate of

3.2mm per year, but a

recent change of trend at

about 2005 gives a recent

rate of 1.2mm per

year, and falling.

Change of slope,

meaning a LOWER

rate of sea level rise

The long-term slow rise in

sea level is due to the

final stages of interglacial

melting of the ice sheets,

since the last glaciation

17,000 years ago.

This rate means a rise of

about 12 to 30cm by

2100. WE can cope with


Some sea levels in the Pacific are in fact stable these past few years; there has been

zero trend sea level rise in PNG, Samoa, Nauru, and yes, even Tuvalu, compared

with alarmist forecasts of from 4 to 6mm per year. Embarrassingly, Robyn Williams

of the ABC Science Show has claimed that a 100metre rise in sea levels is possible.


On March 28th 2011, ALP

politicians were given a

script to read to a hopefully

gullible public. It said

“Sea levels could rise by

up to a metre or more by

2100; up to 250,000

homes are at risk of inun-

dation” (The Australian 28.3.2011)

Here boys, read my

script on sea levels—

it’s hilarious !!

Harry, this is

a load of

bollocks !!

This is peer-reviewed data from March 2011; it examines

whether sealevel rise (based on US tidal gauges) has been

accelerating or decelerating through 82 years of the 20th

Century. The RESULTS?? Most records show NO major

change in the rate of SL rise over the period of 82 years.

(see cluster from –0.1 to +0.1 mm/year on graph).


PER YEAR, or a projected 15cm rise up to 2100 —just over

your ankles. And in 2011, the rate has fallen further.


The ALP figure (provided by their scientists) of at

least 1 metre rise of sea level by 2100

looks exaggerated — just another bit

of non-scientific scaremongering .

From Houston & Dean 2011 Journal of Coastal Research

This man, Rajenda Pachauri is chairman of the IPCC, and he and

foolish statements tend to go together; his latest in March 2011 was

this, blaming a small 17cm rise in SL for greater tsunami damage:

“In the 20th C, sea-level rise was 17cm; if the

sealevel was lower, the Japanese tsunami

would have had a less devastating effect “ .

This is idiocy of the highest quality

Concerns about 17cm of sea-level

rise in 100 years was the last thing

on the minds of Fukushima

residents when confronted by this

monster wave on 11 March 2011.


2m tall

14 metre high

tsunami at reactor


Christine Milne

Doug Cameron

Julia Gillard, Greg Combet

Tim Flannery

Jonathon Holmes

Clive Hamilton

Simon Sheikh

Ross Garnaut

Penny Wong

All these visionaries from the Left, or from politics and economics and palaeontology, probably love their

pets and visit their aged parents at least once a month, but they nevertheless have said intemperate words


Between them, these people in recent months have publicly (e.g. Radio National, TV) called

skeptical scientists ‘creationists’, ‘flat-earthers’, ‘fruitloops’, ‘racists’, ‘nutters’ , ‘denialists’, and

worse; this is contemptible language, reflecting their total inability to understand scientific

argument outside of the prism of IPCC ‘consensus’, and their own fractured capacity to listen to

other than quasi-religious mantra and trite sloganeering so rife in the social media universe.

Here are a selection of skeptical scientists labelled and scorned as DENIALISTS,

CREATIONISTS , and FLATEARTHERS by these self-styled intellectual giants

Professor Bob Carter —

adjunct Research Fellow at

James Cook University ; a

palaeontologist, stratigrapher,

marine geologist and environmental

scientist ; head of

School of Earth Sciences at JCU

1981 to 1999, and author of

2010 book ‘Climate—the

Counter Consensus’

Professor John Christie—

professor of atmospheric

science and director of the

Earth System Science Centre

at the University of Alabama

at Huntsville; IPCC

author & specialist in satellite

temperature measurement

and awarded a

NASA medal in 1991.

Kim Stanton-Cook —

geologist and MD of mining

company Golden

Cross Resources. Vastly

experienced observer of

world geology, and

hugely supportive of the

minerals industry as a

wealth creator & driver of

our civilization.

Professor Richard Lindzen

Is the Alfred P Sloan professor

of Meteorology at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.

Works on the dynamics of

the middle atmosphere and

ozone photochemistry, and has

published more than 200

books and scientific papers.

Stephen McIntyre —fomer

director of junior exploration

companies and policy analyst

for governments in Canada;

strong education in mathematics

and statistics, and together

with Professor Ross

McKitrick exposed the climate

science fraud of ‘Climategate’

and Michael Mann, the subject

of the successful book The

Hockey Stick Illusion, written

by Andrew Montford.

Ian Plimer -—Professor

of Geology at Adelaide

University; renowned

Geologist, passionate

anti-creationist, winner of

ABC Eureka prize for

science communication,

author of “Short History

of Planet Earth”, “Telling

Lies for God”, and

‘Heaven and Earth’ .

Vincent Courtillot —

Professor of geophysics at

the University of Paris

Diderot and Director of

the Institut de Physique

du Globe in Paris. Past

President of he European

Union of Scientists, and

researcher of solar cycles

in relation to climate

Anthony Watts—former

TV meteorologist, 25 years

on air despite a hearing

difficulty. Specialises in

weather measurement

and presentation; runs

Watts Up With That,

voted Best Science Website

on the Net for 2011.

Professor Freeman


theoretical physicist and

mathematician, emeritus

professor at Princeton,

and author of many

widely read science books.

These are but 9 of 99 or 999 or 9,999 scientists committed to climate realism rather than alarmism


How can Simon Sheikh and his Gen Y followers claim any scientific

authority over Stephen McIntyre, described by New Statesman 27 September

2010 as “one of the 50 people who matter in the world” ? He

was listed as No. 32, ahead of Oprah Winfrey but behind No. 1, Rupert

Murdoch. McIntyre’s transparent honesty, civility, integrity and analytical

brilliance should be a model for ALL scientists.

How can economist Ross Garnaut describe Ian Plimer as a

“creationist” when Plimer took creationists to court to keep this

pseudoscience out of the school science curricula, and paid a

heavy financial price for his troubles ?

How can Tim Flannery describe keepers of Earth history such as

skeptical and eminent geologists Carter, Stanton-Cook and Plimer

as ‘flat-earthers”, and expect people to take him seriously in his

role of Climate Commissioner? This is just ad hominem abuse.

Dr Flannery, a palaeontologist, has many failed doomsday-like predictions to his credit.

Flannery has said “within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually

become physically manifest . . This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a

brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living

organism”. Fortunately, our geologists by contrast know the earth consists

of a core, mantle and crust, and they know how it all interacts to produce

the resources which build our country. Rocks can ‘speak’ to a geologist by

their very arrangement, which provides the clues to origins and earth history.

But they don’t sulk or cry with pain when hammered to provide a sample. . .


Flannery’s Gaia, this one whole and living creature, is

part of a dingbat world of pseudoscience and talking plants

And so it comes to this. A BATTLE of the GRAPHS

Graph of Mann et al, 1998, in Nature 392



Observed and validated temperature trends



The International Panel on Climate Change did itself

and it’s reputation no good at all with their support

for the infamous “Hockey Stick” of Michael

Mann and others. For many years it was the iconic

image for the IPCC, and Al Gore. Apart from the

exaggerated modelled rise in temperature to the

right, Mann et al managed to get rid of the well

established Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) and

the Little Ice Age (LIA) using statistical chicanery.

This deceptive action was exposed by Stephen McIntyre

and Ross McKitrick, and is described by Andrew

Montford in his book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”.


The IPCC temperature projections to 2100 are shown here,

and are based on modeling of CO2 emissions and their

contribution to the greenhouse effect. The lowest trend

shown by the IPCC assumes a constant CO2 content in the

atmosphere. In the face of real-world evidence, the IPCC

has had to downgrade it’s temperature forecasts, from

0.3 o C per decade in 1990 to 0.2 o C per decade in 2001, to

0.15 o C per decade currently. This is described by the IPCC

as being “worse than expected”.


Wherever one looks, the IPCC MODEL projections are not looking that hot. .

Green line A: temperature growth with CO2 growing as usual

Orange line B: Temperature with moderated CO2 emissions

Blue line C: Temperature with CO2 levels held constant

Where we are now


And others offer projections much less than IPCC models

The Easterbrook projections are based on observed

cycles of temperature variation in past

Earth history, generally independent of CO2

emissions. The projected amount of possible

warming by 2100 is about 0.5 o C, less than the

latest IPCC estimate, and far less than the 2 to 4

degrees C rise spoken about by many other

alarmist groups.

We are here

The cost to avoid this possibly

FLAWED IPCC projection of temperature

rise will be TRILLIONS of $$$.

The blue lines in this graph of projected temperature

rise to 2100 reflect estimates based on observation of

past and current climate and solar cycles; these are

indicating about 1 degree C or less of projected temperature

rise by 2100, compared with the higher

IPCC estimates.

Skeptical scientists contend that the IPCC bases it’s

models and projections mainly on the modelled

behaviour of CO2, without taking into account the

role of water vapour, a much more voluminous

greenhouse gas.

Graphs from


So if IPCC climate models involving carbon dioxide are suspect

and flawed, what other temperature controls may exists ??

We are currently in Cycle 23—a

prolonged 11 year cycle of LOW

sunspot activity– and entering 24

HIGH sunspot

count, 2001

LOW sunspot

count, 2005

David Archibald, Australian geologist, counts sunspots, as

others have been doing for +300 years, and believes that

they also may control temperature trends. That should not

be a difficult concept for most of us. Why didn’t the IPCC

think of that?? (Ref: Archibald, D 2010 Past and Future of Climate)

The sunspot cycles are

about a decade (11yr) in

length (grey line), but


also present (Red line). The

current pattern is similar to

that of the Dalton Minimum,

a period of global

cooling at about 1800—1820




Le Mouël et al 2009 ‘Evidence for solar forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in

Europe.’ 2009 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Let’s look at solar activity and relation to actual temperature records

This diagram shows that solar activity and Arctic temperatures

correlate very well—much better than any CO2-temperature

correlation presented by the IPCC. Data covers 120 years.

Note that temperature curve does NOT correlate with fossil

fuel consumption. From Robinson et al 2007 Journal of American

Physicians and Surgeons 12, 79-90

100 years of data from the Netherlands: Blue

line “knows only the sun” i.e. solar activity; Green

line “lifeline” knows only the temperature record of

the Netherlands. This is yet more convincing data

that the relation between CO2 and temperature

trends is weak, whereas the correlation is strong

with solar activity From Le Mouël et al 2009 ‘Evidence for solar

forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in Europe.’

2009 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

CO 2 is simply not an issue

Proxy for temp.


So by how much will a carbon tax reduce emissions and

temperatures, and what might be the cost??


83% reduction in emissions by 2100

Graph from

The results above: “The global temperature ‘savings’ of the Kerry-

Lieberman bill are astoundingly small—0.043°C by 2050 and 0.111°C by

2100. In other words, by century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being about onetenth

of one degree C less than they would otherwise be (from 2.95 o to

2.84 o C ). That is a scientifically meaningless reduction.”

In the US it is MAGICC—

this means “Model for the

Assessment of Greenhouse


Climate Change”.

Pat Michaels in May 2010

used the IPCC model to

assess the impact of the

proposed American

Power Act—a cap and

trade mechanism to reduce

CO2 emissions by

83% by 2050 (Bill introduced by

Messrs Kerry and Lieberman)

Turn here to see

some costs. . .

Consider the Environmental Protection Agency in the US. It is proposing to

declare CO 2 to be a pollutant, and to penalize all CO 2 use into the future.

QUESTIONS: How much will it cost, and by how much

will the reduced CO 2 levels reduce the temperature ?

Some answers come from Willis Eschenbach, quoting EPA figures

contained in a US Senate minority report dated 28 Sept 2010. See

New regulations will cost $78 billion per year ; total cost to 2100 is $78 billion x 90 years approx.

THIS COST IS US$7 trillion ($7,000 billion dollars)

Carbon dioxide emissions may be reduced by about 3 ppm in a total of possibly 500ppm by 2100

Global mean temperature may be reduced by an average of 0.00375 o C by 2100—about 4

thousandths of one degree C. over 90 years

DO THE SUMS: $7 trillion divided by 0.00375 = US $1.9 quadrillion for each degree of cooling.

(That is $1,900,000,000,000,000 per degree !! And that is using EPA figures.



If Australia shut down tomorrow,

emitting NO CO2, it would lower

the temperature in 2050 by just

0.0154 o C (IPCC figures).

A CARBON TAX means a lot of

pain for NO GAIN.

As Jo Nova says: “Welcome to Futility Island”


Climate science is like this can of worms from my compost heap; when climate

alarmists tell you the science is settled, they tell you a lie. ‘Consensus science’ is

an OXYMORON, and says that ‘near enough is good enough’.

The alarmist IPCC arguments are marred by a lack of trust, exaggeration, some dubious statistical methods, a

reliance on computer models, heavy use of the words ’may, ’might’, & ‘possibly’, and lack of real-world observation

Faced with a perceived problem—global warming—the Gillard Government had four

options open to it:

1. Do nothing.

A near-fanatical desire by the IPCC to prove CO 2 is a pollutant overlooks the role of water vapour, a far more abundant

greenhouse gas than CO 2 and which 2. Introduce produces a solution that over fixes the 90% problem: of reduces the greenhouse global warming effect; real-world observations

show that there is no dangerous warming

(notoccurring possible but technically

on earth.

a “solution")

Temperature trends correlate better with solar activity.

3. Introduce a solution that doesn’t fix the problem but doesn’t have too

many deleterious effects.

4. Introduce a solution that doesn’t fix the problem and also has many

negative economic effects.


They chose option #4.

A carbon tax is all pain for no gain; the temperature reductions due to reduction of CO

the temperature reductions due to reduction of CO 2

emissions to 2050 are miniscule, about 0.0154 o c, which is virtually unmeasurable. There is no global

warming crisis. Instead of wasting huge amounts of money and transforming our economy for the worse,

we need to remain economically strong to best adapt to the natural hazards which are always with us.

And then there is the Climate Commission Australia — Notes on the

Ipswich Civic Centre public meeting with the Commissioners 7 April 2011

Meet two of the Commissioners — on the night, their role was

low key and muted — about as useful to public debate on

climate change as an ashtray is to a motorbike. Their

involvement was miniscule and not very informative.

Prof. Lesley Hughes, Head of Dept

of Biological Sciences Macquarie

Uni, and lead IPCC author

Gerry Hueston,

business man

And then there was Tim Flannery—

on the night, made to promise not to call

skeptics ‘denialists’. Overall, a subdued leader of the panel trying to convince

the audience that the commission was ’independent’. At least the audience

was spared Tim’s latest adventures from Avatar and Star Trek.

Star of the night was Will Steffen, the logical and calming Director

of the ANU Climate Change Institute. His performance was

actually a surprise, since his opening comments were that ‘the

science is settled; there is no argument” , which brought gasps of

disbelief from some in the audience who actually read material

other than IPCC reports. He then proceeded to show some slides

of his evidence, including Michael Mann’s discredited Hockey

Stick graph. This immediately labelled him as being unaware of

or unwilling to read The Hockey Stick Illusion. This impinges

strongly on the perception of bias in a so-called independent

Commission, which was meant to deliver ALL sides of the debate

to Australians. It is an entity stacked only with alarmist views.

Dr Steffen simple parroted the

IPCC line at every opportunity


The ‘science’ advice given to government is both flawed and monopolistic.

This bit was provided by Dr Will Steffen, parroter of the IPCC warming views.

From deep within the breast of the

IPCC, Dr Steffen delivered this slide

show to members of the Multi-party

Climate Change Committee on 10

November 2010. This science has

been critically dissected by Dr Bob

Carter and others (see link below),

and Dr Steffen’s report has been

found severely wanting.

Dr Carter noted that the Steffen presentation:-

1. contained no substantive new science, and fails to show that dangerous humancaused

global warming is occurring

2. Fails to cover recently published papers that provide evidence that dangerous

warming is not occurring,

3. Comprises a rehash of many old and invalid IPCC arguments, the deficiencies of

which have been pointed out many times

David Evans, mathematician and computer modeller, also says that “We are now at an

extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government,

promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Evidence

proves that climate models are fundamentally flawed, and that they greatly overestimate the

temperature increases due to carbon dioxide”.


But where are the brave investigative souls of the mainstream media when this country really needs them? The

MSM have a great story of highly conflicted science and ideological politics going on in front of their eyes, but

sit on their hands instead, prepared to watch this country slide into an avoidable economic abyss.

Link to Article Quadrant Online by Carter, Evans, Franks, Kininmonth and Moore, 24 April 2011:

In this page, I mention some sources and areas of future reading: many

are weblogs of reputable and honest people with strong scientific

credentials, some are well-educated educated and informed commentators with

challenging and defendable views on questions of climate change.

Some are authors of well-reviewed and authoritative books. I recom-

mend all of them to you. is the blog for those who still

support the much-discredited hockey stick graph and it’s creators.










And of course, “Watts Up with That” - voted best science web blog 2011,

Climate Audit, & Climate Realist, all respected for exposure of the Hockey

Stick and other alarmist misrepresentation, and the Carbon Sense Coalition.


CLIVE JAMES, a man of letters and intelligence, has

a message for people like these half-dozen alarmist

commentators who believe there is a thermostat

somewhere that can be set according to their whims

Before the floods, proponents of the AGW view had argued

that there would never be enough rain again, because

of Climate Change. When it became clear that there

might be more than enough rain, the view was adapted:

the floods, too, were the result of Climate Change. In other

words, they were something unprecedented. Those opposing

this view. . . . took to quoting Dorothea Mackellar's

poem "My Country"

“The blue sky is pitiless”

In Australia the facts are that the climate will

starve you or wash you away, unless you build

something. Banning certain categories of lightbulb

will never be enough. Such measures imply

the desirability of a return to some kind of

benevolent natural state. There is a natural state

all right, but any benevolence is our idea. The blue

sky is ‘pitiless’, as Dorothea Mackellar reminds us in

her second stanza of ‘My Country’. .



I love a sunburnt country,

A land of sweeping plains,

Of ragged mountain ranges,

Of droughts and flooding rains.

I love her far horizons,

I love her jewel-sea,

Her beauty and her terror —

The wide brown land for me

Core of my heart, my country!

Her pitiless blue sky,

When sick at heart, around us,

We see the cattle die —

But then the grey clouds gather,

And we can bless again

The drumming of an army,

The steady, soaking rain.


Extracted from the essay The Drumming of an Army Standpoint magazine 5thMarch 2011

“We can alleviate poverty and protect the poor from the

(supposed) ravages of climate change by making them

middle class — and that takes energy ( W Eschenbach, 17/3/11)

North Korea by

night: a low-carbon




Keep our lights on — the best rate of carbon tax is ZERO

Thank you for taking this journey with me.




Meet me — Dr Geoff Derrick—just your average geologist with

47 years of experience, a love of the planet and the science behind it’s

origins and an appreciation of the resources it contains to provide

humankind with a just and civilized life. Specialist in Mt Isa geology.

Mature of age but keen of vision, widely travelled and naturalist at

heart, supporter of individual enterprise but opponent of the forces of

creationism in science education—not a crank nor a fanatic, but

totally despairing of the level of scientific awareness in our media and

political spheres. I hate wind farms for the blight they bring to the

landscape, and for the total waste of money that they represent.

Consultant Geologist


Pakistan 1993


Day 2010




2 wins from 2 starts 2011

Contact Details: G M Derrick Geology,


Qld 4075 Email:

Ph: 0408 796 148; FAX 07 3379 2375

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines