Friday, December 6, 2013

My Letter to a Fellow Brisbanite !

 Dear Janelle,
   I read with much chagrin the article in the Centenary News that you have returned from America after being brainwashed at a conference run by Al Gore. It would've been much better if you spent some time in the company of Professor Richard S. Lindzen, arguably the world's most prominent climate scientist. He is the Professor of Atmospheric Sciences emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology not like that washed-up politician Gore living off his past glory; the so-called documentary with 33 exposed lies, omissions and false science riddled through it.

    Professor Lindzen testified to the US Committee on Science and Technology about how many billions of dollars have been squandered on pretending to do something about the weather. On placating the great Climate God!  He added, that Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It also has been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions.

    He goes on; Global warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint....(is this you?). Global warming has almost successfully co-opted institutional science making even respectable scientists give into slurping at the government subsidies trough. However, the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.

    He states; I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is even though it makes up only 0.038% of our atmosphere. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increased CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to innumerable claimed catastrophies. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and the connection of this minimal warming to purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which these terrible claims are made are extremely weak and commonly acknowledged as such.

    Let's get real....current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure of any real warming over 16 years makes the case even less plausible as does the added evidence from Climategate and other instances of overt cheating. In the meantime, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age. Lindzen cites a Professor Lockwood of Reading University reports some startling findings. He says solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years and raising the risk of a new Little Ice Age.

    How much waste are you willing accept before the cost of this Cock-Robin Syndrome becomes so crippling that it forces politicians to admit voters have been conned...and fleeced?  While you go around our lovely city and proselytise to the innocent with phony facts and deluded science the charts don't lie (see attached Chart). Even the IPCC has to admit the truth about NO WARMING and also mentions that hurricanes and droughts are not due to climate's just WEATHER!
   The push to sustainability has made hypocrites out of the environmentalists with government subsidies building eyesores on the landscape known as Wind Turbines which are killing millions of birds and bats every year for the priciest electricity while ignoring the logic of clean, cheap SAFE nuclear power....such stupid, selfish hypocrites. It's a shame they are not ridiculed!  I just hope you overcome your awe of this Climate Hysteric and Resident Phony who loves to cherry-pick his  evidence and join the growing movement of rational thought, evidence and science. The Gravy Train is ending for those people who have sold their souls to climate-change dogma. It's time to wave Good-bye.

    I've written to you in all sincerity,
            Dr Frank P Mechler


  1. Sorry Frank! You are talking nonsense!

    You too are cherry picking, saying that there has been cooling over the last 17 years. As scientists this is not an accurate representation of the (anthropogenic) climate change issue. The issue with us 'respectable scientists' concerns the amount (increased) of anthropogenic forcing i.e. the amount of CO2 released on top of the natural climate variability we experience - it is not about solar activity (and many other climate externalities) which can also change our climate - they are simply two separate issues for climate scientists. What we are concerned about are 3 irrefutable facts:

    1. Rate of warming unprecedented (0.7 degrees in 100 years).
    2. Scientific observation of natural changes have failed to show long-term changes that can fully account for increased rate of rapid warming.
    3. CO2 is GHG. When non-renewable fuels burnt CO2 released that causes planet warming.

    How governments deal with the climate change issue is also a different matter - and I agree that governments are getting it wrong in a lot of instances - but a scientists job is not a politicians and you are conflating this in your response. What scientists say and what governments do are two different things.

    You are also still holding onto Climategate as evidence that climate is cooling and we are all frauds. Show me the evidence that these emails prove climate is cooling or there is no anthropogenic forcing? The 'damming emails' were in fact taken out of context and a number of separate independent inquiries have shown this. I can give you links to these if you want.

    Your argument is based on cherry picking, not consensus evidence-based science. I will put it one way...Your response above will be perceived by climate scientist and experts as someone like me just writing that chiropractic has not worked on my back problem because I tried it for a period of time and nothing happened, but when I saw the physio two weeks later he solved my back problem in a few months! Therefore chiro doesn't work and physio does.

    Also Al Gore does not represent scientists - he just agrees that humans are having an adverse affect on warming the earth. Please cut the polemic (the way 'you see it') and use evidence to write scientifically about observable facts. Your friend, Dr (of sustainability and climate change governance, not chiropractic) Andrew K (I miss your adjustments)

    Three simple facts:

    1. Hey Andrew, Great to hear from you. How's the Bubby doing? This article I wrote from the notes and testimony from Professor Lindzen himself.....I didn't alter it at all, and even, for the first time in 4 years of blogging I didn't add my famous phrase The Way I See It .....(ending paragraphs). So...what you see is what you get....take it up with the good professor.
      P.S. I miss you guys too!