Open letter from Australian warmists

It's a bit one-sided (as always)

The Conversation publishes an open letter from a collection of Australian warmist academics, which repeats the usual IPCC line and adds little to the debate, except by smearing sceptics (again). I thought for a bit of fun we could examine in detail what the letter says. Before we do, however, let’s have a look at just a few of the signatories:

  • Andrew Glikson
  • David Karoly
  • Matthew England
  • Ian Enting
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  • Andy Pitman
  • Barry Brook
  • Neville Nicholls

A veritable gallery of Australian alarmists, well documented here on ACM (just search any of those names). So already we know what the letter will say. It is oddly titled “Climate change is real” by which I think they mean “man-made climate change is real”, so even before we’ve got past the title, there is an intentionally confusing ambiguity. Not a promising start.

Anyway, here we go – I warn you in advance, it’s not pretty:

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

That’s because we daren’t look too closely at natural causes in case we find out that CO2 isn’t as much to blame as our models say. Solar? Schmolar.

Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

Scary tag line? Check.

Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.”

Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.

As we all know, the entire climate system is just one big knob with CO2 scrawled on it. Cripple the world’s economies, and problem solved. The fact that temperatures went up and down by greater amounts than the present warming before any industrialisation is just a tiresome distraction. The models are programmed to result in a climate sensitive to changes in CO2 but not to natural forces, with significant but unverified positive feedbacks, which are little more than guesswork, just to make sure.

Like all great challenges, climate change has brought out the best and the worst in people.

Translation: “best” being the climate warriors on our side, and “worst” being the filthy sceptics.

A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.

Usefully confusing “fossil-fuel pollution” with harmless CO2 in order to muddy the waters. Of course there are health benefits to reducing proper pollution, such as toxins and particulates, but if that were the aim, we wouldn’t be planning on taxing our economy out of existence. Reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on health whatsoever. Even these scientists refuse to be intellectually rigorous and unambiguously distinguish between harmless CO2 and “pollution”.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Yawn, yawn, ad hom, yawn… How about responding to their concerns? Breach of pre-election promise by the Prime Minister? The fact that nothing Australia does will make any difference to the climate? Or are they just too hard?

Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.

Laughs out loud. Sorry. Have these people actually seen the ABC or Fairfax? Read Unleashed on the ABC web site recently? Rarely is a critical word published in these two major news organisations (not to mention most of the international news agencies), but still they complain of media bias. Lamentable.

Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.

Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”

And I bet they won’t invite a single one to take part. It will be a closed shop of warmists, all stewing in their own juices, like the Climate Commission. On the one hand they want to exclude sceptics from the process, and on the other, they then complain sceptics are resorting to other methods to get their views across. You can’t have it both ways.

For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques.

My aching sides. Alarmists talking about subverting peer review? Climategate, anyone? When there is a cosy little coterie of warmists who all review each others papers, and make sure any that challenge the consensus are rejected? Please.

We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.

There will then follow the inevitable smearing of anyone who dares question the whole alarmist package put forward by the IPCC (and the signatories to this letter).

The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.

Do you know what would be really refreshing? If some of the signatories actually took the time to invite a respected “sceptic” like Bob Carter or Richard Lindzen to discuss his concerns about the IPCC position. But they won’t because they are afraid of what they might hear. Much easier to ignore the real issues and carry on smearing sceptics than to actually engage in proper scientific debate.

Read it here.


  1. “The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes”

    This is actually code for: “we can’t explain it, so we blame it on CO2”

    “Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.””

    Hooray! I look forward to the alarmists being thoroughly smacked down; just not in their arena, as you’ve suggested.

    The rest is so full of irony it could sink a battleship.

  2. This whole letter is just an anti-scientific rant and all of the signatories should be ashamed.

  3. Australian Climate Madness
    It’s a bit one-sided (as always)

    My point is, I’ve never seen a website or article with a balanced view. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So if you can point me in the right direction to see one then I’d be happy to check it out and say that I’ve seen one.

    Maybe there is no balance in this debate?

    • The snip has been reinstated, it’s off topic, but I’ll let it pass.

      What you don’t seem to understand is that it is the consensus scientists that are claiming that we must shut down significant parts of our economy to stop climate change. But at the same time they refuse to share data, avoid releasing their calculations, stifle peer-review, thwart FOI requests etc etc, and then have the arrogance to lay into sceptics. This site has a purpose – to hold the alarmist consensus to account. I am as prepared as anyone to accept the reality of man-made AGW, but before I do I expect to see proper standards of scientific integrity, not politically-motivated propaganda masquerading as science.

      • I really don’t care what the scientists, alarmists or skeptics say. I agree that parts of this debate are politically-motivated propaganda and both sides of the debate need to move on from the politics of it all.

        I think my argument moves past the climate politics of both sides to the big picture.
        When the coal runs out in about 100 years,( significant parts of the economy will have to be shut down anyway. This is irrespective of the effects of any climate change, natural or anthropogenic.
        So the bottom line is: where does the money come from to find solutions for the essential reforms in energy, mining and economic policy??

        • Gippsland VIC: 500 years of coal left while generating 3x the current output.
          West coast of USA: 5 000 years fo crude oil @ current global consumption.
          I think we have some time on our hands. The current alternatives (renewables/wind/solar) = economic suicide/back to the dark ages/cave men.

        • I’ve given a reference for my information. Where’s yours Staal?
          I’m talking about the Australian economy and Australian jobs. I don’t think the amount of oil in the USA has much to do with it. But if you can give me evidence to support your argument then I’ll be happy to have a look.

          I’m not convinced of your assertion that investment in renewables is economic suicide. Like I said, once the carbon based fuel runs out, which it inevitably will, where does the energy come from? Does the whole Australian economy die because there’s no more coal in the ground? I’d like to be more optimistic than that.

        • Even if we assume your figures are correct and there is a coal reserve of (only) 100 years remaining, I still wouldn’t be worrying right now. Look back 100 years to 1911. Those living then had not the slightest clue about the advances in science and technology that would happen in the following century. The pace of technological progress is so rapid (and increasing exponentially) that it is all but inevitable that alternative energy sources will be developed (e.g. fusion) that will provide virtually limitless clean energy – but which are also cheap enough to be affordable, something present alternative energy is not. Remember the Ehrlich bet, about prices of raw materials? He was wrong on every one, because new reserves of those commodities were found faster than existing reserves were being used – and the prices in real terms went down.

        • Falcon
          I ditto what Simon wrote and admit I am wrong; out by 50 years (Monash Uni link attached – actually 550 years of reserves).

          Read the bottom link and you will discover the wonderful world of coal (Victoria Department of Primary Industries).
          Similar to South Africa, we could manufacture all Australia’s diesel fuel (Synthesis gas from brown coal = Methanol):
          → Fuel Cells
          → Chemicals(MTBE, Acetic Acid,
          → Formaldehyde
          → Diesel, Transport Fuel
          → Propylene/Polypropylene
          → Acrylic Acid/Acrylates
          → Ethylene/Propylene
          → Fuel/DME
          Not to mention fertilizers’, Hydrogen (power/fuel), waxes, gas, etc.
          Unfortunately they corrupt this magnificent website with green sh*t/uneconomical garbage like carbon capture and other BS.
          Brown coal (with approx half the calorific value than black coal – 13 MJ/kg vs. 27 MJ/kg) becomes economical viable to produce all of the abovementioned products with a crude oil price at US$ 65/barrel.

    • Andy G55 says:

      You have to understand that there can be no “balanced” site.

      The AGW proponents do not brook even the slighhtest descent, and will in most cases not contribute to any site that shows any.

      They will not debate rationally, its their way, or nothing. You either believe them implicitly, or they are not going to engage, that makes it very difficult foor a balanced site to exist.

  4. Baldrick says:

    The Conversation is another brain-child of the Looney Left. Far from being independent, there founding partners, who have given funding support include the universities of ANU, Monash, Melbourne, UTS, UWA, plus CSIRO. There list of strategic partners include AAP, Commonwealth Bank, Ernst & Young, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Victorian Department of Business and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
    Supported by funding from Government Departments, agencies and universities … hardly an independent source of information. There ‘team’ and ‘board’ members are a veritable who’s who of the Looney Left … ex -Fairfax media, ABC & SBS staffers …. independent – I think not!

  5. sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers to take on this religion. If you wallow in their cesspool you only get covered in their ordure.

    Let the planet have the say. It will anyway. Nothing is going to happen about CO2 emission levels overall, and when the planet refuses to warm, the oceans don’t become acid, the coral reefs don’t die from anything other than run-off pollution, no-one develops a useful renewable power source, and no islands go underwater in circumstances any sensible person could connect with sealevel rise, their lies will be exposed.

    It would be nice to think their pensions could be taken from them when their life’s work of lies is exposed, but who really cares anyway. At least they will be gone from public life and academia and their successors and descendants will be laughing at them.

    Perhaps if there was less stridency in our opposition they could start to admit they are wrong?

  6. Laurie Williams says:

    Excellent Simon. One of your best commentaries yet.

    I know that understanding such complex points of grammar as the difference between singulars and plurals has become highly politically incorrect since the feminazis almost succeeded in hijacking “they”, “them” and “their” as third person singulars, but watch out for them – your “their” in your last paragraph points to “the signatories”, not to Carter or Lindzen as “his” would have.

    Keep up the good work.

    • Yes, absolutely right. These posts are fashioned at a frantic pace. Corrected now.


  8. rukidding says:

    I presume they are sending this letter to the Chinese government seeing how they are the largest emitter of CO2 in the world today.
    They surely aren’t sending it to the Australian government with its puny 1.5% of world emissions.

  9. At the CON-versation website, to sign in requires your full name and email address, to be used on any posting. No nom de plumes.
    This exposes you to possible email bombardment and direct abuse.
    The site would have to be moderated, to take care of off topics and abuse.

    Such a pity, as there are glaring instances of misinformation in their threads, that just needed to be “pointed out”. The first obvious one – ‘the hottest year in the last 70 years’ – how convenient, or is that An Inconvenient Time limitation ? – (A.I.T.)

    I just ‘love’ the signatories to CON-versation – “all the usual suspects”

  10. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    A veritable gallery of Australian alarmists! Brilliant!

    … And they’re all engaged in ‘An Uncomfortable Lie’… which you can read all about at the following link and judge for yourself:

    All I can say is Dr Evans deserves a Nobel Prize for his efforts in alerting the world to the greatest swindle ever perpetrated on mankind.

  11. Matthew England and Andy Pitman hail from that hotbed of goofy climate junk science, UNSW. So where’s Tim Lambert [snipped the link – no traffic for Deltoid, thanks!], then? After all, he’s tarred with the same bigoted alarmist brush. Has there been a falling out?

    • no traffic for Deltoid, thanks!

      Fair enough, Simon. A snakepit of paranoid alarmists if ever ther was one!

  12. John of Cloverdale WA says:

    “Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.” Are these guys supposed to be scientists? Have these guys ever studied the most recent or past geological record. As if mankind has a global thermostat to control the temperature. LOL!

  13. Andrew McRae says:

    Get Karoly on national TV and just ask him three questions:

    1.) What observational regimes have the IPCC or yourself conducted to try to disprove the hypothesis that human activity has significantly disrupted the global climate?
    2.) When will your climate observations be sufficiently extensive and detailed for drawing statistically significant conclusions about AGW?
    3.) Where can I download the observational evidence that proves humans have already significantly disrupted global climate?

    Maybe I’m not reading RealClimate enough (hahaha) but I don’t think any warministas can factually answer these questions with anything but “None”, “2070 AD”, and “There isn’t any”.
    I would so love to see his grin get wiped off his face faster than Al Gore in a Lear jet.

    How do we set this up?

    If only we’d known he was going to be on Q&A last week and had stacked the audience with real scientists… if only…

  14. froggy uk says:

    Meanwhile, yet more emotional (save the cute & fluffy) blackmail from the eco-squad & your Koalas,,,,,,,,,

    Please tell me these greens are not suggesting that if we emit more CO2 we will all end up with the clap?!.

    • Andy G55 says:

      “Please tell me these greens are not suggesting that if we emit more CO2 we will all end up with the clap?!.”

      Chances are that if you end up with the clap, at one point in time you would have been emitting more CO2 than usual 😉

  15. Andy G55 says:

    Surely a public challenge to debate could be issued, in newspapers, on air.
    We choose 3 they choose 3, 2 Aussies and an OS person on each side, arbitrator to be acceptable to both sides.

    Challenge one of the TV stations to air it.

    Who would we choose? Carter, Evans, Lindzen ?

    but they of course would NEVER accept the such a challenge, because they know they would get wiped !!!

  16. Forget about sun spots cycles, I think I’ve discovered the real problem with the climate. There are yearly climate patterns that aren’t being mentioned by these so-called climate experts, but I know better because I’m not a climate scientist.

    People buy clothes for cool weather and the climate cools down, usually getting to its coldest temperatures in July/august in the southern hemisphere. Then, for some strange reason, people start buying clothes for warmer weather, and before we know it, the climate heats up, with January/February being pretty warm usually.

    Cause and effect, you see. Very scientific. In fact, I’d say the science is settled, and will put my fingers in my ears and scream “denier” if you even dare to suggest that I’m wrong.

    It does seem to work the opposite way in the Northern hemisphere, with the temperatures reaching their maximum in July/August. I have determined that the cause of this is something to do with us being upside down, and them not being upside down, and possibly something to do with koalas.

    More proof: people who live in the tropics always wear clothes for warm weather, and people who live closer to the poles, usually wear clothes for cooler weather, thus, causing the climate to change on a local scale.

    So, my conclusion from this is, if we want to stop the world from warming up, we need to keep buying clothes for cold weather. Perhaps a tax on people who own boardies and tanktops is in order, and the revenue from that can go towards subsidising thermal underwear? Maybe a tax on beach umbrellas too, they also seem to make the climate hotter when used.’

    Yes, I need a holiday, or psychological help?

  17. Regarding David Karoly and Matthew England:-
    With these gentlemen along with Barry Brook, doing guest spots on Supreme Master TV, I feel that their credibility, if they had any, is shot to pieces.

    Prof. David Karoly 4 degrees, Supreme Master TV

    Prof. David Karoly , Supreme Master TV

    Prof .Matthew England, Prof. David Karoly , Supreme Master TV
    Prof. Barry Brook, Supreme Master TV

    Who is Supreme Master ? See Wikipedia –

    From the Wikipedia entry, see reference to submissions to the Garnaut report,
    In late 2008 Ching Hai launched a media campaign in Australia and New Zealand asking people to “Be Green, Go Veg, Save the Planet”. Vegetarianism, clean energy, and tree planting were promoted as a solution to climate change and pollution. The Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association also made submissions to the Garnaut Climate Change Review advocating large cuts to livestock production.

    And now you can see where those adverts on SBS TV – ” Be Green, Go Veg, Save the Planet” came from. Recognise the symbol in the top RHS corner ?
    Google has an enormous amount of information Ching Hai and the Supreme Master organisation.
    Supreme Master has world wide satellite coverage, internet and Youtube coverage, and Supreme Master Ching Hai has a direct communication with God, or so we are told.

%d bloggers like this: