This interesting comment from auditor Mervyn Sullivan on the blog But Now You Know– The Search For Truth in Human Action. I’ll soon be posting my version of their Climate Change Timeline.
But for now, read this (I’ve bolded my three favourite lines):
As a professional auditor, I’m forever obtaining and evaluating evidence. I became interested in the climate debate because of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. So I decided to examine the evidence.
I have spent thousands of hours researching… to understand both sides to the climate debate (e.g. I went through the IPCC’s AR4 report, but I also went through the “Climate Change Reconsidered report by the NIPCC; I read books, blogs, magazines, research papers, authoritative web sites, and more).
Sounds like a thorough kind of guy. And what did he find?
I have come to the firm conclusion that nothing about our weather and climate is unprecedented. I have come to the conclusion that climate scientists still need to learn so much more about earth’s complex chaotic climate system before they can be so bold as to claim that CO2 is the key driver of catastrophic man-made global warming and climate change, or that certain weather events have been caused by man-made global warming. I have also learnt that predicting weather beyond say a couple of weeks is too difficult, and on that basis, predicting future climate is simply impossible.
Climate is average weather, is it not?
I have not found any persuasive evidence that proves CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming or even driving climate change as claimed by the IPCC… there is no empirical evidence supporting this view.
I have come to the conclusion that the evidence is stronger in support of the idea that our climate is driven by numerous complex factors involving, for example, solar magnetic activity, cosmic rays, cloud formation, lunar position, and ocean currents.
Just as the sceptical climate scientists have been saying.
I also think the Central England Temperature record is probably a reliable temperature proxy record to work off. It shows no evidence of any runaway global warming since the mid 1600s.
I wonder if this news has reached East Anglia. (As in the University of). But here’s his killer finding:
If I had to issue an audit opinion on the IPCC AR4 report, it would have to be a disclaimer opinion. In fact, I would go so far as to state that if the IPCC AR4 report were subject to the same standards of accountability as under corporations legislation, the IPCC members would probably be facing jail sentences for releasing misleading information to the public, and grossly deceiving the public by claiming its report was based only on peer reviewed scientific literature (the best science) when in reality, approximately 30% of the 18,500+ citations are now known to have related to “grey literature” such as articles by campaigning organizations like WWF and Greenpeace… which are not even close to being peer reviewed scientific literature.
Surely the United Nations wouldn’t really parrot left-wing propaganda? And surely — despite one of its head honchos being Helen Clark — it’s not really using eco-catastrophism as a pretext for socialist world government?
What I have also learnt from my research is that the climate change debate has become over-politicized to the point that it now overrides real climate science. It’s now all about regulating and taxing ‘carbon’ to fix an imaginary future problem. To even think that certain people could assume that humans could tame and control the weather and climate, Mother Nature, demonstrates the madness on the part of some, in relation to this debate over man-made global warming.
Comment by Mervyn Sullivan | February 9, 2011 @ 06:48 |
Now at this point, of course, our resident warm-mongers Judge Holden and David Winter will immediately leap in to somehow blacken this auditor’s name. (The Green Party Black Ops Manual on the Flaming and Defaming of Heretics offers a host of plausible smears.)
And I can’t defend him, because I have no idea who, where, or how good an auditor, Mervyn Sullivan is.
Nonetheless, I thought you might find it interesting to hear from a man who spends his life sifting truth from lies.
John Ansell 
I also have put many hours into tracing the scientific “proof” behind the IPCC’s reports. Ultimately all of the alarming projections go back to the Mann and Briffa hockey stick graphs based on extremely small samples of tree growth rings that have now been widely discredited. A few scientists are on the verge of doing the seemingly impossible – proving the negative. For example, Dr Murry Selby, head of environmental science at Macquarie University is about to publish research that shows it is much more likely that temperature rises cause an increase in CO2 emissions from natural sinks rather than mankind’s emissions causing the temperature rise. But none of the science actually matters when you realise that climate change activitism is not about saving the world, but about enslaving the world under a Marxist hegemony.
I wonder if such heges grow well when fertilised with with green manure and dompost?
You really don’t get it at all. I’m not out to ‘blacken’ anyones name. I get annoyed with idiots like Monckton who defame scientists and misuse science. But that’s because he’s wrong. And so if your auditor.
I’ve only commented here because in the hope you might step back an look at what you’re saying. You are so convinced that the orthodox position on climate is wrong that you’re happy to say people that want to do something about our influence on climate are happy to starve children, or deny the human progress and the benefits of capitalism (was that the point of that post, you lost me). Being that sure of something that crazy if, frankly, scary.
Anyway, if you read a little wider you’d develop a better bullshit filter. In this one you have this gem:
predicting weather beyond say a couple of weeks is too difficult, and on that basis, predicting future climate is simply impossible.
Climate is average weather, is it not?
Yes, climate is the average of weather and that’s why it is possible to predict it. If yo were to roll a dice a hundred times, I wouldn’t be able to guess the outcome more than about 16 times. But I am very confident the average of all those throws will be about 3.5. I can even make a climatic prediction – December will be warmer than July.
The ‘can’t predict weather, can’t predict climate’ canard is thoroughly debunked.
Then you have a video of Monckton who, in the space of a minute, lies three times.
1st. “There has been no global warming for 15 years”
In fact, the data is here and there is a trend
here:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
In 2010, when he was talking the trend in the data was positive (0.1 C per decade)
2nd. “For nine of those ten years we have had a rapid and statistically significant decline in temperature”
Again, the data says otherwise. The p-value (less than 0.05 is significant) is 0.6. Either Monckton has no idea what he’s talking about or he’s a liar
3rd He accuses Kevin Trenberth.of saying it’s a travesty that this ‘decline’ is happening but only in private among other scientist
But that’s a misquote of what Trenbreth said
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html
He was talking about a paper he’d published (hardly private!) and the need to measure heat as it moves around the climate system (a slightly abstruse concpet, but an important one).
Like I say. I just wish you’d spend a moment or two understanding the science behind global before you throw it all our.
and stuck in the moderation queue again, peril of backing up ones statements…
I see you’re doubling down on the crazy. Still a comment in moderation on this thread, might show the value of reading outside the echo chamber…
So this guy’s qualifications in climatology are? He’s an accountant’s accountant. Still probably has more credibility than your other chum, the Nobel Laureate guy.