T W A W K I

The world as we know it

The manipulation of Australian politics – Climategate V2

Who would have thought!

governments—as the key stakeholders in these negotiations—play an essential role in the [AR4] report’s production. Government representatives propose authors and contributors, participate in the review process, and help reach a consensus on the report’s major findings

and more from the above link;

<2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

Just think if Gillard and the ALP had brought in their Ministry of Truth we would be nine the wiser! Wont be long before they make free speech a crime and criticism of the government a punishable penalty! Funny while Burma is abolishing press censorship Gillard and the ALP are implementing it.

Socialist Bankster dictators destroy democracy ;

 

Entry 1178 on searchable site here; http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4&search=Rudd&sisea_offset=20 (bold below mine)

From: david macilwain [REDACTEDREDACTED]
Sent: 15 July 2009 14:38
To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI)
Cc: REDACTED
Subject: Australia’s Skeptic Problem

Dear Hadley Centre –or whoever can advise on our problem.

We have a serious problem in Australia at the moment, in the shape of an independent senator who holds the balance of power over the government in its efforts to pass legislation on Emissions Control.

I’ll leave aside the fact that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as it is known is actually a Reallocation scheme, which is not designed to reduce emissions in Australia but merely offset them in such dubious enterprises as “stopping deforestation” in Indonesia, and also plans to give away permits to all the biggest polluters. All of us who are seriously concerned about climate change ( you might think that would be most Australians) would like to see this minimalist scheme scrapped and replaced with a serious commitment, but there is a small group of “Climate Skeptics” who want neither and are having a disproportionate effect on the public view.

The main drive behind this skeptic movement appears to be the Heartland Institute, and its local front group “the Australian Climate Science Coalition” ( in whose title the only significant word is COAL ) This group is strongly supported by the Murdoch owned “Australian” newspaper, which prints frequent articles by skeptic “scientists”, and opinion pieces by its own resident “deniers”, and has considerable punch with public opinion. Consequently there is here still “a Debate” on whether CO2 is causing Global Warming, and for that matter whether there is global warming “any longer”.

The ACSC has, in my opinion, identified Senator Steve Fielding as someone who can push their agenda along for them; in effect to be a sort of Trojan Horse to spread their misinformation virus through the community and government. An example of the insidious effectiveness of this Campaign is that right now we have Al Gore here, firing up his
initiates, and talking to Kevin Rudd ( in such a way as to make him say things that go way beyond anything he planned to do, but he’s like Tony Blair I’m afraid), but given EQUAL time in the news is Steve Fielding, who also wanted to talk to Gore to see if he could “answer his question”. (Gore didn’t meet him).

This is where you come in, and I apologise for the rambling intro. Fielding’s “question”, which he says our scientists can’t answer, is “why have temperatures for the last 15 years stayed the same or fallen when CO2 levels have risen?” (you don’t need to answer this!) But as evidence of this he has “a graph(attached)”, which according to his website is YOURS! You can find this same graph in many skeptic publications, sometimes onlyREDACTED I’m quite familiar with the Hadley Temp graph for the last 150 years and this section only has a slight resemblance to it. It does however have more
resemblance if you tilt the axis —but why would you do that?

If you’ll bear with me, my other attachment is some analysis I did on a curious graph published by the ACSC, and attributed to a presenter at the Heartland Institute conference on Climate Change in New York in March ’09. It tries to show that the current variation in temperature is cyclical – and therefore natural, but to make the Hadley Data fit the
requirements some changes had to be made. First the section pre 1880 was removed, and then the graph was apparently distorted into this wavy shape, which I have repeated in “fig REDACTEDAs a matter of interest I have given my suggested trend line in “fig 4”. It is evident that one would not have much chance of persuading anyone of the lack of a warming
trend by presenting the data in this fashion.

What I would really like from you is a statement that the graph attributed to you seriously misrepresents the data and has evidently been re-packaged with the intention to mislead. The change is NOT a matter of “scientific interpretation”. I would then forward your reply to Senator Fielding, along with your simple and adequate notes on “climate facts” -which are all the facts currently being peddled as myths around Australia.

While we may only be a small country, we unfortunately punch well above our weight, both in being a CoalMine, and in sabotaging Kyoto for so many years – and now arguably trying to sabotage Copenhagen.

with regards, David Macilwain. Sandy Creek, Victoria, 3695 Australia

Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachDistorting Data.jpg” Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachThe Graph.jpg”

Watch member David MacIlwain – Article in Bordermail ; David in long conversations ;

…………………….

No. 0453

18:37:24 +1000
from: “Tony McMichael” <REDACTED>
subject: RE: Bob Watson
to: “Mike Hulme” <REDACTED>, “Andy Haines” <REDACTED>

Andy and Mike,

I plan to speak with Ian Noble about this this evening. Ian has good political connections here (but remember, ours is routinely the first government to endorse whatever Bush says/does on climate change!).

I will be meeting with the Acting Director of the Australian Greenhouse Office next week, and will explore a bit further.

Tony

Prof. A.J. McMichael
Director, National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health
Australian National University
Canberra
ACT 0200
AUSTRALIA
Email: REDACTED
Phone:REDACTED25.4578
FaxREDACTED25.5608
Website: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/

—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Hulme [REDACTEDREDACTED]
Sent: 08 April, 2002 6:33 PM
To: Andy Haines; Tony McMichael
Subject: Re: Bob Watson

Andy/Tony,

I have followed the news, and seen a copy of the February 2001 memo from Exxon to Bush that started this thing rolling.

I take a rather relaxed view of this. Watson does not have an unalienable right to chair IPCC and a change may be good anyway. Pauchari from TERI in India, anyway, seems unlikely to me to ‘let USA off the hook’. The upsetting thing of course is the lobbying by Exxon and the giving way to it by Bush, but we have known this all along is a problem with the Bush administration.

Susan Solomon who is likely to end up chairing WGI from the USA is a top quality scientist and will let the ‘science speak loud and clear’ I believe.

The outcome of all this should be known after the Geneva Plenary in 10 days time.

All the best,

Mike

At 19:56 05/04/REDACTEDAndy Haines wrote:
>Dear both,
>
>You will no doubt have seen the news about the intention of the Bush administration not to support Bob in his role as chair of IPCC apparently as a result of lobbying by Exxon Mobil. Tony , can you lobby the Australian govt and major scientific bodies in Australia to express their concern about and opposition to this action? Mike , I will contact Ian Gibson and Robert May but you may have other suggestions
>
>Regards
>
>Andy

…………………….

No. 3213

17:45:52 2004
from: Mike Hulme <REDACTED>
subject: Re: IPPR – International Taskforce on Climate Change
to: “Chris Moss” <REDACTED>

Chris,
It depends where.
If in the London, the only option is 28th July, early morning.
If in Norwich, then periods of 21st or 26th July might also be possible.
Mike
At 12:03 07/07/REDACTEDyou wrote:

“urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” xmlns:w =
“urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word” xmlns:st1 =
“urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags”>
Dear Professor Hulme,

I am writing to ask if it would be possible to arrange a meeting between yourself and Simon Retallack. Simon is leading research on ippr s International Taskforce on Climate Change, a high-level, cross-party collaboration including leaders from politics, business, civil society and science from around the world, which we would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss with you. Simon is very sorry he has not been able to get in touch personally as he has back to back meetings in the U.S and U.K at the moment.

Welcomed by Prime Minister Tony Blair and founded by the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, the [1]Center for American Progress in Washington DC and the [2]Australia Institute in Canberra, the Taskforce was launched in March this year. Its purpose is to provide advice on how to help ensure climate change is addressed effectively over the long term by identifying new ways of securing international cooperation. Its recommendations will be aimed at all governments, with special emphasis on the UK, as it holds the presidencies of both the G8 and the EU in 2005, and Tony
Blair has publicly announced that he wants to make advancing international action on climate change a key priority.

We would greatly appreciate the chance to tell you more about the work of the Taskforce and seek your advice on key aspects of the research programme that the Taskforce has commissioned to inform its final recommendations due early next year.

I apologise for the short notice, but it would be very helpful if you had the time to meet. If you agree, are there any times on the 20^th, 21^st, 22^nd, 23^rd, 26^th, 28^th or the 30^th July when you might be free?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Moss

Sustainability Team
Institute for Public Policy Research
REDACTEDSouthampton Street
London WC2E 7RA
REDACTED
[3]www.ippr.org
T:REDACTED 6100
F:REDACTED 6111
M:REDACTED18

…………………….

0008 Phil Jones asking David Karoly to be rapporteur of WG1 and WG2 of AR4.

…………………….

John Howard writes the forward for new paper What is Wrong With the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform.

Professor McKitrick’s report focuses on the reporting procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The intellectual bullying, which has been a feature of the behaviour of some global warming zealots,  makes this report necessary reading if there is to be an objective assessment of all of the arguments. The attempt of many to close down the debate is disgraceful, and must be resisted.

Ross McKitrick has written a well-researched and articulate critique of the IPCC’s methods.  It deserves careful study, especially by those who remain in an agnostic state on this issue.

…………………………………………

Oh dear the warmists are in a flap ; once one accepts the documented evidence that CO2 is insignificant in warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically:  

Filed under: Governance

2 Responses

  1. Public art, guess how much it cost,gasp….In this economic climate- disgusting,gasp. No context, lowest common denominator That’s Britain

  2. […] The manipulation of Australian politics – Climategate V2 […]

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
.......
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
.......
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
.......
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
.......
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
.......
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
.......
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
.......
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: