Bookmark this classic 1995 article in the Canberra Times. This guy had the entire scam nailed from day one.
To conclude that CO2 emissions are a threat to the environment would be doubtful and premature. Only a closer examination of the atmosphere over a long period and further detailed studies will decide the matter,” Barrett said in a recent scientific paper which caused frissons of anger among scientists.
Barrett, from Imperial College’s chemistry department, pours thinly veiled scorn on the arguments of the “warmers”, saying they are based on unreliable data, misunderstand the self-correcting nature of the earth’s atmosphere and represent science-by-committee. He says IPCC scientists based their theories on the fact that the earth’s temperature has increased by 0.8°C in the 20th century.
“This is within the expected margins of error for such a study,” he says. “A hard scientific view would be that there has been no discernible change in the earth’s temperature despite the significant increase of 25 per cent in the level of carbon dioxide. To blame the increase in carbon dioxide level for this alleged slight temperature increase seems to be a piece of poor scientific judgment that only a large committee could achieve.
“The lPCC’s reports do indicate that the conclusions are not unanimous but none of the doubters’ arguments is published. Proper science is not carried out by voting.”
The world’s climate had fluctuated naturally over the centuries. In Roman Britain, the climate was warm enough to allow grapes for red wine to be cultivated in the south.
“In the 20th century factors influencing the weather have been volcanic eruptions which put vast quantities of gas and dust into the atmosphere. Another factor is the variation in the strength of the sun depending on sun-spot cycles.
“And what the ‘warmers’ cast aside — the effect of variations in temperature in the oceans. Because if the oceans warm up by whatever means — maybe volcanic activity on the seabed, and there’s a lot of that — if the ocean warms up then CO2 will be less soluble forcing more of it out [into the atmo- sphere].
“The ‘warmers’ are possibly putting the cart before the horse. The sea warms up, then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up; there’s a lag of about five months.”
Barrett points out with some glee that much of conventional opinion 15 years ago, using similar data, was predicting the earth was heading for a new ice age.
“Normally scientific argument is rigorous and open, but these fellas at the IPCC publish their own conclusions. It’s a hell of a gravy train this, I tell you, which is why they don’t like seeing any doubts expressed. There is scope here for argument; there are so many uncertainties. It’s OK for academics to talk about these things and argue bitterly, but it’s another to come to a premature decision that will cost governments a vast amount of money.”
— Reuter
He nailed it! Bingo….
1995 article in the Canberra Times but who was listening?
Are people listening now?
And they would not listen
They’re not listening still
Perhaps they never will
🙂
What I have always failed to understand is how the scientific community in general allowed itself to be so hoodwinked and blindly accept the unsupported claims about the impact of CO2 on temperatures.
Why did not more scientists speak up and challenge the flimsy hypothesis and models when they first came out?
How did they allow the warmists to get away with the claim that “the science is settled?”
Where was the scientific method?
It is a sad period for science… sad because of the sham of “man-made global warming/climate change” but equally sad that responsible scientists did not do more in the early stages to challenge it.
It is easy to understand. It is called M-O-N-E-Y!! No grants for studying the politically inspired “global warming crisis” go to scientists who do not believe in global warming. No crisis=No money!
It is worse.
If you are a skeptic you lose your job or you are hounded and smeared. Just ask Dr Patrick J. Michaels or Dr. Murry Salby or Dr Tim Ball just to name a few.
Ancil Keys hoodwinked the world, and a gravy train is still on going.
Keys collected data on deaths from coronary heart disease and fat consumption from 22 countries. Despite the fact that 22 countries provided statistics, Keys cherry-picked the data from the 7 countries which supported his theory that animal fat was the main cause of coronary heart disease in order to publicize his opinions. The results of what later became known as the “Seven Countries Study” appeared to show that serum cholesterol was strongly related to coronary heart disease mortality both at the population and at the individual level.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/
Thanks for the link. Seems money/fame driven science is nothing new.
Amazing and impressive…
… in a good way of course.
I am not surprised he is a chemist.
Any honest chemist would question the ASSumption that CO2 is well mixed (diffusion just doesn’t work that fast) and would note the equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans was based on the temperature of the ocean and not the air.
And then there are volcanoes… Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves That article was from 2007 but I know that geologic surveys of the ocean bottom were being carried out in ~1980 because I had a caving buddy who was computer maintenance and all round handyman on one of the ships assigned to the Arctic area.
And where were the chemists speaking out against the CFC’s causing the so-called ozone hole?
Such a heavy molecule rising to such an extreme altitude? Let alone the miniscule percentage of the atmosphere represented by CFCs….
They lost me with that scam…….
When the American Chemical Society went Progressive I quit the organization.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
And he was right on!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
–- Upton Sinclair
Many figured it out, but they did not have the money to get the word out. Always follow the money.
Unbelievable, great find Steve!
Thanks, Steven aka Tony, for this news story from 1995.
If my analysis is correct, lock-step consensus government science was imposed fifty years earlier in 1945, after Stalin captured Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea and CHAOS and FEAR of destruction of planet Earth convinced world leaders to take totalitarian control of society and to hide the source of energy in the cores of :
1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
2. Some planets, like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
5. Our expanding Universe !
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
I trust that the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life & world in the solar system – the Sun’s pulsar core – will eventually expose the folly of this 1945 decision to rule the world by deceit.
Thanks, Steven aka Tony, for helping make that happen sooner rather than later.
The launching of Sputnik in Oct 1957 threatened world domination by the USSR. However, formation of the
1. US military-industrial complex under President Eisenhower and the
2. Apollo Program under President John F. Kennedy
Delayed implementation of the one-world government and brought the world close to full-scale nuclear war during the Cuban middle crisis.
In 1971 Henry Kissinger travelled secretly to China and agreed to end the Apollo Program as the price for world peace.
Nixon announced the decision in early January 1972. We were told privately at the the 1972 Lunar Science Confetence that Nixon, Brezhnev and the leader of China planned to orbit planet Earth in a spacecraft and publicly announce a new world-wide peace agreement.
That never happened, but the US ended the Apollo Program and now depends on Russian rockets for travel to the International Space Station.
That is my understanding of the rise and fall of our national independence after WWII.
The NZ election is fast approaching, and out of interest I looked at all of the Energy, Housing, environment, and job growth policies of every party.
What did I find? I found they are all exacly the same, all use key words:- “Low carbon” “sustainable growth” “renewable” “Climate change” (global warming has been dropped) “Smart homes” “smart cities” “Eco”. Wellington NZ even has a 2040 smart city plan, irrispective of the government of the day. All this is based on outright fraud.
So why do NewZealanders vote?
Finding people to have a conversation with about this is next to impossible.
All the people you have talked to have decided they are OK with becoming slaves. (you can always start the conversation from that point.)
See this by a flaming lesbian liberal who is a California Bureaucrat, but she GETS IT.
Also the video link
Yes, she helped solidify it for me.
Behind the Green mask is a great little book.
What a utopia.
My hat is off to Dr. Barrett and all of you who caught on to this scam early on. He really gets it.
I didn’t catch on to the magnitude of the Man-Made Global-Warming scam until Climategate 1.0 – before then I just considered it the “Al Gore Thing” and figured no good would come of it and it would vanish on its own accord – I was wrong though because I had no idea how deeply the corruption extended. I don’t know how all the Charlatans, Liars, and Frauds are going to even be able to back down. The internet has it all too well documented.
That people were totally wise to this in 1995, and even before, is reassuring.
Dr Art Robinson (Oregon Petition) had an article in the Wall Street Journal linking the sun to the temperature in the mid 1990’s before this piece was written.
Dr. Robinson took over Access to Energy from Dr Petr Beckmann so he was well aware of the roots of this scam years ago.
Voila! Now we know why the Fraud is worldwide BOM, GISS NCDC, BEST ect BOM’s given it away from the Australian (my quote)
“Homogenisation (to support AGW) is carried out by meteorological authorities around the world as best practice, to ensure that climate data is consistent through time,’’ BOM said.
It said both raw and adjusted national temperature data and the larger unadjusted national data set all indicate that Australian air temperatures had warmed over the past century.
“These findings are also consistent with those of other leading international meteorological authorities, such as NOAA and NASA in the US and the UK MetOffice,’’ BOM said.”
Here was a scientist of integrity. The rest of the scientific community in general was more interested in the smell of money dangled in front of them by lobby groups interested in Ludditeism and a’ “Back to the Stone-Age” mentality. The Public and Press blindly accepted their unsupported claims about the effect of CO2 on temperatures. People believed that “the science was settled?”
If only there had been more men of integrity and science like Barrett.