Posts

Willie Soon claims CSIRO committed scientific malpractice

Willie Soon claims CSIRO committed scientific malpractice. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and Geoscientist and researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

I spoke with Willie Soon about the CSIRO’s reliance on a paper called Marcott el al (2013) to prove that the Earth’s temperature today is unprecedented.

Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”.

It’s hard to fathom that the CSIRO presented a paper that has been discredited and discarded by the scientific community and yet are relying on their supposed stellar reputation as a defence. This is shameful, and I call am calling on the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, and executive Dr Peter Mayfield, to resign.

Both have been complicit in the economically destructive policies based on CSIRO’s misplaced climate research.

Press conference – https://youtu.be/QIWZSjQ18CY

Media Release – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/senator-roberts-calls-on-csiro-head-to-resign/

Report – Restoring Scientific Integrity – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/restoring-scientific-integrity/

Question time on CSIRO – https://youtu.be/5l31VlPoXvM

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts]

Willie Soon is an astrophysicist, a geoscientist and aerospace engineer and researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for astrophysics based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

He has co-authored the Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection with Steven Yaskell. He contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation and not human activity. Professor Soon is outspoken and clear. We’re going to have some fun and we’re going to have some really strong points raised, I’m sure of that.

[Willie Soon]

Yes. I have read your report and in it, I think you mentioned something that really puzzles me of course, in the sense that when you look for, you ask for evidence, they actually were trying to essentially, I will say it out loud and be fair, they were actually trying to bully you by let’s say, offering the evidence from a paper published in science magazine, supposedly prestigious journal.

And authored by a person named Sean Marcott with four or five authors, I mean the senior author’s a distinguished professor of course at Oregon State University in America. But Sean Marcott, well, during that time was actually doing his PhD thesis. And I was very, very shocked in the sense that you were talking to them during the time period of 2016 to 2017.

And this paper by Sean Marcott was published in 2013 roughly March. And if the average citizen do not know about some of these facts, I think they can be excused, but more so the professional scientists, knew that this piece of work who attempted to claim that over 10,000 years, okay, you have basically temperature from high warming from 10,000 years ago to roughly about 6,000 years, very, very warm.

This is called the mid Holocene warm optimum, and then cool a little bit down to let’s say, 20th century, and then they have this one line that they patch, what do you call the indirect data, hit the instrumental thermometer data to look like there’s a sharp hockey stick jumping up. Okay? And that is scientific malpractice.

There was no such thing in the actual paper, there was no such thing in Sean Marcott’s PhD thesis, in fact, the paper was completely fallen apart. Thanks to science and technology. Thanks to internet. It was completely fallen apart, two weeks after the publication. Because the authors, two of the senior authors, okay? Right?

One of the person is Shakun, Jeremy Shakun was at the Harvard postdoc at that time, and then Marcott was still a student. They both came out and said, “oh no, no, no. Our people didn’t say that, oh, our time resolution of our Holocene that was 300 years at best, which mean we dunno anything from every 300 years. So how can you talk about 100 years attaching to this, to show this crazy warming?”

What I’m trying to say is that it is a form of bullying because two weeks after publication, this whole paper was completely destroyed. And yet you have somebody as high as CSIRO and chief scientists of Australia, trying to say that this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, by the way that paper was cited. They came out in March.

They were somehow mentioned in the fifth assessment report-

[Malcolm Roberts]

On the United nations.

[Willie Soon]

which came out Yeah, United Nations report. The last report which… And used that to support that, an even more famous hockey stick, which is done by professor Michael Mann for the last 1000 years.

And this is the kind of a scientific malpractice that I felt very sorry for them because I do not know what gave them the audacity, but these are the facts. And then I felt very sorry for the average Australian, especially the taxpayer. Why are you paying for this kind of nonsense? It’s actually nonsense.

And these people just because they have some PhD degree under their name, it doesn’t mean that they are very sensible. In my humble opinion, these people are highly misguided and they are very, very wrong in doing that. They should not ought to be doing that. And I really thank you enormously because I have met many politicians myself, I mean, most of them do not have the courage or conviction.

In fact, I think they’re a bit lazy because they don’t want to learn science, science seems to be a bit too hard sometimes. People are all scared of science, but for us, science is a wonderful tool, is one of those tools to enhance and improve our knowledge, to find that kind of understanding about our natural world and our human world. It’s a wonderful thing.

/by

Restoring Scientific Integrity

,

This report provides a summary of the discussions and transcripts from meetings with CSIRO. Additional links in the References section give an in-depth appreciation of analysis of the evidence provided by CSIRO. In the context of seeking CSIRO’s empirical evidence to justify climate policies, I know that CSIRO:

  1. has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous.
  2. admitted that temperatures today are not unprecedented.
  3. withdrew discredited papers that it had cited as evidence of unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide supporting empirical evidence.
  4. has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity.
  5. relies upon unvalidated models that give unverified and erroneous projections as “evidence.”
  6. relied on discredited and poor quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide.
  7. admits to not doing due diligence on reports and data from external agencies.
  8. revealed little understanding of papers it cited as evidence.
  9. allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO science without correction.
  10. misled parliament.

Seventeen internationally respected climate scientists from Australia and five other nations verified our conclusions about CSIRO.
In conclusion, CSIRO’s science on the matter of climate for policy making, amounts to a gross misleading of Parliament. The onus of proof is now on Parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on climate policies.

200831-Examination-of-CSIRO-Evidence-for-Climate-Policies

Download

/3 Comments/by

Senator Roberts calls on CSIRO head to resign

, ,

CSIRO has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy, which is a multi-billion dollar drag on the economy. 

Senator Roberts said, “This is shameful, and I call on the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, and executive Dr Peter Mayfield, to resign. 

“Both have been complicit in the economically destructive policies based on CSIRO’s misplaced climate research.” 

The controversial, but central claim, that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut, was the focus of Senator Roberts’ cross-examination of CSIRO. 

When CSIRO was asked for evidence of anything unprecedented in climate due to human carbon dioxide, and despite nearly 50 years of climate research, it could only provide the discredited Marcott (2013) paper on temperatures and the discredited Harries (2001) paper on carbon dioxide. 

Both papers wilted under scrutiny, with CSIRO representatives in agreement with the concerns raised, resulting in CSIRO withdrawing the papers. 

Astrophysicist and Geoscientist Professor Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”. 

Senator Roberts stated, “Robust science reflecting the highest standards of integrity and transparency should be the core business of CSIRO. 

“How could it be that climate scientists were unaware that the evidence being used for significant policy-making was based on poor quality and discredited scientific papers. 

“CSIRO’s lack of understanding of the papers they cited shows laziness and lack of intellectual rigor. Clearly, CSIRO cannot honestly claim that human activity is causing climate variability.” 

When pressed further regarding the view of CO2 being dangerous, CSIRO were quick to point out that they never claimed CO2 was dangerous, rather that it was politicians that assigned the word danger to human CO2. 

CSIRO also agreed that temperatures today are not unprecedented. 

In a last ditch attempt CSIRO referenced the United Nations’ reports relying on unvalidated computer models, despite freely admitting CSIRO had not done due diligence on any UN work. 

CSIRO also admitted it had not done due diligence on data from the Bureau of Meteorology. 

Senator Roberts added, “In my discussions with eminent international scientists, Professor John Christie stated he has closely examined CSIRO’s Access Models and found them below par, as the projections simply do not match what we actually see in the real world.” 

Professor Christie added, “Climate is so complex, our ignorance of the climate system is enormous, and the myriad of models have not even agreed on a key variable, CO2 sensitivities. 

“The CSIRO models are running overly warm and this has been proven when comparing real data of the last 40 years with the climate model projections.” 

Dr David Evans, one of the world’s top computer modellers, states, “CSIRO climate models should not be used for policy as they are not right yet. 

“The performance of all climate models, including CSIRO’s, are not sufficiently validated and consistently overestimate warming.” 

Senator Roberts added, “It is the duty and responsibility of politicians to base costly policies and economic structural change on robust scientific evidence, not discredited papers and deficient models.” 

Senator Roberts calls for “a halt to all climate policies and spending until credible empirical evidence is provided to justify the spend, and for an Office of Scientific Integrity to scrutinize science used for policy. 

“The onus is now on parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on vested interests riding the climate gravy train.” 

/by