Unpublished letter to the Listener, by Phil Hayward

Saturday, January 23rd 2010

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for printing my letter on the Global Warming fraud. I would be grateful for a chance to respond to some of your correspondents arguments about my claims.

David Wratt of NIWA very decently does not take exception to my whole argument, but limits himself to the numbers of scientists involved in the IPCC Report's "Climate Science" chapter. I believe what I wrote is accurate about the Report itself, but I accept that he can find his way around the IPCC's arcane website and Reports better than I can, and that there are annexes that involved more personnel than the Chapter itself to which I was referring.

Nevertheless, I was arguing that the figure of "2,500 scientists" repeatedly rammed down our throats by Al Gore, Inc. and the media, is completely deceptive. Dr Wratt says my figure of 53 scientists is wrong, it is actually 142. My point about the "2,500" seems to be highly valid nevertheless.

About the influence of Al Gore, James Hansen, and Maurice Strong; I can only respond that these people themselves take credit and are proud of their roles in the genesis of the IPCC. But the whole thing has been set up to be as opaque to outside scrutiny as possible, so that anyone's role in the making of appointments is deniable. I would ask Dr Wratt what he thinks the IPCC might look like if it had been set up in the first place by Senator James Inhofe, Richard Lindzen, and Christopher Monckton. Biased, perhaps? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The IPCC has been producing Computer Models of climate for 2 decades now. These models give a range of potential outcomes for climate, from a low end to a high end. On the twenty year, ten year, and shorter time scales, these models have been spectacularly wrong all the way; even the low end predictions have not been anywhere near low enough. And they are asking us to base our entire economic future on the 100 year outcomes somewhere between the average and the high end, as predicted by their models? If we let them get away with this, we deserve all we will get.

To George Preddy's argument:

We scoff at the possibility of Wikipedia and Google being biased, at our own peril. Google happily co-operates with the Chinese Communist govenment to censor what the Chinese people are allowed to know. Articles like "Googlegate" by Harold Ambler, "Better Off With Bing" by Lawrence Solomon, and "Climaquiddick" by Kathy Shaidle discuss the curious way in which the Google search engine handles searches for "Climategate", and the curious way in which the number of hits keeps dropping from what it had reached. I have been personally observing this with Google and other search engines as well.

"Financial Post" journalist Lawrence Solomon has been writing excellent investigative articles for a long time, on the completely biased way Wikipedia's entries on Climate Change have been "moderated". Read his "Wikipedia's Zealots"; "Wikipedia's Climate Doctor"; and "Climategate at Wikipedia".

I stand by everything else I said that Mr Preddy criticises, and am happy if your readers do their own verification and make up their own minds. He quotes "New Scientist" magazine as telling us that about "Climategate"; to move along please, there is nothing to see here. As I said, this issue is on fire on the net and people who have simply read samples of the Climategate emails will regard "New Scientist" and their whitewash as a sick joke. The emails themselves discuss how to get editors of scientific journals sacked for going against the approved litany.

As for the claim that James Hansen has been proved right about ice cap melt and sea level rises; I simply marvel at Mr Preddy's sources of information.

IPCC Reviewer Vincent Gray of Crofton Downs has pointed out to me that of the 308 Reviewers I mentioned, most had long since given up commenting by the time the 2007 Report came along, because they had been ignored every time before. No audit has ever been done of the earlier reports to show who commented, let alone what they said.

Vincent Gray has also kindly changed my thinking about most of the scientists who are producing all the distorted research today in response to the politically-based funding incentives. They are not crooks, but ordinary vulnerable men with families, mortgages, debts, and existing lifestyle habits to support. The Climategate emails reveal basically decent men like East Anglia's Keith Briffa being bullied into providing predetermined results by means that are a breach of all scientific principle; the genesis of the completely fraudulent "Hockey Stick" graph being just the most repugnant example.

Instead of enabling a political whitewash, the media should be demanding Commissions of Inquiry in at least 10 countries including the USA, Britain, Australia and NZ.

Yours Faithfully

Philip G. Hayward