Formal Complaint about Behaviour of University of Melbourne Professor

Malcolm Roberts

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009


The Hon. Alex Chernov


8th Floor, Raymond Priestley Building

The University of Melbourne

Melbourne VIC 3010


Dear Mr Chernov:

Re: Formal Complaint about behaviour of University of Melbourne Professor

On Monday night, November 9th, 2009, as part of its ‘4 Corners’ program, the ABC broadcast

the following statement by Professor David Karoly, quote: ‘

Typically there would be one to’ Please refer to the program’s transcript available at: [Accessed: June, 2009] Produced by a

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment

scientists and scholars including UN IPCC scientists who came together to understand the

causes and consequences of climate change. Unlike the UN IPCC, the NIPCC is not prevented

from exploring natural causes of climate change. NIPCC scientists are able to look at evidence

the UN IPCC ignores. Because the NIPCC does not work for any governments, NIPCC

scientists are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.

Had the UN IPCC been a scientific body, this is the report it would likely have produced.

My attempts to invite Professor Karoly to retract and correct his statement have been

unsuccessful despite my providing overwhelming proof his statement is false. Given the nature

and contents of Professor Karoly’s reply to me, I feel deeply concerned about his behaviour.

Given my reading of UN IPCC data on the processes by which UN IPCC reports are produced

I am further concerned about Professor Karoly’s involvement in the development of unfounded

climate alarm and unfounded and false spreading of the notion that human activity caused

Earth’s latest period of modest global warming that ended around 1998. His behaviour selfevidently

appears to highlight serious deficiencies in his science and ethics.

The references and readings cited in the texts to which I referred Professor Karoly contain

hundreds of scientific and other references contradicting his assertion.

There is a list of 450 peer-reviewed papers that contradict or cast doubt on the UN IPCC's

claims at

[Accessed: June, 2009] The Nongovernmental

The following site presents many peer-reviewed and other scientific articles contradicting the


More reputable papers can be easily located on the internet and in a large and growing body of

scientific literature in the form of books and peer-reviewed scientific papers.

It is clear that there are many, many papers published each year that contradict the UN IPCC’s

reports. I trust you can see that such papers are readily accessible through the internet at no cost.

Others are easily available at low cost in reputable books published by internationally eminent

climate scientists such as Singer, Michaels and other UN IPCC scientists.

As I offered Professor Karoly, there are other books available referencing scientific papers

contradicting the UN IPCC. e.g., Plimer’s ‘Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing

Science’ cites 2,311 scientific and other references with many refuting the UN IPCC’s claim.

New Zealand investigative journalist Ian Wishart has produced an outstanding book analysing

global warming and climate alarm. He completely contradicts and strongly and convincingly

page 2

refutes the UN IPCC’s core claim. He exposes the UN IPCC’s fraudulent activities. Wishart

cites 432 references including many peer-reviewed and other scientific papers.

In his reply to me, Professor Karoly states, quote: “

paper that you mention below, together with a small number of other peer-reviewed journal

papers that seek to challenge some of the conclusions of the IPCC. I am also aware of a

number of flaws in such papers and therefore do not consider that they seriously contradict the

conclusions of the IPCC.

journals for peer review, Professor Karoly’s comments remain just his personal opinion.

Further, as there are un-refuted papers of significance he is effectively lying or publicly

denigrating all authors who have published articles refuting the UN IPCC. This is not what one

expects from an expert.

I trust you can see from the references provided above that Professor Karoly’s statement, quote:

‘a small number of’ is false.

That Professor Karoly publicly contradicts the facts, in my opinion shows that he lacks the

necessary due diligence to be classified as a scientist and/or lacks the integrity. His comment

makes it clear to me that he lacks an understanding of scientific process including peer review.

As a result of my experience of Professor Karoly’s behaviour, I refer you to UN IPCC data

presented in outstanding objective reports by John McLean. All are readily, quickly and easily

available on the internet at no cost. McLean’s reports are not sensibly refuted since they simply

present UN IPCC data obtained from the UN IPCC itself on its own processes for producing

UN IPCC reports. The reports presenting UN IPCC data are entitled:

• ‘The IPCC can’t count its “expert scientists”: Author and reviewer numbers are wrong’.

• ‘An Analysis of the Review of the IPCC 4AR WGI Report’.

• ‘Prejudiced authors, Prejudiced findings: Did the UN bias its attribution of “global warming”

to humankind?’

• ‘Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded’.

• ‘Peer Review? What Peer Review? Failures of scrutiny in the UN’s Fourth Assessment


McLean’s presentation of UN IPCC data appears to vindicate my conclusion that Professor

Karoly lacks an understanding of scientific process and or lacks integrity in his work and

comments on climate. am aware of the peer-reviewed journal” Unless he has submitted his comments about these flaws to the

My first complaint is specifically that, Professor Karoly appears to have knowingly

made a false statement broadcast on ‘4 Corners’.

contradicting the UN IPCC’s core claim that human activity caused Earth’s latest modest global

warming that ended around 1998. These papers contradict the very core of the UN IPCC’s

reports and claims. That is serious. Professor Karoly indirectly admits this in his response to me

yet dismisses authors contradicting the UN IPCC’s core claim.

is that Professor Karoly refuses to publicly retract and correct his statement.

My second complaint is that Professor Karoly appears to be motivated to falsely

promotes alarmist views that human activity caused global warming and he falsely

promote that such warming will have catastrophic impacts. Professor Karoly appears

to have fabricated and spread unfounded alarm on climate while having no supporting


My third complaint is that Professor Karoly has, without foundation, slurred well

known, highly respected and internationally eminent scientists. Without

substantiation and indeed without even checking some publications, Professor Karoly

dismisses those publications as unscientific.

scientific papers.

page 3

There are many scientific papers seriouslyFurther, my first complaintYet those publications rely on peer-reviewed

My fourth complaint is that after considering McLean’s reports presenting UN IPCC

data on UN IPCC reports, it appears Professor Karoly seems to have unethically

breached UN IPCC protocols, breached commonly accepted scientific procedures and

falsely claimed science supported the notion that humankind caused Earth’s modest

cyclical global warming.

My fifth complaint is that Professor Karoly erred seriously in inferring that scientific

consensus is the arbiter of science when it is well known that facts are the arbiter of

science. In doing this Professor Karoly contradicts and attempts to undermine the

fundamental premise of objectivity that underpins the scientific process that has

yielded enormous benefits to humanity.

I have deep reservations about other statements made by Professor Karoly on ‘4 Corners’. In

the interests of making this a timely submission, I currently restrict my complaints to those

written above.

One would think this to be an important topic in Professor Karoly’s eyes. Yet his reply to my email

inquiries refers to me incorrectly as ‘Mark’. While I’ve been called far worse and although

being misnamed does not bother me and is not any part of this complaint, it could reflect

Professor Karoly’s lack of attention to detail and reflect a predisposed level of bias in that it

shows he is focussed on the outcome not the content. Given his statements and behaviour, I

wonder if he is equipped to make objective comment on papers by scientists whose views differ

from his.

There is no scientifically, measured data of real world observations showing human production

of carbon dioxide caused Earth’s modest period of global warming that ended around 1998.

While the Earth has in the last six (6) decades apparently cooled, warmed and then cooled in

accord with natural variation, there is no evidence of human causation. There is no evidence of

unusually high temperatures. There is no evidence of an ongoing warming trend. There is no

evidence of catastrophic consequences. Yet Professor Karoly continues to promote alarm -

despite lack of substantiation.

Given his behaviour, I feel deeply troubled that Professor Karoly is apparently declared by the

University of Melbourne to be an expert in so many diverse fields including geology,

agriculture, primary health care, public health and health services, curatorial studies, cultural

studies, veterinary, evolution, environment and ecology, historical studies, fauna and flora,

heritage studies, marine environment and other diverse areas. I refer you to this University of

Melbourne web site link

( and invite you to click

on ‘Grants & Contracts’

(, ‘Awards &

Qualifications’ ( and

‘Research Classifications‘


It seems Professor Karoly relies on funds from the UN IPCC and from the government to fund

his activities. Professor Karoly’s ‘reputation’ self-evidently relies on his UN IPCC activities.

Professor Karoly has a lot riding on global warming being attributed to human production of

carbon dioxide even though there is no measured, scientific real-world data anywhere in the

world supporting that unfounded assertion. None. And despite there being an enormous

quantity of rigourous scientific work proving human production of carbon dioxide did not cause

Earth’s most recent period of ‘global warming’.

Professor Karoly is one of just three Review Editors of chapter 9 of the UN IPCC’s 2007

report. That is the sole chapter attributing Earth’s modest global warming to human production

of carbon dioxide. That chapter and the entire UN IPCC claim rely only on projections from

flawed computer models.

page 4

Those models rely on 16 climate factors with the UN IPCC itself admitting that 13 of the 16

have low levels of scientific understanding. The UN IPCC claims only one climate factor has a

high level of understanding yet that claim contradicts the laws of physics. Known significant

drivers of climate such as ocean-atmosphere oscillations and significant aspects of the sun’s

activities and emissions are omitted from the models.

Projections by the UN IPCC models over just the past ten (10) years have failed to even get the

direction of temperature correct, much less the quantum. The models predicted continued

warming, yet temperatures have fallen. Despite these significant discrepancies, Professor Karoly

is an advocate of models. It seems his reputation is clinging to his models.

I am reliably advised that when Professor Karoly was a co-ordinating Lead Author for the

pivotal chapter of the Third IPCC Assessment Report, (2001) i.e., the report that blamed human

activity for warming, he permitted the authors to give the impression that models were accurate.

Yet this was despite it being shown in figure 1 of chapter 6 (i.e. Fig 6.1), as well as in the

Summary for Policy Makers, that 8 of the 12 listed climate factors had a "Very Low" Level of

Scientific Understanding. Can Professor Karoly explain how accurate climate models can be

created when many factors are poorly understood?

I am further advised that UN IPCC scientist Dr Vincent Gray, in his review comments to the

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR 4) (2007) chapter 9, found that he was repeating the

justification for his comments so many times that he ceased writing the same comment in full

and simply referred to his earlier comments. How, then does Professor Karoly justify, in his role

as one of just three (3) UN IPCC Review Editors for the chapter, the UN IPCC's response to

those comments with "no justification provided"?

Thus Professor Karoly was a Co-ordinating Lead Author of the chapter attributing global

warming to human causation (without scientifically measured real-world data) in the UN

IPCC’s 2001 report. And then a Review Editor of the attributing chapter in the following UN

IPCC report (2007) that relied to some unspecified extent on the preceding report in 2001.

It seems that Professor Karoly’s work was pivotal to fabricating, promoting and sustaining the

UN IPCC’s unsubstantiated and unfounded conclusion that human production of carbon

dioxide catastrophically warmed the planet. Yet he is now exposed by his own statements

publicly fabricating and spreading falsities. I cannot rely on this man’s statements. His

behaviour further and completely discredits the UN IPCC’s core claims in its 2001 and 2007


While Professor Karoly may be an expert in a diverse range of topics as claimed by the

university, his public statement and his communication create impressions of unprofessionalism

and lack of ethics. His approach my be polluting many scientific and social fields.

In researching for this complaint I came across the following at:

Scientists/Oceanographers can work in the fastest growing area in the Earth Sciences:

climate”. The word ‘climate

Page. Yet the UN IPCC is an organisation whose charter restricts the UN IPCC’s purpose to

trying to prove humanity causes global warming. Even Australia’s Minister for Climate Change

acknowledges that the UN IPCC, quote, “does not undertake independent research but

synthesises literature”. The UN IPCC is not a scientific body and there is a large, substantial

and growing body of solid evidence exposing that the UN IPCC is not scientific, it is political.

Nor is it a body focussed on climate, but merely on one tiny aspect of climate, human causation

of climate change.

The link provided by the university’s School of Earth Sciences seems to indicate considerable

bias has crept into Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne.

In that Professor Karoly is mentoring future climate scientists, do his comments constitute

page 5

academic malpractice?

The following example defies logic. It is taken from an ABC site entitled ‘Unleashed’ at: In those comments by Professor Karoly,

he addresses the following statement: ‘

periods occur before increases in carbon dioxide, so carbon dioxide increases don't cause


ages to interglacial warm periods over the last half million years are initiated by variations in

the Earth's orbit around the Sun, leading to changes in the amount of sunlight in summer at

high latitudes.

He continues, quote: “

concentrations of carbon dioxide, as the warmer ocean waters lose some dissolved carbon

dioxide. However, the warmth of interglacial periods is only possible with the warming

influence of the carbon dioxide increases, which amplifies the initial warming.

In writing the second paragraph, Professor Karoly seems to be ignoring the first paragraph and

nonetheless blames carbon dioxide. His conclusion is nonsensical.

His conclusion itself erodes the UN IPCC’s core claim that human activity caused Earth’s latest

period of global warming that ended around 1998.

Further, his conclusion contradicts the laws of physics and extensive scientific (geological)

evidence showing no correlation at all between Earth’s past warmer and cooler periods and

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Professor Karoly’s statement on ‘4 Corners’ is clearly false yet was broadcast publicly and

could be significant in this week’s parliamentary debate. Given Professor Karoly’s failure to

retract and correct his statement, and given the UN IPCC data on UN IPCC processes as

provided by John McLean’s outstanding objective reports, I will copy this formal complaint to

members of parliament and reputable journalists. The topic of global warming is a matter of the

national interest and I’m confident you can appreciate that Professor Karoly’s unfounded

statement could mislead members of parliament during a tight schedule of debating relevant


Proclaiming their work for the UN IPCC has built some scientists’ reputations. That brought

credibility to some universities. Understandably though, as the myth of human causation of

‘global warming’ is increasingly being exposed world-wide, association with the UN IPCC is

turning from a source of pride to a source of shame. I request the University of Melbourne

thoroughly and objectively investigate this matter using independent external investigators. Such

investigators need to have credibility among the ranks of people supporting the core claim of the

UN IPCC and thousands of scientists contradicting the UN IPCC’s core claim.

Sadly, as a result of Professor Karoly’s activities, it is now the responsibility of The University

of Melbourne to demonstrate it works, researches and publishes ethically.

Accompanying and included with this complaint are the following:

- copies of recent e-mail correspondence with Professor Karoly

- document entitled UN IPCC Science Scrutinised. I hope my summary is of assistance to you.

As a member of humanity I feel upset and annoyed that Professor Karoly has spread and

continues to spread unfounded alarm and triggered unsubstantiated guilt and fear in humanity

and misled members of parliament. His comments reflect poorly on the University of

Melbourne and that esteemed body’s scientists.

Given Professor Karoly’s apparent vested interest in promoting alarm, it appears Professor

Karoly was motivated by these vested interests.

page 6

From that university site I quote: “Atmospheric’ is a hyperlink that takes readers directly to the UN IPCC HomeTemperature increases from ice ages to interglacial, by saying, quote: “This is another false conclusion. Temperature increases from iceThese temperature increases are followed by increases in atmospheric

The basis for my complaint is that Professor Karoly spread a falsity that, given his

position, he should have known to be a falsity. He compounded the falsity in his

attempted justification by fabricating more falsities.

Having read widely on the science of global warming, particularly the work of internationally

eminent climate scientists and environmental and ecology scientists I am not at all worried about

Earth’s climate. Having experienced Professor Karoly’s behaviour first hand I am worried

about the intellectual climate driving unfounded climate alarm.

A paper copy of this complaint is being mailed to you by Registered Post. I look forward to

your university independently assessing my complaint and rectifying Professor Karoly’s errors

and falsities. I look forward to the university reinforcing its commitment to scientific rigour and

solid ethical standards.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

Note: I receive no remuneration for my entirely voluntary work exposing climate alarm falsities.

Accompanying is my declaration of personal interests that was provided to all federal MP’s in

June, 2009.


Vice- Chancellor: Professor Glyn Davis,


Professor David Karoly,

Members of Parliament

‘4 Corners’ Producer,


• Declaration of personal interests

• Copy of e-mail correspondence with Professor Karoly - six (6) e-mails. This is a PDF

document copied and pasted from actual e-mails. If requested I can forward original emails

• Copy of document entitled UN IPCC Science Scrutinised

page 7

2,000 scientific papers published every year in the fields of climate change science contributing

to the understanding of climate change science and none of those seriously contradict the

conclusions of the IPCC. Note: ‘IPCC’ refers to the United

Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC.

Professor Karoly’s statement is false.

I have provided Professor Karoly with the following references presenting views completely

contradicting the UN IPCC’s core claim that human production of carbon dioxide caused

Earth’s latest modest period of global warming that ended around 1998:

McLean, J D, de Freitas, C R and Carter, R M, entitled “Influence of the Southern Oscillation

and tropospheric temperature”. It is published by the Journal of Geophysical Research on July

23rd, 2009 in Volume 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637, 2009.

Michaels, P J, PhD, Editor, 2005. Shattered Consensus - The True State of Global Warming.

(Rowman & Littlefield: Plymouth, UK). Containing chapters by internationally eminent climate

scientists on specific topics in climate science. Includes three (3) UN IPCC scientists (one being

a Lead Author) and a consultant to the UN IPCC. References 729 sources;

Singer, S F and Avery, D T, 2007. Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years.

(Rowman & Littlefield, Plymouth, UK). Comprehensive, reader friendly book on all aspects of

climate alarm. S F Singer is an internationally renowned Professor emeritus of Ecology and

Environment, respected climate scientist, physicist, first director of the USA's National Weather

page 1

Satellite Service and former vice-chairman for five years of the US National Advisory

Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres, member of UN IPCC panel of advisory scientists.

References 534 sources;

NIPCC, Singer, S F, (Ed) 2008. Report entitled “Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the


group of internationally eminent scientists, including scientists on the UN IPCC panel.

Prepared by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2008 as a

Science and Environmental Policy Project and published by The Heartland Institute, page 24.

Edited by Professor S F Singer. References to 168 sources;

Michaels, PJ and Balling, R C, 2009. Climate of Extremes - Global Warming Science They

Don't Want You to Know. (Cato institute, Washington, USA). Michaels is a member of the UN

IPCC and Balling a consultant to the UN IPCC. References to 278 sources and reading;

NIPCC, Singer S F, PhD and Idso, C D, PhD, (Editors) 2009. Climate Change Reconsidered.