Climate Propaganda from the Australian Academy of Science

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

The Australia Academy of Science has recently published a Q&A about human-induced global warming titled The science of climate change.  Their press release is here.  Examples from around the blogosphere:

There are numerous examples of why that global warming-climate change report is nothing but propaganda. One is the following nonsensical discussion and images:

Using climate models, it is possible to separate the effects of the natural and human-induced influences on climate. Models can successfully reproduce the observed warming over the last 150 years when both natural and human influences are included, but not when natural influences act alone139 (Figure 3.5). This is both an important test of the climate models against observations and also a demonstration that recent observed global warming results largely from human rather than natural influences on climate.

Figure 3.5 from Australia Academy of Science Report

Their Figure 3.5

Note:  Their reference 139 is Chapter 10 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.

The Australia Academy of Science fails to mention that climate models do not, cannot, simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to and suppress long-term global warming…like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and El Niño and La Niña events. We know that climate models can’t simulate those processes because one of the lead authors of a few IPCC reports told us so back in 2007.  Of course, I’m referring to Kevin Trenberth’s blog post Predictions of Climate at  (I’ve archived a copy here…just in case the inconvenient original disappears.)  We discussed Trenberth’s blog post recently in Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed Critical Weaknesses of the IPCC Foretelling Tools.

The caption for the Australia Academy of Science’s Figure 3.5 reads:

Figure 3.5: Climate models can correctly replicate recent warming only if they include human influences. Comparison of observed changes (black lines) in global temperatures (°C) over land (left) and land plus ocean (right) with model projections including both natural plus human influences (red lines) and natural influences only (blue lines). Shadings around model results indicate 5-95% confidence bands139. Adapted from IPCC (2013)79, Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1, Figure 10.21.

“Correctly replicate”?  Apparently the Australia Academy of Science has a very low threshold for their use of the word “correctly”.  We illustrated and discussed how poorly CMIP5-archived climate models simulate surface temperatures in the posts:

And for sea surface temperatures, see the posts:

I’m sure you can find other examples of propaganda in the Australia Academy of Science recent report on global warming and climate change.

[Thank to blogger Neville for the heads-up.]

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 16, 2015 7:32 am

It is not relevant that the models cannot project ENSO and AMO. They are oscillations and have little net effect on Global Warming over a long-enough term.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
February 16, 2015 7:39 am

How do you know that? Got a climate model which works?

Reply to  harrytwinotter
February 16, 2015 8:33 am


It is not relevant that the models cannot project ENSO and AMO. They are oscillations and have little net effect on Global Warming over a long-enough term.

Those irrelevant worldwide temperature “oscillations” (+/- 0.4 degrees) are 4 times the size of the “possible” (not yet detected!) total effect of CO2, which might be +0.1 degree from a CO2 rise of 30% (+/- 0.1 degree) ….
So. If you subtract the irrelevant worldwide temperature oscillations common across all temperature proxies between 200 BD and today’s 2000-2015 “shelf”, you have no measurable change in temperature at all outside of the error bars. Due to Man, due to CO2, due to anything else. You do have a possible 0.05 residue, which might be present. Maybe. (It is well within the 1 std deviation of the worldwide values anyway, but might be present.)
If the models cannot predict the effect of randomly opening the door to a closed room heated by a 20 watt lightbulb burning within when there is a blizzard outside, how accurate are the models at predicting the temperature in the room 85 years from now?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 16, 2015 9:12 am

You are correct that the red line does not closely follow the black line starting in about 2000. But the issue is the gap between the blue range and the pink range, which the AAS claims cannot be explained without AGW.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 16, 2015 10:52 am

“You are correct that the red line does not closely follow the black line starting in about 2000. But the issue is the gap between the blue range and the pink range, which the AAS claims cannot be explained without AGW.”
The issue is that scientific organizations can only claim that there is a gap when they run their models using different parameters. They cannot, (and have not that I know of) make the claim that they can perfectly model Earth’s climate, or that any model currently exists that represents each and every possible natural aspect/influence on Earth’s climate accurately and completely. Thus they cannot honestly, scientifically, or empirically make any kind of claim that AGW is obviously the only remaining factor that could possibly be causing ” a gap” in their outcomes.
They can however, and do all the time, make claims that seem to INFER or ALLUDE to the idea that such a model exists and therefor their claims are perfectly logical and/or scientific. And THAT is the real issue here.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 16, 2015 12:36 pm

Reply to: Barry at 9:12 am:
The models were tuned in a hindcast manner. To claim they correctly modelled the past temperatures is akin to claiming you correctly predicted last week’s lottery numbers today by knowing what numbers weren’t selected. Since the models were built to confirm CO2 AGW, then when they take out that bias, the fail their preconceived hindcast. That is the very definition of pseudoscience that Richard Feynman warned about.
The AAAS and the IPCC needs the public to believe that since they “hindcast” correctly using tuned models, they will forecast accurately into the future. All the current data says they can’t. Correctly forecasting the future is the only true test of a global climate model that should be accepted. Anything else is pseudoscience.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 16, 2015 7:15 pm

Barry, many of these models have been hindcast tuned all the way up to 2007. One can’t help but note that even though it is now 2015, the depicted models and data are only shown out to 2010. Why is that?
The beautiful hindcast agreement has very little value since the modelers had the required answer in front of them when they tuned their model. The forecast is what matters, yet they chose to ignore comparative data from half of the forecast era.
The idea that the model must be correct since it gives agreement “only” when CO2 increases are included is hilarious. These models are immensely complicated with a large number of tuned parameters. Tuning the model to show a large CO2 sensitivity is not intrinsically difficult. The fact that the published models would have been flat without a CO2 increase could mean nothing more than that the natural variability is poorly understood.
ONLY THE FORECAST MATTERS and observations for that period are quickly diverging from the predictions of the “settled science”.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 17, 2015 4:49 am

Bob Tisdale. How long did the ENSO “enhance” the warming trend? It looks like an oscillation to me, it spiked the global average temperature for a relatively short time only.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 17, 2015 6:26 am

The claim is made that without CO2 the models can’t explain the temperature rise (even though the temperature for 18 years has ceased to rise).
CO2 is the fudge factor that makes the models work. (Well, admittedly not very well. It is a very poor fudge factor.)
Good investigators would ask themselves the question — what other naturally occurring factors are we missing (or misunderstanding) that should be added to or corrected in the model so that that the fudge factor of CO2 can be eliminated from the model?
The modelers won’t do that because from the get-go the models were intended to show that global warming is man-made. The models are staged exhibits of the dangers of CO2. Therefore other aspects of the models will never be corrected to eliminated CO2.
Of course, there is another possibility. The temperature rise we have supposedly seen is really something induced by those keeping the temperature records. “Adjustments” to the data have created most of global warming. It might be that if you eliminate the adjustments from the temperature records and eliminate the fudge factor of CO2 from the models — the temperature records and the models might then come close to agreement.
Eugene WR Gallun.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
February 16, 2015 11:04 am

No answer?

Reply to  harrytwinotter
February 16, 2015 9:09 pm

Mr. Twin Otter. Nice aeroplane. Nice try? Not so much.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
February 17, 2015 4:52 am

Twin Otters are a nice aeroplane I heard, real workhorses.

Santa Baby
Reply to  harrytwinotter
February 16, 2015 10:35 pm

“Australian Academy of policy based Science”?

Jaye Bass
Reply to  harrytwinotter
February 17, 2015 11:43 am

The climate models seem to be as effective as fitting a linear least squares to a sin function between -pi/2 to pi/2 and saying the fit is accurate from -inf to +inf.

February 16, 2015 7:33 am

Wow. The climate kooks are tripling down. They are tripping over each other to make ever wilder apocalyptic claims even farther removed from reality.

Coach Springer
February 16, 2015 7:37 am

Not withstanding the fine points of criticism, the public take away is that the propaganda has some truth to it and that it is authoritative. And the propagandists keep refining their product via argumentativeness rather than science. Science is still not winning on this issue, thanks to the scientists who personally and professionally commit beyond the science.

February 16, 2015 7:44 am

The AAS and ANU are the same fanatics who told us to “ignore the facts” w/r to climate change.
When I was young, people spoke of the ANU with reverence. Now most people just think of them as yet another Ivory tower of irrelevant boffins.
[On this site, please do not insult boffins by comparing them to the people within the AAS-ANU ivory towers. .mod]

Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 16, 2015 11:53 am

Don’t contaminate pristine Ivory Towers;
there wont be any more as the ban in ivory trade is almost total, thank goodness.

Reply to  1saveenergy
February 16, 2015 12:27 pm

And the ANU is covering theirs with guano.

February 16, 2015 8:18 am

But the sea level must bee of concern on an island?
Lock at this perfect 60 year cycle:

February 16, 2015 8:47 am

This and recent articles have me utterly convinced of the reality of man caused global warming. Man… is adjusting those temperatures… That is likely the majority of the anthro contribution to the warming.

Reply to  calcityjoe
February 16, 2015 10:53 am


Reply to  calcityjoe
February 16, 2015 12:09 pm

Yes, and the “A” in “AGW” stands for “Anthropomorphic”, not “Anthropogenic”.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2015 4:45 pm

I didn’t type anthropogenic in my comment… but Mirriam Webster suggests it would have been an adequate wording.

February 16, 2015 9:06 am

Fellow WUWTists,
The average Joe or Joanne have been got to far quicker than we can disassemble this propaganda and hence the Warmunistas work is done. If we are to successfully combat this disease of the Sciences, we must act as quickly as these press releases come out. Hit them hard and quick.
Unfortunately the compliant Fourth Estate is as corrupt. So, what’s to do?? I, personally am at an impasse. I combat as much as I can verbally and on the blogosphere, but I am but one man. We need a global PR machine that is not intimidated by Governments or Royal Societies.

Reply to  AleaJactaEst
February 16, 2015 10:23 am

I think using the courts may be one route. The Mann/Steyn case may provide a nice opportunity, if Steyn has the money and the fortitude. (In the US there’s also the RICO laws.)
Other than that, I think the simple discrepancy between overwrought claims and the weather outdoors will finally catch up with these SOBs. Or a continuing discrepancy between claims about an Arctic meltdown and the actual ice extent (in fact, they may be sorry down the road that they flagged so many markers: Arctic ice, growing seasons, sea levels, etc. that people can check for themselves or on the Web.)
[Incidentally, I just remembered a suggestion I wanted to make to WUWT – this is to have a special page with data about growing seasons as well as similar indicators, like the date for the first cherry tree blossoms in Washington DC (if memory serves this is a well-known indicator)]

Reply to  rw
February 16, 2015 10:45 am
Reply to  rw
February 16, 2015 10:48 am

Thanks for the second link you posted. It clearly shows that growing seasons are getting longer.
But I didn’t understand why you posted only the N.H. ice extent map. For balance, here is the S.H. map:
Notice that Antarctic ice is increasing by ≈5% per decade, while the Arctic is declining by ≈3%/decade. Also, the Antarctic has 10X the volume of ice that the Arctic has. What does that tell you?

Reply to  AleaJactaEst
February 16, 2015 11:10 am

It’s a losing situation with educators, MSM, politicos, and sheeple all promoting the same lie. The forecast over the horizon is not good. Thankfully, but unfortunately, winters like this and last year might be sending the message to some that it is still snowing; life is being killed by cold every winter around the globe, The money being dumped into the lie is too great to overcome. The politicians are not going to defund the propaganda that they get a direct return. Company A lobbies for CAGW research. Company A gets funded: Company A lobbies for more green agenda money. Politicians get a pay check from what they steal from you to award the check writers.

Reply to  AleaJactaEst
February 16, 2015 1:02 pm

I try to do my share too and notice the following trend: fewer MSM articles are now allowing comments. Some that do allow comments, for instance Slate and Scientific American, have been censoring, even a comment with no more than a link to a site like NOAA with a graph that contradicts their claim.

Mick In The Hills
Reply to  Doug Allen
February 16, 2015 4:17 pm

The Guardian Australia is a shocker at censoring links to published papers, government and university graphs etc, that don’t toe the warmist line of their articles. It’s just a childish hands-over-ears, turn away treatment of legitimate debating points. Expanding the understanding of climate issues is definitely not their mission.

Reply to  Doug Allen
February 17, 2015 9:52 am

Many of these publications ended all comments specifically due to the global warmists demanding we be silenced.

Arnold Roquerre
February 16, 2015 9:28 am

Where’s the Science?
The emperor has no clothes on! Scientists who rely on computer models as accurate representation of real physical events are as foolish as those who believe the worlds game players create are real representations of life. It is not possible to use of computer models to forecast future events or past events without adjusting code and data to give desired results. That is, one has to cheat to achieve the end results they want as game players use tricks discovered by others to alter the games outcome.
How is it that I can say we are being lied to either deliberately or just because the “so called scientists” are really seriously incompetent? One needs to point out that CHAOS THEORY, uncertainties in actual mechanism that drive climate,.and the fact that there is no way to validate any particular proxy used to provide data to forecast the past or the future!. Chaos theory restricts the accuracy of any computer model that attempts to forecast backward or foreword and guaranties the accuracy of the projections will become decrease the longer the time interval is..
The level of data accuracy alone is enough to reduce any computer model to gibberish. Use of computer models as proofs is not science it is “sleight of hand” parlor tricks. It is not science. It is programming using code to yield desired results. .

Reply to  Arnold Roquerre
February 16, 2015 7:44 pm

With or without adjustment it is impossible for IPCC computer models to forecast events as events are not referenced by these models. Rather than forecast these models “project.” While projections exhibit error they are incapable of exhibiting falsity for a projection lacks a truth-value. The lack of a truth-value divorces global warming climatology from logic.

Ken Chapman
February 16, 2015 10:27 am

Using tide gauges to measure subsidence or sea level changes is a little more complex than just averaging tide gauge readings over a 50 year period. First problem is that a complete tidal cycle for that purpose is 19 years , not 50. Using an arbitrary number of years (50) is a common, but erroneous way of determining sea levels, especially to millimeter accuracy. Another problem is that those tide gauges in Sydney are sitting in the middle of the Indo-Australian plate and are moving Northward about 3,000mm during each of those 50 year periods. A centimeter or two vertical displacement during that time would not be unexpected.

February 16, 2015 10:28 am

Yesterday, I’ve read some of the articles related to the Australian Academy of Science. You’re right that climate models cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes. Still, I would like to mention that some of the climate changes mentioned there may have occured as a result of the two World Wars and of the naval war. I’ve read the “Booklet on Naval War changes Climate – A fascinating theory on the impact of naval warfare on climate”, on and I believe that this influece is real and had a major impact.

February 16, 2015 11:11 am

From the foreword:

The purpose of this booklet is to provide an understanding, based on our present scientific knowledge, of some key questions about climate change.

OK, but who is asking these questions?
Is this aimed at policy makers?
Is it aimed at satisfying the general curiosity if the populace?
Is it aimed at experts to give them a more thorough grounding?
A purpose for the document should be made more explicit.
It seems to me to be aimed at anyone dumb enough to trust it.

Ian W
Reply to  MCourtney
February 16, 2015 1:13 pm

The purpose of the document was to get the questionable proaganda out with lots of headlines to draw attention to it as a start to the run up to the Paris ‘Treaty’ hooplah at the end of the year. The purpose has been achieved. A subsidiary purpose was to reconvince the ‘gullibles’ and provide them with talking points.

February 16, 2015 11:20 am

Imagine the average temperature dropping by 1 C.
It seems any rational interpretation would be that Aussie propaganda is advocating more CO2 emission.
It apparently saved millions of lives, why not continue?

February 16, 2015 11:28 am

It’s a variation on the theological Argument from Ignorance (as, “We can’t explain how X originated, so it must have been Divine Providence”). This one is better characterized as the Argument from Enforced Ignorance: “Our climate models cannot explain recent warming if we take out CO2 forcing.” But could it be that those models were programmed from the start to demonize CO2 by making it the primary factor? It becomes Enforced Ignorance by Circular Reasoning. The error of course escapes those whose primary aim is not scientific understanding of climate change, but an anti-scientific agenda of social change.
/Mr Lynn

Reply to  L. E. Joiner
February 16, 2015 12:38 pm

Yes, very well said. Thanks.

February 16, 2015 11:41 am

Harry and Barry (and Larry if necessary),
Since you shared your opinions on what makes this climate change thing tick, I will humbly share mine with you in a nursery rhyme that sums up what I’ve picked up in researching the citations given on this site. Apologies if you’ve already seen it.
When record winds blow
Unprecedented snow,
Oh, where is our globe a’warming?
Depends on the sun,
Which way oceans run,
Plus clouds, in complexity forming!

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
February 16, 2015 12:17 pm

Not as simple as the Carbon pollution theory, but it does account for at least some of the most major factors of the immense and complex mechanism known (for lack of a better term) as ‘climate change’.

Bruce of Newcastle
February 16, 2015 11:48 am

This is the building that our AAS is in. Says it all.
On the other hand it would look cool with snow on it. Canberra may get some as we head into the low point of the AMO, PDO and solar cycle.

Reply to  Bruce of Newcastle
February 16, 2015 12:23 pm

Here is the building in action – starts at 0035

Reply to  1saveenergy
February 16, 2015 9:41 pm

Oh my and here I thought that Sesame Street was really bad ( Oh I get it, common Core results a couple of years down the road). I sometimes wonder if we should not let the warmist be where they are and point out the education system that is producing them.

February 16, 2015 12:21 pm

Thanks, Bob. But you are being too strict; at least the models got the sign correctly, the planet has warmed. Also, the IPCC GCMS got the slope correct in hindcast. /sarc
But for the shameless Australia Academy of Science there is no excuse; They know the models were wrong.

Chris Hanley
February 16, 2015 12:28 pm

‘Climate models can correctly replicate recent warming only if they include human influences …’.
Good grief, they are assuming what they purport to be proving, it’s begging the question, it’s circular.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 16, 2015 12:43 pm

Exactly. But it gets even worst when the models fail to replicate recent warming (or lack thereof).

Max Totten
February 16, 2015 12:35 pm

Re L E Joiner. Actually the Divine Providence” argument is more reasonable. When zll other factors zre eliminated that which remains, however unlikely must be considered. CAGW has not considered most other factors.

February 16, 2015 12:47 pm

” Models can successfully reproduce the observed warming over the last 150 years when both natural and human influences are included, but not when natural influences act alone139 (Figure 3.5). This is both an important test of the climate models against observations and also a demonstration that recent observed global warming results largely from human rather than natural influences on climate.”
Interesting thing to claim. So we can only understand past warming if we include co2 as a major factor. Except if we weight co2 this way then we cannot explain current lack of warming at anywhere near estimated rates, which is why we have dozens of papers that will change some variable other then co2, so co2 can remain as a major factor in the published work.
So basically when you break down the statement it appears on the surface to support the idea of cagw. In reality it would show us how LITTLE we know with any real assurance. Clearly if the dangerous ends of the models are correct on co2, then we weighted some other aspect horribly wrong.

February 16, 2015 12:54 pm

Here is part of the disclaimer from the AAS site.
“The pages of this website have been prepared as information or education only without consideration of any user’s specific objectives, personal situation or needs. Because of this, no reader should rely upon the information and/or recommendations contained in this site. Users should, before acting on any information contained herein, consider the appropriateness of the information, having regard to their objectives, personal situation and needs.
The AAS believes that the information contained via this website is based on information from sources that are considered reliable, and is accurate when issued. However, the AAS does not warrant its accuracy and this website may include inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically made to the information on and available via the website. All views and information expressed by the AAS, its officers, agents, representatives and employees are for the purposes of information and education only.”

February 16, 2015 1:01 pm

“The Australia Academy of Science fails to mention that climate models do not, cannot, simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to and suppress long-term global warming…like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and El Niño and La Niña events.”
GCM’s now do ENSO pretty well

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 17, 2015 9:06 am

No, it’s GFDL. If you watch it in Youtube, the intro says:
“The images were generated not from observations, but from a state-of-the-art computer model of Earth’s climate created at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). “
The Bellenger article just lists things that they don’t get quite right yet. Precipitation associated with ENSO, a tendency to have too much amplitude. That’s a long way from your claim that they “cannot, do not, simulate…”.

February 16, 2015 1:06 pm

Bad memory here. Was the Australian Academy of Science also involved in the New Zealand temperature adjustment scandal?

David H.
Reply to  Doug Allen
February 16, 2015 4:52 pm

No, they had their own the year prior.

February 16, 2015 1:37 pm

re DC’s cherry blossoms –
When is the Best Time to Visit Washington DC to See the Cherry Blossoms?
Last updated about 1 month ago
On average, the blooms come out around the last week of March through the first week of April…
Here are the official peak bloom dates for the past ten years:
2014: April 10
2013: April 9
2012: March 20
2011: March 29
2010: March 31
2009: April 1
2008: March 26
2007: April 1
2006: March 31
2005: April 9
Even with a late bloom, such as we had in 2014, they’re all gone by mid-April…

February 16, 2015 1:44 pm

if u find the article is behind a paywall, there’s plenty of text at the blog:
17 Feb: Bolt Blog: The Academy of Science is too over-heated
Garth Paltridge, former CSIRO chief research scientist and director of the Antarctic ­ Co-operative Research Centre, exposes more of the cherry-picking that’s given us the great global warming scare ..
Climate of cherry-picking

Dave N
February 16, 2015 2:10 pm

“Models can successfully reproduce the observed warming over the last 150 years when both natural and human influences are included, but not when natural influences act alone.”
If their “natural influences only” model is wrong, it doesn’t prove a thing; but hey: we’re dealing with alarmist logic here.

February 16, 2015 3:12 pm

2012: AustralianClimateMadness: Simon: Quote of the Day: Brian Schmidt
The Nobel laureate Professor Brian Schmidt, announced today as the Australian of the Year, on science and politics:
From The Australian: Science should inform policy, but must not become politicised, he (Schmidt) says.
“On issues like climate change, coal-seam gas, water management in the Murray-Darling Basin and stem cells we have seen science and public policy get mixed together,” he said. “We have seen policymakers challenging science, which they are ill-equipped to do.
It is important for scientists not to get involved in the policy debate because if we do that then we are tainting the scientific argument.” (source)
16 Feb: Guardian: Oliver Milman: Nobel laureate asks Australia to follow UK example on bipartisan climate deal
Brian Schmidt calls on Australia’s political parties to emulate Britain’s joint pledge, signed by main political leaders, to urgently tackle climate change
Schmidt, who won the 2011 Nobel prize for physics and is a councillor at the Australian Academy of Science, said he would be keen to help broker a similar deal between the Coalition, Labor and the Greens in Australia….
“I’d be keen for someone to step up to help the process and if political parties think I’m right, I’d be happy to do so, as it’s such an important issue. All the major parties say they believe climate change is occurring, but the average Australian voter thinks they don’t agree on anything in this space.
“I’d say they don’t have to agree on everything, but let’s push Australia along as a global deal on climate change is inevitable and Australia should act, if only for its own economic self-interest. Its economy will be in ruins if it continues to be carbon-based.”…
Greg Hunt, the environment minister, said: “We believe clearly and categorically in the science and are committed to and will achieve our targets.
“We’re investing $2.55bn to reduce Australia’s emissions. This is in stark contrast with Labor which gave Australia the worst of both worlds with higher electricity prices and an utterly failed emissions policy.”…
On Monday, the Australian Academy of Science released its latest update on the state of climate science. The publication aims to “counter confusion and misinformation” on the topic.
The guide, compiled by a panel of nine experts, poses questions such as “What is climate change?” and “Are human activities causing climate change?”
Schmidt said: “The purpose of this is to emphasise to citizens and policymakers that it’s time to stop talking about the science. To my mind, people who are non-experts should be called into question if they go against the entire academy on this. How can they be taken seriously if they do that?
“The media has a propensity to give airtime to people who are not experts, people like Maurice Newman. He’s entitled to his own opinion but I don’t understand why it should be given air. I could talk about the finances of Australia, but I wouldn’t expect those views to be aired.”…
Prof Andrew Holmes, the president of the Australian Academy of Science, said: “The evidence is clear: climate change, caused by human activities, is real. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organisations in this field are in agreement on this. And yet there continues to be a gap between public understanding and the science of climate change…

Reply to  pat
February 16, 2015 9:45 pm


February 16, 2015 3:45 pm
February 16, 2015 3:47 pm

Promises, promises…
They promised Oz there wouldn’t be enough rain to produce runoff to fill our dams so they built a heap of desal plants we now have to pay for to keep mothballed.
Like your snow ploughs..err..plows they’ll no doubt come in handy from time to time, just that the Australian Academy of Science cannot predict when.

February 16, 2015 5:28 pm

Australian Academy of Science is attempting to make Academy a dirty word, and Science a dirty word. Australians, the ball is in your court.

February 16, 2015 7:47 pm

Whenever someone asks me about Climate I reply that I have little faith in any studies/science done ” in silico ” preferring observations and real world, non fiddled with, data etc.

February 16, 2015 8:58 pm

AAS= Australian Academy of Spinners

Grey Lensman
February 16, 2015 9:38 pm

Does anybody know what ” inform policy” means. Its a phrase that has been scattered around a lot recently but who is this Policy person that needs to be informed?

February 16, 2015 10:45 pm

Yes I do. It is when an agency (or individual) puts together information for government that hasn’t been requested but nevertheless the agency hopes by releasing it publicly,that it will create sufficient public pressure on government to influence its decision-making i.e. its policy. Sometimes it also signals that the agency is getting pretty desperate to make itself relevant.

Grey Lensman
February 17, 2015 12:13 am

It might be intended as that but it sure is not English

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 17, 2015 12:46 am

How embarrassment to be Australian.

AJ Virgo
February 17, 2015 3:54 am

It was human influence all right, they changed the historical data !

February 17, 2015 8:59 pm

Why on earth would anyone listen to the ‘bull’ pumped out by the Australian Academy of Science? It’s true nature was revealed under the reign of the former pro dangerous man-made global warming Labor governments of Australia. It’s in the same category of integrity as Tim “Doom and Gloom’ Flannery… a purveyor of climate predictions that keep proving to be incorrect.

February 18, 2015 8:50 am

Nick Stoκes says, “GCM’s now do ENSO pretty well”
I guess that means they predicted the ENSO-driven temperature plateau…they didn’t? Oh.
To be fair perhaps it’s a Holocene climactic Optimum also driven by other natural factors including the sun.
Randy is right, if CO2 is weighted that heavily as a driver then the Mediaeval Warm period should’ve been much cooler for a start, long term temperatures should not go down prior to CO2 in the record as the CO2 should go down first.
Having such a massive fabricated disparity between natural and man-made influence graphically also hides the real disparity between the models and observations.

%d bloggers like this: