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:
- Andrew Montford discussed it briefly in his post The Oz guide to climate change at BishopHill.
- The Australian published the article Academy warns of climate risks to Australia.
- Jo Nova briefly mentioned it in her post The quickening for Paris has started: gravy train begins PR avalanche.
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.
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 Nature.com. (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:
- Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
- Model-Data Difference – Global Surface Temperature Anomalies – GISS, HADCRUT4 & NCDC
- On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison
And for sea surface temperatures, see the posts:
- Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014
- IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide
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.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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)
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/21/quote-of-the-day-brian-schmidt/
today:
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…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/16/nobel-laureate-asks-australia-to-follow-uk-example-on-bipartisan-climate-deal?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=dd130a34f0-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-dd130a34f0-303439889
1984
A misnomer. It should be titled the Australian Academy of Propaganda:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/flannery-admitted-to-australian-academy-of-science-for-pr-work-who-is-next-cate-blanchett/
Promises, promises…
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/they_promised_there_would_be_no_snow/
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.
Australian Academy of Science is attempting to make Academy a dirty word, and Science a dirty word. Australians, the ball is in your court.
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.
AAS= Australian Academy of Spinners
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?
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.
It might be intended as that but it sure is not English
How embarrassment to be Australian.
It was human influence all right, they changed the historical data !
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.
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.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/cw_101013_fig3a.jpg