Aussie climate scientists: Please don't examine our work too closely

certaintychannel_IPCC_reality

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Australian climate scientists have urged skeptical Australian politicians not to conduct a formal parliamentary inquiry into climate science – and have instead offered to brief politicians about the contents of the latest IPCC report.

According to the Australian ABC;

A group of prominent Australian scientists has warned climate sceptic MPs against wasting time and parliamentary resources on an inquiry into the evidence of human influence on climate change.

The scientists have sent a letter to West Australian MPs Dennis Jensen and Chris Back, offering to brief them on the latest science instead.

[Member of parliament] Dr Jensen, a physicist by training said he was doubtful of some of the IPCC’s models and predictions — especially about global temperature.

“The models have actually proved quite lousy in terms of predicting global average temperature trends,” he said.

“For instance in the last decade-and-a-half the global average temperature hasn’t warmed anything like the majority of the models projected.

“Over 97 per cent of the models that feed into the IPCC technical reports have either overstated or significantly overstated the warming trend that was expected.”

But Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said that was a short-term perspective.

“When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus,” he said.

Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-07/scientists-warn-climate-sceptic-mps-not-to-waste-time-on-inquiry/6599754

Climate science – the field where academics never have to admit they are wrong.

Advertisements

124 thoughts on “Aussie climate scientists: Please don't examine our work too closely

  1. When someone says, ‘Please do not examine our work, closely,’ or words to that effect, they begin to sound like children who have something to hide.
    Please examine their work, closely.
    John K. Sutherland.

    • Climatology is getting so very close to a moment like the scene in Wizard of Oz wherein the dog runs over to the side and pulls the curtain open on the professor voicing the image of the Great Oz, while the rest of Dorothy’s party quavers in fear before the great head and booming voice.

    • When I used to run a small construction firm, I encouraged the inspectors to look hard for any mistakes me or my crew might have made. Mistakes in some fields can hurt or even kill people. As a formally trained and licensed engineer I do appreciate that I do not know all and a second set of eyes never hurts unless one is hiding something as you alluded to.

      • Joe
        I agree totally.
        It is the same with my ships. We get a variety of Inspections, some by very knowledgeable Inspectors, others, perhaps, a little less so.
        Most are experienced seamen, if nothing else, and that’s a big plus!
        But all are a fresh set of eyes.
        We, too, need to avoid serious error, ideally all errors – so the more experience we have looking at our ships, the better.
        Auto

      • Joe:
        as an engineer/scientist I agree with you.
        However there is one big difference between us and “climate scientists”: if we make a mistake we can go to jail, we can lose our livelihoods, we can be sued for everything we own including our underwear.
        The only way we will ever get “truth” in “science” and “climate science” in particular is to hold them accountable for their “work”.
        Tragically, I don’t see that ever happening.

      • In computer programming, we call it The Law Of Mutual Superiority.
        In code reviews, the mantra is “Anything you write, I can improve, and anything I write, you can improve.” Every professional has code reviews. Open Source like Linux is one giant global code review.

    • This all sounds like Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’, which was compulsory reading if you were unfortunate enough to live in his “Peoples’ Paradise”.
      You were required to learn and believe in what was essentially a load of drivel. – I know I read much of it, before tedium finally overcame me. The Establishment in China used to forbid anyone to question its contents, rather like the alarmists and the IPCC’s publications today.
      In this instance, the thought police are there to enforce the acceptance of official alarmist doctrine, all discussion is forbidden as there is only the official truth of the imminence of Thermageddon.

      • The idea is that a theory need not be factually true. It simply needs to have the ability to perhaps achieve desired effects if implemented. That’s the crucial Marxist view of the purpose of theories. Britsh sociologist and Global Fourth wayer Anthony Giddens actually said that about CAGW. It doesn’t matter if it is true because it forces the kind of governmental coordination with Big Business that is desired now. It also fits with this vision that came out today. http://2015.newclimateeconomy.report/

        • Robin,
          This is why its still an open question about whether the conflict of interest at the IPCC, where they need CAGW to justify their existence and became the de facto arbiter of what is and what is not climate science, was an unfortunate accident or purposeful by design.

      • Pete Miller,
        The ‘little red climate change book’ Yes I like that and will use it.

  2. ‘But Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said that was a short-term perspective.
    “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus,” he said.
    Strange.
    When I trained as a scientist, I’m sure they suggested that it was the actual data you look at. And when you look at the data there sure is a hiatus.

    • What he says in full, is “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus. There’s random variability around the upward signal of temperature. It’s just like the stock market. If you look at that it’s going up and down but it’ll have a trend — that trend is what we’re watching. It’s not whether it’s going up or down over a period of 10 years — it’s a long-term signal.”
      Perhaps we should ask him how long he would like the signal timeframe to be.

      • “Perhaps we should ask him how long he would like the signal timeframe to be.”
        —————-
        <i.When you look at the literature, “Climate Scientists” most frequently cite a time frame of about 165 years, taking us to the Little Ice Age and the beginning of a temperature record. How many times have we heard “hottest xxx ever recorded”? This tactic easily avoids confronting the fact that many periods in world history have been much warmer than today.

      • Of course, we all know that You know that, Big Jim. It’s just another way that the propagandists lie with facts. Facts are not truth, facts are only facets on the shining diamond of truth.

      • I think that for the stock market there isn’t a ten year period where the trend is down. At least that is what Steve Forbes used say, he knows more about that sort of thing than I do.

      • @The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
        Perhaps we should ask him how long he would like the signal timeframe to be.

        No need to ask him. We have 36 years and 6 months of satellite data about tropospheric temperatures, from December 1978 to May 2015.
        It’s trend is 113 mK/decade.
        At the same time we have global surface temperature datasets, eg. one from NCDC.
        Its trend is 149 mK/decade for the same 36 and a half years.
        As satellites do not measure the surface alone, but the bulk of troposphere up to 10 km or so, it means average global lapse rate is increasing with time.
        As sea surface temperature is also increasing during this period, at a rate of 106 mK/decade, according to NCDC, rate of evaporation should also increase, what makes the lower troposphere ever more humid.
        However, an increasing lapse rate means it is getting farther away from the moist adiabatic lapse rate (5 K/km) and closer to the dry one (10 K/km).
        How is that possible?
        The only solution is that while the lower troposphere is getting more humid, the upper troposphere is doing just the opposite, it is getting drier.
        That is, precipitation, while increasing on average, is getting more efficient, leaving more dry air behind high above the surface.
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far. If the upper troposphere is getting drier, as it indeed does, it is also getting more transparent to outgoing thermal IR radiation, that is, greenhouse effect of water vapor is decreasing with time.
        In other words, it provides a strong negative feedback to any warming caused by well mixed greenhouse gases like CO2.
        As in a no feedback case CO2 doubling is shown to imply a 1.1 K (1100 mK) warming at the surface in the long run, with the negative feedback demonstrated above it is substantially less than that. Which is a tiny fraction of values projected by computational climate models, excluding them from rational discourse until fixed.

      • Berényi Péter, I remember you gallantly fighting on skepticalscience. Are you still crossing swords with them?

      • @The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
        I remember you gallantly fighting on skepticalscience. Are you still crossing swords with them?

        Nope, I gave up.
        It was frustrating in the first place, they kept deleting perfectly reasonable comments of mine. Then they attacked Prof. Pielke Sr. in the most disgusting way, and that was that, the final nail in the coffin.
        I had no choice but keep my distance from that nazi bunch.
        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/debunk/skepticalscience/1_herrcook-sml.gif

      • It is not like the stock market. Trends in trading are driven by 2 emotions: greed and fear. Greed brings in the buyers and fear brings in the sellers. It is also a zero sum game, you cannot buy or sell unless there is someone who is willing to sell or buy. That does not apply to climate trends.

      • But they were certain within a matter of a few years of the famous pending ice age scare of the 1970’s that we were headed towards a smouldering day of doom from CAGW. I love that they want it both ways. It is a sure sign they are imbecilic and whose moral compass is guided by the message in Agenda 21.

      • To maybe rule out any natural (or “supernatural”, depending on which fence you sit on) variability, the minimum timeframe should be around 170 -180 years – the time it takes for all of our planetary bodies to do their thing and almost get back to where they started. Too many weather cycles around that ~180/60/30/15 year timeframe to ignore.
        BTW, has anyone else noticed a skeptic filter applied to their g++l+ enquiries?

      • I got banned from SkS after posting a comment along the lines “Interglacials are warmer”…someone there spat the dummy and I was “goose stepped” out of the site! Kiddies, yes indeed.

        • It’s easy to get kicked off a warmist blog. They have a very low tolerance for truth that undermines their beliefs and a pathological distrust of the scientific method. They also hate it when they fire insult after insult and you stick to the science. A few of the questions that irritate them to no end are listed and I want to encourage anyone who wants to poke the beast to ask its kiddies one or more of these questions. I urge everyone to ask these questions in warmist forums since the technique they use to repeat lies over and over to make them seem true also works for the truth. When they insult you, and they will., consider it a badge of honor as it indicates that they are getting scared.
          1) Where does the 4.3 W/m^2 consequential to a 0.8C rise come from when only 1 W/m^2 of forcing is claimed to cause it?
          2) Why isn’t the surface close to the temperature of boiling water if each of the 239 W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun results in at least 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emission?
          3) How does 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions consequential to a 0.8C increase arise when each of the 239 W/m^2 of forcing coming from the Sun results in an average of 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions?
          4) First, get them to agree that the SB Law is almost an exact model for a planet with no GHG’s or clouds in its atmosphere and then ask what physics allows the incremental sensitivity to be larger than the average sensitivity, when the SB law tells us the sensitivity must decrease as the temperature rises?
          5) Simply point out that the sensitivity at 1K is about 65C per W/m^2.
          6) Ask them to plot the sensitivity as a function of temperature and then apply it to 239 W/m^2 of post albedo input power..
          7) Ask why the IPCC metric of forcing obfuscates the apparent net negative feedback from the reflection of clouds and ice.
          8) Point out that without feedback (i.e. no GHG’s of clouds), the post albedo input power would be about 310 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature of about 272K and not 255K, so the net effect from all feedbacks, positive, negative known and unknown is an increase of only about 16C and not the 33C often cited and incorrectly attributed to GHG’s.
          7) Under what circumstances will latent heat, water vapor and clouds combine to result in the massive net positive feedback required for a high sensitivity, when a Hurricane (weather in general) exhibits the opposite behavior?
          8) Why does weather satellite data with virtually continuous and complete coverage of the planet fail to confirm the speculative interpretations of adjusted, homogenized, sparse surface temperature measurements that provide the sole support for CAGW?
          9) Ask what evidence would convince them that the IPCC dramatically overestimates the sensitivity?
          10) And of course, make sure they understand that the controversy is about the magnitude of the sensitivity and nothing more.

      • Tom in Florida, while the climate is not drive by greed and fear, climate science and the associated manipulation/homogenisation of data, on the other hand, is definitely driven by greed and fear!

    • Pretty much the same for me when I trained as an engineer ( applied scientist).
      If it looks like a hiatus, walks like a hiatus and the hiatus haters say it isn’t a hiatus…. ITS A HIATUS!
      ‘Climate Science’ isn’t a branch of science in any case. Its a branch of the humanities like political science and such like. I don’t know why anyone listens to them.

    • “Pay no attention to the facts! The Great Literature has spoken!” refrased: ‘Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great Oz has spoken!’

    • When you “look at the literature” you find time travel, alien civilizations, and faster than light travel… He was talking about science fiction, right?

    • When he said, ‘literature’, he meant, ‘narrative’. Narration is a literary device, isn’t it?

    • Lat A.
      “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus,” he said.
      So that is where all the heat has been hiding, in the Literature.,

  3. “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus.” Yes, why look at the actual data when you can look at the “literature” instead?
    S. Egbert

  4. A TINY group of 13 prominent Australian scientists ….. .
    There.
    Fixed it for you.

    • a tiny group of majority UNknown scientists..apart from 2 whom the ABC warmist media push regularly..
      fixed even more bettterer:-) giggling
      [trimmed]
      examples of Warmist Plague Species!!

  5. Now, why didn’t we think of that? The answer to all of our skepticism is simply to be briefed by a group of bona fide climate “scientists” on the “science”. Then, all of our questions and concerns would be answered, and we could all just go on our merry way, assured and confident that we had received the best available information. Simples!

  6. “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus,” he said.
    Correct…there’s been no hiatus in publishing this garbage.

  7. Do they have something to hide? Hell yes, and JoNova has shown that over and over and over at her blog site. There is just no other way to put this — moderation or no — there are a host of liars working in Australia on climate “science”, especially the liars working at BoM.
    Here is just the latest scandal to come to light:
    “Scandal: BoM thermometer records adjusted “by month” — mysterious square wave pattern discovered”
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/scandal-bom-thermometer-records-fiddled-by-month-mysterious-square-wave-pattern-discovered/
    ~ Mark

    • This is a salient point for Australia, Mark. The failure of the climate models is a global embarrassment, but the serious questions about the reliability of the BoM weather records call for an audit by independent scientists and statisticians. What better time than now, when Oz is governed by skeptical politicians?

      • oh they HAD an enquiry..and it was ever so carefully tailored as to what the specific scope was for queries it was nearly but not quite hamstrung.
        and BoM promised…to do better.
        err that’d be better hiding the faking I suspect

  8. WUWT will be around as long as Anthony Watts (or a designate) wants it to be.. because there will ALWAYS be enough material to publish. This stuff will never end in my lifetime anyway.

  9. Considering how many billions the former Aussie govts have wasted on desalination projects that now sit mostly unused, if I were a warmist “scientist” in Australia, I’d be fighting any inquiry that would shine any amount of light on just how much they’ve wasted on their wrong headed crap research.

  10. It’s a standard pattern if you make any comment against their dogma. They respond like Christians peddling the scriptures on a street corner. “Please read the literature from these sites,” (Real Climate, NOAA, Skeptical Science – the Holy Bible of Climate Science). “We’ve highlighted the important areas for your consideration”, just like the Bible prints Christ’s words in red ink.

    • Well, that didn’t take long for someone to post the first anti-Christian comment. Some people obviously have such a huge grudge they have to tell us about it on every possible occasion.

      • I don’t interpret this as an attack against Christianity (or Islam for that matter) but as acknowledgement of the fact that while faith based belief is the foundation for all religion, faith based beliefs have no place in science.

      • Not only that, but they are ignorant as to what faith is and imagine it opposed to reason. There is a huge difference between faith in AGW, which is undercut by observable facts, and faith in God, which is supported by similarities in design.

      • Wallhouse Wart
        Check the archeological evidence that quantitatively supports the Biblical record, especially evidence for Luke record in Acts.
        co2isnotevil Re: “faith based belief is the foundation for all religion”.
        Contrast the evidence that is the basis of Christianity. Jesus’ disciple John wrote:

        That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—

        “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard”
        The physician Luke wrote from his careful interviews of eyewitnesses, and participation:

        Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

        we put to sea, accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica. The next day we put in at Sidon. . . .

      • co2isnotevil
        I’m glad I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read “faith based beliefs have no place in science” or it would have gone all over my keyboard.
        You are absolutely right; it doesn’t. …but modern science is awash with faith based beliefs. The data coming from the sensor indicates a high energy x-ray or gamma ray source – period.
        Sooo… it must be coming from a black hole – a convenient division by zero – and couldn’t possibly be coming from, say, a high density plasma phenomenon called a plasmoid, the behavior of which can be demonstrated in the lab and is know to scale up many orders of magnitude and also agrees with many of the other observations made. Nope. Gotta be a black hole that nothing can escape from except of the course the enormous amount of radiation that is detected pouring out of the heart of galaxies in light year long collimated, magnetically constrained beams.
        The math says so and we “believe” the math – the physics, not so much.
        There are many, many more examples. You have to bring a basic assumption, belief, to interpret the physical information/data.
        Just sayin’.

        • Imac,
          Yes, but the kind of faith you describe is conditional faith based on known information and if an astrophysicist applies the scientific method and discovers irrefutable evidence that some gamma ray burst is indeed coming from a plasmoid (for example no signature for high gravity), the faith that all gamma rays are coming from black holes will become deprecated. This is not the case with the absolute faith in a consensus that characterizes the believers in CAGW. Many people have developed solid evidence using the scientific method showing that the consensus sensitivity is not just wrong, but physically impossible, yet this is not enough to sway the believers. Perhaps I should have said absolute faith has no place in science.

    • Well Jamal
      Soybean prices (crops) in the Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. I myself think its more significant than “Ian Pilmer’s co2 statistics.” Might want to check on corn and wheat also.
      michael

  11. The whole CAGW clique here in Australia is probably very scared at the thought of an inquiry “into the evidence of human influence on climate change”. Once it is established by the government that there is very little evidence (observations not models) and that what evidence there is suggests there is very little human influence on climate change, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down in this country. The public will know they’ve been duped and any attempt by a future government to re-sell this load of garbage will meet fierce resistance, particularly if it involves any kind of new tax.
    It’s about damn time someone called them on their BS.

    • the public already know, its the media and the so called scientific bodies that are continuing with the scam. The money flows and they continue on. The CSIRO used to be a well respected forward thinking and innovative organisation, now it is just following the money. Some of those public servants must rise above the bullying and fear and tell the truth, a few emails one good whisleblower and then the CSIRO can get back to doing good research for the benefit of Australia (and the world)

  12. Yes, the longer-term trend is up. But the literature implied that, once CO2 emissions became a big factor, temperature was tightly coupled to them and long pauses were out of the question.

  13. “A group of prominent Australian scientists has warned climate sceptic MPs against wasting time and parliamentary resources on an inquiry into the evidence of human influence on climate change.”
    This is just like telling a cop that you haven’t been drinking when they have 30 seconds of dash-cam video of your car crossing the center-line then the fog line then speeding up and half-running a stop sign before coming to a complete stop in the middle of an intersection. Why don’t I have any sympathy for these prominent Australian scientists, and why do I wish I was an auditor in Australia right now?

  14. But Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said that was a short-term perspective.
    “[It’s] not whether it’s going up or down over a period of 10 years — it’s a long-term signal.”
    ====
    Well Professor, you’re long tern signal is screwed too….
    Even if temps start to increase again, unless temps jump up at least 1/2 degree overnight…..

  15. We need somebody to stand up in public and say that climate models are not suitable for any purpose. The Australians should call Judith Curry.

    If the climate models are not fit for the purpose of transient climate projections, and they are not fit for the purpose of simulating or projecting regional climate variability, what are they fit for? Estimation of equilibrium climate sensitivity? Maybe, but nearly all signals are pointing to a climate model sensitivity being systematically too high. Well, ok, the climate models aren’t perfect, but it is argued that we are moving on a path that will make climate models fit for these purposes, as per the National Strategy for Advancing Climate Models. Increasing model resolution, etc. are not going to improve the situation, IMO.
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/

    • The problem is the very nature of GCM’s which attempt to predict the chaotic transition from one steady state to another rather than simply predict what the new steady state average response will be in response to some change. Its like being spun around blindfolded and asked to to walk a straight line towards a specific destination and having the faith you will end up where you wanted to go.
      GCM’s were originally developed to predict weather and this divergence problem makes predictions of the weather beyond about a week into the future meaningless. About the only accurate long term prediction you can make with a GCM is that the temperature will increase in the summer and decrease in the winter and this is in response to about 100 of W/m^2 of forcing change between summer and winter.

    • Precisely. Linear digital computers, programmed with loads of assumptions, can never actually model non-linear and complex close-coupled chaotic systems. Maybe in 100 years, when quantum computers can directly and efficiently model differential equations, and the cell size shrinks to yards, the problem may become suitable for modeling.

  16. These “climate scientists” are nothing but a bunch of clowns. Not only should their “science” be inspected closely, but they should be defunded and held accountable in court. A permanent hiatus in pay and professional respect is all they deserve.

  17. Okay, let’s have a look at the literature.
    Scholar — search term: “warming hiatus” — About 662 results (0.02 sec)
    An awful lot of talk about something which does not even exist.

  18. When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus
    The temperature data clearly shows the hiatus. I fail to see how literature will change this. The only way to erase the hiatus is do what NOAA did and change the temperature data.

    • Repeated and varied assertions of certainty (obediently amplified and helpfully exaggerated by a compliant and captive mainstream media of course) is still their business plan.

    • The data is being made compliant as we speak, the BOM will have the data “fixed” before the inquiry starts.

      • I would not want to be the one holding the bag when the malfeasance is discovered. Anyone who is now actively discouraging an inquiry, or who engages in further chicanery, is really gambling with prison.
        They should just slink away and shut the hell up.

    • Read the earlier post about little Gavin getting straight A’s. After you get your breath back, it’s clear that the idea is that if it weren’t for one of the Heinz 57 varieties of explanations, the world would show much more warming, so, in reality, it hasn’t stopped and will, I suppose come exploding out of the seas or wherever it’s hiding, in due course. I won’t stay up waiting, thank you.

  19. If I was Dennis Jensen and Co, this would be my response.
    Dear Concerned Scientists,
    Thanks for your letter.
    We are concerned at your concern because we’re not quite sure what it relates to?
    If it is based on a perception that people in our political party “deny climate change” or “deny the science”, then we can definitely put your mind to rest.
    For the record, there is no person we are aware of within the Parliamentary Liberal party who denies there is such a thing as climate, nor that it changes, nor that until about 17 years ago, measured global surface temperature was increasing, (as has been the case for about 150 years) nor that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and finally that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are impacted by human activities.
    We completely accept there is a sound scientific basis for these statements as noted in numerous reports including that of the IPCC; indeed there is a widespread consensus within the party about them.
    However, despite our obvious need for re-education, we still retain sufficient rational faculties to suspect that you know all of the above to be true, yet continue to parrot the opposite to avoid actually engaging in discussions of real substance.
    And it’s not just the continual rote nature of such mischievous misrepresentations which gives rise to our concerns.
    Firstly, there is no independent research whatsoever which illustrates a “consensus” of opinion amongst qualified scientists on the probability of dangerous human induced global warming.
    If there is, it should be prominently promoted and referenced when claims about a consensus are made.
    Secondly, the language utilised by some of the signatories, including Dr Leslie Hughes who appeared on Radio National this morning, is woefully unscientific. Apparently, we (humanity) are “on a bus hurtling towards a precipice” and “the rest of the world has stopped debating this”. Odd statements; one is flagrantly exaggerated and completely unsupported by any evidence and the second a demonstrable falsehood. And whilst on the subject of RN’s faithful messaging, the website heading of the interviews reads “Top climate scientists offer to brief LNP sceptics on latest evidence on global warming”.
    Yet Dr Leslie isn’t anything approaching a climate scientist – she’s a biologist. Still, she does understand that “some of the best scientists in the world are employed by CSIRO”. Oddly, she then goes on to patronise the previous interviewee Dr Dennis Jensen, a graduate of Monash University with a PhD in Materials Science and Physics. He also worked as a research scientist (not in climatology) at the CSIRO. Yet his scientific credentials – the highest of any individual in both Houses of Parliament – and his career at CSIRO are not promoted by RN yet Dr Leslie’s are.
    Thirdly, your professed desire for rational, scientifically based solutions to this dangerous problem (accompanied by your cute “world weary” exasperation with the idiot sceptics) stands in stark contrast to your preferences.
    The most effective and economically viable lower CO2 technologies, which don’t require greatly increased government regulation, including taxes and massive subsidies, are right in front of your nose.
    Modern, state-of-the-art coal-fired generators produce significantly less CO2 than any target proposed to date. Replacing old, inefficient coal generators with modern facilities in and of itself, would hugely reduce our emissions.
    And nuclear energy produces no emissions at all.
    Both of these technologies are mature, reliable, efficient and cost effective compared to solar and wind and could deliver big CO2 reductions within a decade.
    So the best solution to substantially reduce anthropogenic CO2 in the quickest time and at the lowest cost – in comparison to every other alternative, is right there, yet never gets a mention.
    Fourthly, it is odd that you don’t demand or at least support an independent, high profile, public enquiry – such as a Royal Commission – into the science supporting dangerous human induced global warming.
    As the facts underpinning your catastrophic predictions are apparently so drop dead certain, why not?
    Regardless of whether it would silence all dissent – your obvious aim – it would enormously bolster public support for your position and demonstrate the intellectual paucity of Dennis Jensen and associates.
    Whilst I would be embarrassed to debate someone who thought the earth was flat (on par with your representations of sceptics) , I certainly wouldn’t be afraid of it and if pushed to the point of irritation, would relish the opportunity for a comprehensive demolition.
    Finally, remember when the Howard government urged Australians to be “alert but not alarmed” in respect to suspicious behaviour which may be indicative of potential terrorist activity?
    It was an unremarkable but sensible sentiment.
    Stay alert to facts, observations and evidence but remain rational and not alarmed.
    Your insistence that the population be alarmed but definitely not alert isn’t indicative of what we should expect from “experts” and is far less likely to be accepted by an increasingly disinterested public, which in turn, drives the politicians.
    Hope I have been of some assistance!

    • If memory serves me, I’m pretty sure I have had a discussion with Dr. Leslie Hughes about sea level rise some years ago. I naughtily suggested we would all starve before we drowned if her vision of apocalypse was true. She gave me a withering stare, stopped the conversation and walked away. I think I said something wrong.

  20. Alarmists like nothing worse than being reminded that science isn’t some beauty contest where they can vote for which theories we like, but that instead if the theories/models do not tie in with what actually happens, then in science they are invalid.
    Some alarmists really do seem to believe that if they conduct a poll and 97% says “the theory is right” but the data proves it isn’t that the 97% trumps the data.
    Clueless! That’s what alarmists are!

    • Yes, some actually believe that logical fallacies do not apply to this subject whatsoever.
      Smart people, too. Who understand all about logical fallacies, and will attempt to point them out in skeptical arguments.

  21. To sum up, the “scientists” want their employers to keep giving them more money, but not to look at the results but instead look at what another con-artist organisation (IPCC) tells them. To compound this “pea under the shell game” they want the world’s population to revert to medieval standards of living with mass starvation and hypothermia based on a theory they want no-one to discuss, inspect too closely and also continues to defy experimental evidence.
    These idiots should be in an asylum, not a laboratory.

  22. I used to think astrophysicists were the biggest BS artists with stuff like the coming and going planet as satirized by Father Guido Sarducci. But at least their hypotheses were untestable for a reason.
    Climate science purveyors refuse to test theirs.

  23. The prominent Aussie climate “scientists” are saying, “Quick! Hold your nose, and we’ll guarantee you our **** don’t stink.”

  24. We are all quite aware that it exists in the literature.
    We’re having trouble proving it exists among the actual thermometers.

  25. If they are so sure of themselves, why would an inquiry into climate science bother them? Notice they did not try to challenge the fact that almost all computer models have erred on the high side of temperature.
    They clearly have it wrong.

    • Why would an inquiry bother them?
      The prospect of being exposed as a fraudster and perpetrator of a hoax, and of misuse of taxpayer funds?
      If they have a lick of sense they should be scared s***less by the prospect.
      I think few of them do not understand that they have been in the business of selling a lie.

      • Menicholas,
        I don’t think its a purposefully, widespread deception. There may be some surrounding the inner circle of the IPCC, but the general climate science community has really just been dragged along for the ride. As a consequence, many who have spent a career trying to prove and/or justify the claims of CAGW would see their entire careers as meaningless if the skeptics are right (and they are) and this is a scary proposition.

  26. Intellectuals & the State
    This is what Murray Rothbard was driving at when he described the relationship between the state and the intellectuals. “The ruling elite,” he wrote,
    Whether it be the monarchs of yore or the Communist parties of today, are in desperate need of intellectual elites to weave apologias for state power. The state rules by divine edict; the state insures the common good or the general welfare; the state protects us from the bad guys over the mountain; the state guarantees full employment; the state activates the multiplier effect; the state insures social justice, and on and on. The apologias differ over the centuries; the effect is always the same.
    Why, in turn, do the intellectuals provide the state this service? Why are they so eager to defend, legitimize, and make excuses for the corridors of power?
    Rothbard had an answer:
    We can see what the state rulers get out of their alliance with the intellectuals; but what do the intellectuals get out of it? Intellectuals are the sort of people who believe that, in the free market, they are getting paid far less than their wisdom requires. Now the state is willing to pay them salaries, both for apologizing for state power, and in the modern state, for staffing the myriad jobs in the welfare, regulatory state apparatus.
    This fits climate scientists exactly.

  27. Am I missing something? Did these scientists say not to examine their work too closely? I can’t find that statement, even in paraphrased form. It appears they said not to examine it at all.

  28. Was Gore invited to the conference? He is the only individual actually named on the Noble Peace Prize for fear mongering about climate change. If he was, his vote can be easily dismissed as anyone who’s seen his movie will know that his grasp of climate science is limited to a few buzz words and some empty rhetoric.

  29. In the next IPCC Summary Report, I predict the ‘certainty level’ of manmade warming will be at least 105%.
    .
    Although I frequently fell asleep in science and math classes, I do know 105% certainty means that even if 5% are wrong, the IPCC will still be 100% certain.
    .
    In the next IPCC report, I predict there will be a new computer model that makes charts in the shape of a hockey stick no matter what data are input, even random data, so that those people who loved the ole’ hockey stick, but are not sure Mike Mann used good data to make it, of will finally be satisfied.
    .
    Bringing back the hockey stick shape, which had been deleted in the last IPCC report, will so thrill the warmists, that I predict every single chart in the next IPCC Summary will be shaped like a hockey stick.
    .
    The report will become known as the IPCC “Hockey Stick” Report, and will sell like donuts in Canada,
    .
    I know all this because I have a computer model that predicts the future almost as well as the climate models predict the future.

  30. Hoegh-Guldberg has been predicting the death of the Great Barrier Reef for 2 or 3 decades. He has been so embarrassingly wrong, he really should give it up but the funding has been enormous for his scares.
    Will Steffen is warmist that was caught out showing how to manipulate data over the light rail in Canberra. He refuses to debate sceptics, saying they will not understand the science.
    Hughes was on the ship that sailed to the Antarctic to prove the ice was melting and had to be rescued because the ship was blocked in by ice.
    So these 3 numpties don’t want anyone to look too closely at their work? Jo Nova and Jennifer Marohasy and Dr David Evans have found major errors in the warmist work. These poeple do not want to explain themselves in front of Jensen who understands science and the scientific method/.
    Dr Jensen has always been a sceptic. He has a doctorate in physics. He saw through the scam right from the start. They are petrified of any inquiry headed by Jensen.

  31. “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus,” he said.”
    When you look at the data there is a hiatus, even slighly cooler… what to believe?
    Literature… or data?

  32. This truth will out eventually, and reveal the blatant bias:
    When temperatures were rising in the late 1970s-1990s they wanted to blame it all on c02/AGW, but when the temperatures slowed in the 2000s-2010s, they want to include natural variability. This is blatantly bias.
    A simple question, why couldn’t some of the warming from the late 1970s to 1990s also be due to natural variability?
    This is their blind spot..

  33. While you are at it, WA MP et al., resurface Willis’s epic piece on Darwin and the “temperature” there and ask the to ‘splain that. What fun! Go for it.

  34. When I did my science undergrad degree, I was taught to welcome close examination and criticism of my work. You need a thick skin but that’s how science works.
    I guess I went to the wrong school.

  35. “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus,” he said.
    Strange, I thought the literature was full of attempts to explain the pause/hiatus….
    Maybe this character should have a word with Trenberth.
    Chris

  36. Earlier this year Dennis Jensen said publicly that the PM is not listening, then there was political uproar and Abbott had to defend his leadership style.
    After the dust had settled Jensen was wandering around with a smile on his face, the PM didn’t shoot the messenger.
    Don’t know what he promised Jensen, but he would make an excellent Science Minister.

  37. I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
    Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

  38. What those self promoted “scientists” really fear is being exposed and the backlash from the Australian public that will follow.
    They know they are on the downhill slope in this end game rush, truth and science was put aside for propaganda. They hitched themselves to this nonsense, and I wonder why, as if the objective is to create some super world of agenda 21 with one world government dictating everything, they really should think that through, as dictatorships tend to attain power by way of useful idiots that can be converted/corrupted to their cause.
    Once established and entrenched those powerful dictators are unlikely to reward such treachery and either create Gulags or worse, eliminate those very people who they know could just as easily turn on them once the reality of what they have done sinks into their avaricious human brains. History tends to confirm that trait.
    Best we have a searching inquiry and expose the duplicity and concoction now as it might well save some pain for those that have drunk the Kool aid for short term gain. Better to expose that now, than wake up in a nightmare future of their own making.
    Consider a “future” of endangered science and scientists, for how many generations? Generations that will struggle to live under the consequences of that corrupt behaviour and the regulatory shackles that will bind us all.
    Paradise lost anyone.?

  39. I’m reminded of a recent exchange with a five-year-old:
    “Why did you move my bottle opener?”
    “I didn’t move it.”
    “Then why can’t I find it?”
    “I can show you were I didn’t move it to!”

  40. “When you look at the literature, there’s been no hiatus.” WTF does that even mean? I thought the purpose of temperature readings was to, you know, measure temperatures. What difference does it make what the “literature” says?

  41. This is just like the BoM inquiry. They are trying to hijack the debate and are just itching to get another few Budget allocations on board before they are totally exposed for their junk science. Please Sir, can I mark my own exam paper???

  42. Given Tim Flannery’s first degree level qualification was English literature, I am not surprised Aussie “climate scientists” refer to literature rather than data. I mean, they have the salaries to think of after all!

  43. I agree with what the scientists advised the Australian parliament.
    Why waste time and money by holding an enquiry into evidence for what is established science. Does anyone really think the results of the enquiry won’t just confirm what is already known?
    Any time and money would be better spent on decided what Australia is going to do about Global Warming – this would be better value to the voters.

    • Three problems with that:
      1) Saying that someone is above scrutiny guarantees that they will become corrupt eventually. Even the Catholic Priesthood has had problems.
      2) The Australian climatologists have a terrible record. They predicted drought and got floods. Anyone can point to their record and say they need more scrutiny.
      3) Science cannot become established without overcoming challenges. Considering the young age of the field and the terrible performance of climatology in making accurate predictions, it cannot be “established science” yet.

  44. Who quoted archaeological evidence to support climate change? Yes sites have been uncovered that are mentioned in the bible. Mainly the Jewish or Hebrew bible. Such as Jericho whose walls were undermined by water, not the blowing of trumpets or God’s intervention. Noah’s great flood was and is greatly thought to have happened when a bridge of rock separating the black sea broke, but it wasn’t world wide. Sodom and Gomorrah well they think it may have existed at some time, but where? Let’s face it climate and natural disasters happen now and did more so with deadly effects in the distant past. But humans (other than pollution) have no influence over the climate or weather. Global warming isn’t happening, and let’s hope it does and not plunge again into a mini or full glacial period.

Comments are closed.