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.
Climate science – the field where academics never have to admit they are wrong.
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.
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.
Will they present their findings in a rap video?
The prominent Aussie climate “scientists” are saying, “Quick! Hold your nose, and we’ll guarantee you our **** don’t stink.”
We are all quite aware that it exists in the literature.
We’re having trouble proving it exists among the actual thermometers.
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.
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.
Ah, to find out that there are those here who know Murray Rothbard. Wonderful.
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.
If you don’t want your work examined, why even publish?
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.
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.
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.
The Aussies have already been caught changing past temperatures. And then proceeded to continue the fraud.,
He who hides something has something to hide.
The ‘Green’ virus is rapidly spreading,yes it’s true,green algae is infecting Greenies everywhere and making them more ‘Stupid’.
Well that’s what the Seance says.
http://naturalsociety.com/scientists-discover-virus-makes-people-stupid/
“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?
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..
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.
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.
When did an inquiry by politics become a close examination?
“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
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.
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”.
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.?
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!”
“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?