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.
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???
There is a huge political battle looming in Australia, its one of those old fashion Coalition brawls with the potential of a realignment. What’s needed is a real science debate.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/07/09/climate-investigation-alarmism-and-irrresponsible-science-writing/
Climate Scientists Against Inquiry – says it all really.
Try looking at the thermometers!
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!
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.
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.