Aussie Chief Scientist: “We have [climate] models to try to predict what that will be and that’s difficult”

Malcolm Roberts (Left, source One Nation Website), Brian Cox (Right), source Wikimedia

Malcolm Roberts (Left, source One Nation Website), Brian Cox (Right), source Wikimedia. By cellanrProf Brian Cox, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30982875

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

One Nation Federal Senator and hardcore climate skeptic Malcolm Roberts, who recently skewered TV Physicist Brian Cox on national TV, has demanded the Australian Chief Scientist provide evidence that humans cause climate change. The response so far is less than confident.

One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts asks chief scientist for proof humans cause climate change

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts is yet to be convinced that climate change is real and is caused by humans.

He has asked chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel to spell out his logic in asserting that human-induced carbon emissions have been rising since the start of the Industrial Age, that this causes global warming and that warming produces climate change.

Senator Roberts told a Senate committee on Thursday his requested summary of the logic and the empirical evidence behind climate change did not need to be long.

“Like me – short and simple,” he said.

It had also been established that atmospheric CO₂ levels had been rising measurably from human activity since the start of the Industrial Age and that global temperature was rising.

The effect of warming on climate wasn’t clear.

“We have models to try to predict what that will be and that’s difficult,” Dr Finkel said, adding that models did predict significant climate change.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/one-nations-malcolm-roberts-asks-chief-scientist-for-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-20161020-gs7d5f.html

I suspect this challenge is going to get very uncomfortable for Australia’s chief scientist.

Malcolm Roberts, a qualified and highly experienced mining engineer, is one of the few elected Australian politicians with the skill and meticulous attention to detail required to dissect anything the bureaucrats who run government science organisations can throw at him.

His demand for proof that humans cause warming has struck at the weak point of the entire AGW scare campaign – because there isn’t any proof available to provide. Just a load of conjecture, based on a weak set of models which don’t work very well.

Most people agree that adding CO2, considered in isolation, should produce a mild warming effect. But the entire climate scare campaign is based on models which assume that the initial warming effect from anthropogenic CO2 is dramatically amplified by feedback, by climatic responses to the initial warming.

The problem is there is no evidence this amplification is actually occurring – models which assume amplification perform woefully when compared to real world observations, far worse than models which assume no amplification, or very little amplification.

I think it is a fair bet that the Roberts challenge to the Australian scientific community is going to be very interesting to watch. They government scientists cannot simply ignore Roberts. The current Aussie government almost lost the last election, so they desperately need the continued support of Roberts and other small party and independent senators to maintain control.

Advertisements

205 thoughts on “Aussie Chief Scientist: “We have [climate] models to try to predict what that will be and that’s difficult”

  1. As I am sitting here in my living room just ouside Melbourne, in what is supposed to be late spring, maybe Australia’s chief scientist can explain why I am freezing?
    I have just watched the second hail storm of this afternoon, and my deck looks like it has been hit by a blizzard.
    My cats refuse to go outside, and refuse to get off the heating vents.
    Could Australia’s chief scientist please, please, send me some global warming?

  2. A weakly disguised ad hominem attack was run in the magazine section of Australia’s only national newspaper today. It went through Roberts’ resume in detail in a thinly veiled attempt to discredit him and link him with other kooky theories. It crescendoed with a not usual line of how could a mining engineer with a reputation for being sloppy on detail know more about climate science the world’s top Climate Scientists (oh please). Of course the real issues being debated like, whether there actually is empirical evidence or not, is not given one sentence! In other words, the usual tactics.

    • The article in the Australian (Murdoch) is here. And here is what Andrew Bolt had to say following Malcolm Roberts’ “CSIROh!” manifesto:

      “Malcolm, Your conspiracy theory seemed utterly stupid even before I knew which families you meant. Now checking the list of banking families you’ve given me, your theory becomes terribly, shamefully familiar. Two of the three most prominent and current banking families you’ve mentioned are Jewish, and the third is sometimes falsely assumed to be. Yes, this smacks too much of the Jewish world conspiracy theorising I’ve always loathed. Again, I insist: remove me from the list of people you claim are prepared to advise you. I’ve never advised you, Malcolm, and would never want to. I am offended to be linked to you. Andrew Bolt”

      • That was some time ago Nick. Quite recently Roberts has been given quite respectful treatment on Bolt’s SkyNews program.

      • Nick,

        Sept 15, 2016, Malcom Roberts appeared on the Bolt Report. It’s fair to say that Bolt has moved on enough to engage senator Roberts and discuss the facts. What say you Nick?

      • It seems Andrew Bolt is prepared to be more flexible with a Senator. But the crackpottery that disturbed him doesn’t seem to have gone away. News Ltd, reporting on his maiden speech:

        “The Senator, who had not held paid employment for eight years prior to election, said the international banking sector was “one of the greatest threats to our way of life” and called for a new publicly owned bank.
        “This people’s bank would increase productivity … shield the manipulation of our economy by the tight-knit international banking sector,” he said”

      • “The Senator,… said the international banking sector was “one of the greatest threats to our way of life” and called for a new publicly owned bank.”

        He’s right about that, of course.

      • “RoHa October 23, 2016 at 7:49 pm

        “The Senator,… said the international banking sector was “one of the greatest threats to our way of life” and called for a new publicly owned bank.”

        He’s right about that, of course.”

        Helen Clark, former PM of New Zealand (NZ), went to the public in 1999-ish with that election policy, create a “publicly owned bank”, Kiwi Bank. NZ *HAD* a “publicly owned bank”, it was called Post Bank. Sad thing is the “civil servants” who sold Post Bank to Australia NZ Bank in the 1980’s-ish, were the same “civil servants” who set up Kiwi Bank in the 2000’s-ish, with branches in Post Offices, which, I think, now no longer exist.

    • Along that same reasoning, what can a railroad engineer know about climate? Only enough to run the IPCC for a decade or so.

    • Trevor,…A weakly disguised ad hominem attack was run in the magazine section of…our national newspaper…
      We are all aware that our National broadcaster…The ABC… will be outraged by this …weakly disguised ad hominem… against Malcolm Roberts and will ensure that its future coverage of The Senator will be a …blatant, upfront ad hominem with mocking, sarcasm and, if possible, character and academic assasination to boot…Thats Our ABC.
      And even sections of our private enterprise MSM…Fairfax and The Guardian (well sorta private enterprise) will consider this a competition and will gleefully join in the Insult and slur.
      Thats sections of Our MSM

      Thanks to Champion Racing Mare… Winx…for a super performance to again win our Premier Open Age, Weight For Age Cox Plate.The Melbourne Cup is our Greatest Handicap Race Event and Carnival.
      The Cox Plate is our Best Race event to find the best Horse.
      On a rainy day (and we getting umpteen of rainy days here in Victoria) that the wind howled and blew a bitter cold over the city and state her ability astounded and warmed up the Spectators,Viewers and The State.
      Even Our ABC was impressed!

  3. “He has asked chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel to spell out his logic …”
    That is a good question, and this is a bad answer:
    “We have models to try to predict what that will be ….”
    Not even IPCC spell out their logic – IPCC rely on models and spell out their confidence.
    The basic physics is not even mentioned, and models are heavily adjusted to match observations:

    « When initialized with states close to the observations, models ‘drift’ towards their imperfect climatology (an estimate of the mean climate), leading to biases in the simulations that depend on the forecast time. The time scale of the drift in the atmosphere and upper ocean is, in most cases, a few years. Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori. The bias correction or adjustment linearly corrects for model drift. The approach assumes that the model bias is stable over the prediction period (from 1960 onward in the CMIP5 experiment). This might not be the case if, for instance, the predicted temperature trend differs from the observed trend. It is important to note that the systematic errors illustrated here are common to both decadal prediction systems and climate-change projections. The bias adjustment itself is another important source of uncertainty in climate predictions. There may be nonlinear relationships between the mean state and the anomalies, that are neglected in linear bias adjustment techniques.»
    (Ref: Contribution from Working Group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC; 11.2.3 Prediction Quality; 11.2.3.1 Decadal Prediction Experiments )

  4. Malcolm Roberts has long run The Galileo Movement on Facebook. He is extremely well armed when it comes to repudiating rubbish by presenting facts to support his case. Well acquainted with trolls. He is lucky in that he hitched his wagon to a movement led by a woman who has campaigned on the hard right of politics, even to the point of being wrongly imprisoned , which in Australia is a first ever. He did this as the weak governing parties slumped to the left and a huge slab of the population voted extreme Right for the first time in their lives rather than vote Left. He is sitting pretty because had already had a large Facebook support group. Since election the population in Australia that support his group has quadrupled from 4% to 16%. We have had “Denier” scientists in government before, but 1) not with his conviction and 2) not with his powerful leverage as his group is the largest minority our upper house, without their consent its impossible to legislate anything. Australia may at last see some of the other side of the CAGW debate. And finally as a Senator what he says has to be reported, replied to, and the government can’t rubbish him. He is going to stir things up.

    • Ted,
      Just a few ‘adjustments’ to your Senate data. Actual ones not Climate Science ones from NASA or NOAA.
      Our Aussie Senate is The Lesser or The House of Review.
      It has 76 Senators and the Current Government has 30 senators so it needs another 9 senators to fully pass its House of Reps (The Senior House) legislation.
      Recent elections saw the Greens get 9 Senate Seats while Ms Hanson and One Nation got 4 reps. Labor has 26 while small parties make up the rest. 7 seats left made up of a varied and sometimes interesting bunch who sometimes vote with or against Govt Legislation or negotiate amendments.
      So while One Nation is important to the government it still needs all of One Nation and then 5 more senate votes from the other parties, big or small, to get its legislation reviewed and then passed.
      Ms Hanson does seem well placed to increase her representation level and the Engineering and Private Enterprise skills of Senator Roberts are welcome in our political arena that is so represented by professional pollies but, as is often stated here regarding the matter of prediction, the future does not always cooperate with our predictions…not that being falsified is of any concern to our Climate Doomster Scientists.

      • My apologies for “misspeaking”. As you clarify, One Nation being a block of 4 being the largest block in a gaggle which has another block of 3 then sundries. In the Lesser House which has the absolute right to block anything even supply.

  5. “based on a weak set of models which don’t work very well.” That is the understatement of the year. The models are unvalidated and don’t work at all. Basing policy on unvalidated and worthless models is pure madness.

    There is no evidence that rising CO2 levels result in global warming – on the contrary, CO2 assists in cooling the planet.

      • Ah but you see, climate scientists don’t need no stinking understanding or qualification in fizzicks, like our Tim Flannery, he has English Lit as his first degree level qualification.

      • Or an MA in History? Like me?

        I enjoin you-all not to forget that science is not anything a scientist does. Science is science anyone does.

      • “Evan Jones October 22, 2016 at 4:56 am”

        Yes, but you are not in a position of “authority” and in an “advisory” position to Govn’t and Govn’t policy that affects millions in taxes.

      • Actually, I am doing peer-review level work as part of Anthony’s team. So that means it will play a part in the policy arena. (Our hypothesis has, after all, already been presented to congress.)

        My point being that it’s the quality and value of the actual work that counts, not the number of sheepskins hanging over the fireplace.

        Mosh and I play not dissimilar roles in all this. My notion is that he is better than I am — but I have the decisive advantage of barking up the right tree.

      • Nothing wrong with English Lit qualifications and in defence of Our Tim, he does have a PhD in Palaeontology. But the English qualifications should have made him more aware of the subtleties of English.

        He sometimes gets carried away. A quote from an Interview on ABC TV’s Landline in 2007..
        “That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush”.

        So did he say the dams won’t fill again or not?

      • “Greg K October 23, 2016 at 10:20 pm

        Nothing wrong with English Lit qualifications and in defence of Our Tim, he does have a PhD in Palaeontology.”

        Even so, and with abundant evidence that he has actually documented in TV shows that coral reefs existed millions of years ago are now ABOVE current sea levels. He still believes CO2 is the driver of doom.

    • Surely it’s time to say the models are INvalidated rather than UNvalidated? How many times do they have to fail before we can reject them?

  6. When the alarmists ask sceptics “But is he a Climate Scientist?”, it is meant as a put down. If we were to ask about Australia’s Chief Scientist on his qualifications, would that be seen as a fair question? Or one which we should not ask?

    ‘Dr Finkel was awarded his PhD in electrical engineering from Monash University and worked as a postdoctoral research fellow in neuroscience at the Australian National University.’

    http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/about/biography-2/

    • I find it funny the way “Climate Scientist” is being used in the media these days almost as if they were somehow special – the cream of the science community; not just a scientist but a CLIMATE scientist.

    • “If we were to ask about Australia’s Chief Scientist on his qualifications”
      So what is the argument? That the Government should always choose a climate scientist as Chief Scientist? It was Sen Roberts who chose to direct his questions to Dr Finkel.

      • Ya know what, nicky? You are right. NO ONE should ever be asking climate questions of people such as bill nye, david suzuki, michael mann…

      • If the so-called Chief Scientist doesn’t know anything about climate science he shouldn’t make any statements about it.

        Can’t have it both ways Nick, even if you are a far-left socialist operative.

      • Nick, I’m assuming lee’s remark was in response to Trevor’s comment upthread about that newspaper article. In that context his question made sense to me.

      • Nick,
        Are you being deliberately obtuse? Lee’s point was clearly that the ubiquitous put-down of skeptics by the consensus is that the skeptics are not climate scientists and thus not worthy of notice. Lee is merely pointing out the irony of the situation. You are not a climate scientist either but personally I think your acquired knowledge of the subject entitles you respect, certainly more so than the Gores and Suzukis that the consensus appears to hold in esteem. Nevertheless, you clearly have an agenda that colors your arguments.

      • @Nick Stokes

        “So what is the argument? That the Government should always choose a climate scientist as Chief Scientist?”

        “If” a government were to select a Chief Scientist who was a sceptic, would your response be so cavalier?

      • “Lee is merely pointing out the irony of the situation.”
        So what is the irony of the situation? Dr Alan Finkel, a neuroscientist, was appointed a year ago as Chief Scientist. Malcolm Roberts chose to direct questions about global warming to him. Dr Finkel made no claims of special competence. He was before the Senate Committee, and he did his best to answer. I think he did very well.

      • Nick,

        Robert says “Lee is merely pointing out the irony of the situation”, and you fail to understand the irony.

        Irony is not a tough concept, but maybe for you, a better understanding could be achieved if the term “irony” was replaced with “hypocracy”.

      • You know what Nick, i’ve made a decision that you’re not as clued up as you would like us to believe. The very admission that Dr Finkel cannot and will not answer the question because he knows that if he tries to explain away the empirical evidence, the game will be over. Right now and rightly so, Senator Roberts has him by the balls.

  7. Not only is there no evidence of these positive feedbacks occurring now, there is absolutely no evidence thar they ever have, even when it has been warmer than today. If they existed, any warming would invoke them, and our climate would be a veritable rollercoaster. The fact that it is not is such an obvious proof of the falicy of the feedback argument that I’m amazed that any half-educated person could even entertain it, let alone believe it.

    • That is correct. Feedbacks operate all along. They do not leap fully grown and armed from the head of Zeus.

      • “What we have is new forcings for them to amplify.”
        Mr. Know-it-all: Who the hell is “We”?
        Positive climate feedbacks(amplifications of slight perturbations) would define an unstable climate.
        Observations all point to a stable climate. (Small perturbations in climate are negated by this stability.volcanic eruptions for instance.)
        This is not science. This is common sense.
        Willis E did a post on this atmospheric stability.
        Did you not read that?

      • “What we have is new forcings for them to amplify.”

        Rubbish,

        Atmospheric CO2 levels have been an order of magnitude greater in the past, and the planet didn’t self-immolate.

        In fact, it has never been so hospitable to life before or since.

        Nick, did no-one ever tell you that in nature, systems that suffer from positive feedback from components that are naturally present don’t exist? Or not for long, at any rate!

    • Yes and no. That there are feedback loops is not in question. (Note, these are internal feed backs, not external). However, their relative magnitude, whether they reinforce or go against each other, and their linearity is in question. All real-world systems have multiple feedback elements, for instance, in electronics, through parasitic capacitance and inductive coupling. However, they can be ignored for most purposes because they’re so small.

      Also, the Earth’s climate is a chaotic system, as covered in other WUWT articles, and those feedback loops form a large part of making it so. “Veritable roller coaster” – well, it actually is, when one bothers to look at a long enough stretch, say 100k years or so. The chaotic nature of the climate insures that it will always be so. At best and worse, some additional CO2 will push back or bring forward the next glaciation by a few thousand years.

    • Wow absolute consensus! Where did the 3% get to? Gosh this guy spouts nonsence and the adjudicator is giving this guy the lions share of the time!

      And where did he get his figures from? Sea level rise is how much? 70 mm higher than 1993? Hello 10 inches since 1880 in the US and 1.7mm per year since records began.

      And those graphs with the long Y axis are simply designed to mislead!

      Cheers

      Roger

      https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2016/05/06/six-reasons-why-you-should-worry-about-climate-change/

      • Assuming that data from 1940 onwards is relatively accurate, a possible 22 year (solar magnetic) cycle appears to be present.
        I would appreciate if you could post the link to the data if available. Thanks.

    • I almost made it to the end but had to admit defeat with only 31 seconds to go!
      As Paracelsus said, the dose makes the poison and when it comes to over-indulging in Brian Cox I clearly have a lower tolerance than the audience did.

      There is no doubt in his mind that he is correct and, to me, this is not a commendable trait for any scientist when discussing any real-world complex system like our climate. I suspect that Richard Feynman would have agreed with me on this or, more likely, it would have been me that agreed with him!

    • Cox never supplied proof. Why? You can never supply proof about the future, and he knows it. Cox is a believer – not a scientist. How does he live with himself and with all of the obfuscation that goes with attempts to make sooth-saying seem like science?

      • J Bird, you could say the same about Nick Stokes how does he live with himself!!, well I do see a slight improvement in Nick over the years, I figure he knows the error of his past, but like many who got on the brief Scary Global Warming, climate changing and extremes that can be promoted as scares gravy train, they find it hard to get off. The insider believers like Cook get an armchair ride with help from their mates who also got on the same gravy train. They do know, that the wheels are falling off the Global Warming meme and the propaganda reasons for the spurious adjustments and magical assumptions. It would be funny, except for the number of good scientists and others they have set about to destroy in the promotion of their crazy elitist propaganda. I like Matt Ridley’s take down of the whole meme. The meme is destroying itself, and the rise of the One Nation party in Australia is a good example of the increasing anger that ordinary middle class but thinking people have about this issue. I hope to see Nick Stokes recant his beliefs and become a true scientist one day. Meanwhile Malcolm Roberts keep hammering away in support of real scientists and the scientific method.

  8. I hope Malcolm Roberts has a strong backbone. The next 30 days the Ministry of Truth will subject him to the usual withering assault on him, his background, and anyone associated with him. Hang tough, Malcolm.

  9. ‘Most people agree that adding CO2, considered in isolation, should produce a mild warming effect.’

    Yes but that only works if the air is dry, damp air neutralizes the effect and modelling the biggest greenhouse gas (water vapor) is proving difficult.

    • Oh it’s not difficult, just take a bunch of erroneous models, run them and take an average. Then claim you have a projection of future in your hands.

      Should anyone be suspicious, call them deniers.

  10. In only 14 days of Senate sitting, Malcolm Roberts has shown himself to be THE standout performer. The left will, as all liars do, look for microscopic indiscretions and make mountains of these molehills, like it is some monster scandal. Any “scandal” they dig up or invent, as liars like doing, since people instinctively believe the first thing they are told, then work out it is BS later, will eventually be forgotten.

    Hopefully, Malcolm will be able to make the CSIRO crack that the modelling of positive feedback does not work, invalidating ALL the insane measures proposed.

  11. Sad to say Malcolm Roberts doesn’t float my boat.
    This is a quote from his ‘maiden speech’ to the Australian Senate:
    “Here are more undeniable facts proven by data: firstly, changes in the carbon dioxide level are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause …”.
    There he seems to be, in fact is, repudiating the basic physics of the GH effect.
    Of course CO2 can be both a cause and effect of rising temperatures; as others point out the contentious issues are how much warming, the balance of costs to benefits of so called mitigation policies etc.
    Climate Change™ alarmism, is irrational and destructive, I think Senator Roberts’ apparent ill-founded denial of the basic physics of the GH effect is sadly counterproductive.

    • Actually he is right. If you look at the long term record you will see that CO2 rises about 800 years AFTER there has been a temperature rise. This is because a warming ocean releases CO2. It is nothing to do with the GH effect, it is simply the fact that he is talking about the planet, not the laboratory and the fact is that gases are less soluble in warmer liquids.

      • “If you look at the long term record you will see that CO2 rises about 800 years AFTER there has been a temperature rise …”.
        ======================================
        Everyone who has looked at the topic knows that, by flatly denying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no effect on temperature makes him look ridiculous and simply supplies ammunition to the alarmists

      • “Chris Hanley October 22, 2016 at 12:45 am

        Everyone who has looked at the topic knows that, by flatly denying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no effect on temperature makes him look ridiculous and simply supplies ammunition to the alarmists”

        Where is your proof that the emissions of CO2 from human activities *IS* having an effect on temperature?

        *crickets chirping*

      • Chris, nobody has made that claim. I am trying to explain to you what Malcolm Roberts said. Read my post again and try and understand the point.
        Are you aware of the ocean outgassing phenomenon?

    • Here we go again, falling back on the old “basic physics” nonsense. There is no ” basic physics” behind the so-called greenhouse effect – except in a real greenhouse.

      • Thank you Phillip. The earth’s eco system is as far from basic physics as Einstein’s special relativity, string theory or quantum mechanics.

      • There’s almost no ‘greenhouse effect’ in a greenhouse either. How do polytunnels work? Polyethylene is transparent to IR (unless specially formulated to prevent crop scorching).

      • “Here we go again, falling back on the old “basic physics” nonsense. There is no ” basic physics” behind the so-called greenhouse effect – except in a real greenhouse.”

        If you are saying there is no GHE acting in Earth’s climate system – then what is it that makes the Earth 33C warmer than what it’s temperature would be from TSi absorbed alone?

      • “If you are saying there is no GHE acting in Earth’s climate system – then what is it that makes the Earth 33C warmer than what it’s temperature would be from TSi absorbed alone?”

        Add a radiative gas to a non-radiative atmosphere and the average temperature lifts-off from the surface. Gravity causes the radiative gas, even a well mixed one, to be in higher concentration at the base of the atmospheric column. A thermometer placed there will record a higher temperature than what would be found from TSI absorbed alone. The difference in temperature between Earth’s average radiation temperature to space (-18.5 degC) and average temperature at bottom of atmosphere (14.4 degC) defines the total lapse between the two and with the distance between them, the lapse rate. It is basic physics.

        Once you accept that then it is easy to understand that the TSI is the one energy source and only a delay in it passing through the complexity of Earth’s system can cause an increase in energy within it. Climate science ignores that and has two other ideas: back radiation being one and the idea that increasing CO2 raises the height of average radiation to space “where that greater height is colder”. The problem is that the first invents an additional energy source and the second ignores the fact that only a change in albedo can affect the average radiating temperature as becomes apparent from the Stephan-Boltzman Law.

        In fact, adding CO2 will raise temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere because it will lift the height of the average radiating temperature (at the expense of the temperature of the actual surface), assuming the lapse rate remains steady and water vapour, clouds and albedo play along. That would be a big assumption but on the evidence so far for temperature change – nothing to worry about.

      • “In fact, adding CO2 will raise temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere because it will lift the height of the average radiating temperature (at the expense of the temperature of the actual surface), assuming the lapse rate remains steady and water vapour, clouds and albedo play along. That would be a big assumption but on the evidence so far for temperature change – nothing to worry about.”

        Correct.
        So the GHE exists.
        Well done. Go to the top of the class!
        Caused by the ~1% of the non-condensing GH gases, chief among them CO2.
        WV adding a feedback to that … as it cannot be present in a higher quantity that the air temp can support….
        Except it is “something to worry about”.

      • ToneB above “Correct.
        So the GHE exists.
        Well done. Go to the top of the class!
        … it is “something to worry about”.

        Do you have anything to add other than condescension and conjecture?

      • “Do you have anything to add other than condescension and conjecture?”

        Err …. Science.
        Try reading it.
        However you won’t find it here.

    • Unfortunately, Roberts is lacking in some very simple research. Namely that
      (1) the greenhouse effect is logarithmic, meaning that although it’s a real phenomenon, some 90% of its total possible effect on temperature occurs for the first 100ppm of CO2 (someone will know the actual numbers). This is the GHG warming cause-effect bandied about by alarmists to “cover” everything, and the “proven science” they quote, almost always out of context.
      (2) the CO2 follows the temperature over the glacial/interglacial (Milankovitch) cycles from absorption/degassing of the oceans. This was one of the graphs the gawky grinning Cox printed off Google just before the show. It was this that Roberts could have used to expose Cox for the second-rate scientist/ ignorant alarmist shill that he is. A missed opportunity.

      • My thought exactly. So much more effective would have been, “Well, we asked for proof, and you say ‘these two graphs’. But one graph shows CO2 up-down-up-down; the other, temp up up up, so not only no proof, not even correlation. Did the temp go up-down-up-down with CO2? But there’s a larger point, Prof Cox. If the graphs did correlate, would it prove cause? Prove CO2 drives temp, or temp drives CO2? You say your two graphs are proof, consensus too. So if I show your temp graph and another graph of Brian Cox income or Brian Cox time-on-telly going up up up, does that prove Brian Cox is causing temp to go up up up? Or is temp causing Brian Cox to be on tv more? Would the proof be in whether 97% of audience agrees? The audience can see that we didn’t get an answer, so can we please see proof that man burning stuff causes temp to go up?” When addressing adjustments, he should have taken Cox’s temp graph, and a sharpie, and explain to audience, “here is how this looked before 2007 (as he draws the ’40s spike=’98, then the real pause up to ’07) and get Cox to admit that’s what it showed before NASA’s adjustments. Cox would evade, but one can force the admission to what NASA graphs showed pre-adjustment. Missed opportunity indeed.

    • To Chris Hanley:
      Thank you for your posts about the lecture by Matt Ridley.
      I printed the lecture. Also, listening to the lecture added much to my understanding the numerous issues he presented.

  12. “We have models to try to predict what that will be and that’s difficult,” Dr Finkel said, adding that models did predict significant climate change”

    Did the models mention anything of ‘changes in the near future’ which would ’cause us to reevaluate a close relationship with a loved one’? Was there any mention of the colour green or a tall dark stranger? Has my aunt Mabel made contact from the other side??
    At least Mystic Meg could answer those questions.

  13. First it was an embarrassing fail, then a creditable job, now it’s Malcolm did the skewering.
    Malcolm is looking through the wrong end of the telescope and so are you Eric.
    Cranks who post their conspiracy theory nonsense on blogs are one thing but when they enter parliament their nuttiness must be very closely scrutinized.

  14. “I suspect this challenge is going to get very uncomfortable for Australia’s chief scientist.”

    Yes, Surely it is. The only empirical evidence presented to relate warming to emissions is a strong correlation between cumulative values. This correlation is spurious.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309192593_EFFECTIVE_SAMPLE_SIZE_OF_THE_CUMULATIVE_VALUES_OF_A_TIME_SERIES

    It has been proposed that there should be a correlation at decadal or multi-decadal time scales but no such correlation can be found in the data
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308761991_GENERATIONAL_FOSSIL_FUEL_EMISSIONS_AND_GENERATIONAL_WARMING_A_NOTE

  15. Malcolm Roberts, a qualified and highly experienced mining engineer, …

    So is Steve McIntyre who, with Steve McKitrick, debunked Michael Mann’s hockey stick.

    Geologists tend to be skeptical of global warming because they take a long view of the climate. Mining engineers tend to be a particularly skeptical bunch. They decide whether to invest tens of millions of dollars in mining ventures. They get used to being lied to by prospectors and promoters and they have the skills, knowledge, and motivation to unpack those lies.

    • “So is Steve McIntyre who, with Steve McKitrick, debunked Michael Mann’s hockey stick.”

      Oh, OK – did he “debunk” the dozens that followed afterwords from different studies…..

      • Yeah he did — all those studies used the same cherry picked proxies, the same merry little band of liars doing the “peer review’, the same truncation of data after about 1960 because the tree rings were showing cooling when they wanted warming. The post 1960 data is the “adjusted” data spliced onto the proxy record – a BIG no-no. Read the Wegman report – he spells it out.
        Also McIntyre’s web site, climateaudit.org.

      • Yeh. And Santer, and a myriad of other sh1t science. Read his site if your education is up to it.

      • Many of the newer studies at least show that there was a MWP, not the completely flat nonsense that Mann showed. And Steve McIntyre also shows (using statistical analysis) that they cherry pick which proxies to include or discard and that these choices often greatly affect the overall appearance and things such as how steep and warm the modern period appears and whether the MWP was more global than local (although I note that the modern warming is actually mostly NH just like older warming). And many of the ones that get the most attention splice the modern thermometer records on the end. Was it Marcott who admitted that the 20th century portion of his reconstruction “was not robust”?

      • I love all these graphs that splice unfiltered instrumental data onto heavily filtered paleo data and end right at the El Nino spike of 1998. If you show all the real error bars and the pause there is plenty of room for the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming period and so on, they just want to filter those out to fool us.

        I saw a talk by Michael Mann at a local university in the late 2000s. He was still showing graphs that end in 2000.

        If the Hockey Stick is so validated and true why is it not in the latest IPCC reports? I see the later dotted lines that pretend to show warming starting in 1500 but show no data before then, Mann et al 2003 and so on. Why are they suddenly backing off from the concept that the human caused warming started in 1950? Is it because the pause shows that idea to be nonsense? The pause is now longer than the so called “human caused global warming signal” they were so proud of in 1998. The pause busters tidied up the graph some but it is still some 2x lower than the predictions.

        Time to let it go, Toneb. Nobody looks sillier than the folks that fell for a hoax like the Piltdown Man.

      • Meanwhile Toneb,you leave out OTHER groups who have studied the past,such as HISTORIANS and GEOLOGISTS,who have deciphered the existence of the MWP and LIA very well.

        The chart you posted is for the NORTHERN Hemisphere only,which makes his claim incomplete anyway.

      • “Time to let it go, Toneb. Nobody looks sillier than the folks that fell for a hoax like the Piltdown Man.”

        Yep, that’s *sceptic* logic all right.

        On the one hand we have the vast majority of climate scientists saying one thing, with a tiny minority of others (in this case NOT a climate scientist ) saying the opposite.
        In the case of Piltdown man – we have a hoax perpetrated by one man on a whole community of archaeologists.
        In other words it is vastly more likely that the one can fool the majority (ie seem to be correct) for a time (Piltdown was very early in on in the find of acient human ancestry attribution – 1912), but not the majority (be wrong) over the minority.

        But the thing is – it’s the one man who has you (in this case) in his sway.
        Why? Because you are invested in him being correct.

        Science doesn’t care who’s correct – just that it is correct, and that’s the motivation of a scientist in any field. To be correct.
        Ergo – it’s not wrong for long.
        Hence the debunking of McIntrye’s debunking.
        Especially since it’s 18 years since first published.

      • Toneb: It’s very early in the “science” of global warming—less than 40 years intense study. So fooling people, by your logic, should still be pretty easy. Plus, rather than an actual physical artifact, global warming is math, adjustments and pretty graphs (per Michael Man’s own admission—colored graphs were what convinced him AGW was serious). In time, the fact that the majority was fooled comes out—even with global warming.

        “It’s not wrong for that long” is false as it comes. Science most certainly does care where its funding comes from, scientist suffer from not wanting to look foolish so pushing their theory becomes more important than the truth. What you are describing as a scientist is a robot, not human being.

        It’s also not a tiny percentage. Well done research (not Cook and Lew) show about 40% of scientists disagree, depending on how the questions are asked and what is included in the “belief” criteria. All surveys and studies outcomes depend entirely on how questions are asked, assuming you ask any and don’t just assign belief to paper abstracts.

        McIntyre is “debunked” the same way everything else is in global warming—swapping out data ranges, using different statistical methods, etc. When you play with data and statistics, you can prove anything. Literally anything. If you can adjust the data, it just makes it easier.

      • “Toneb: It’s very early in the “science” of global warming—less than 40 years intense study.”

        No, Arrhenius came up with the basic idea ~150years ago and models only give an answer to the GHE of CO2 around that calculated by him.
        It’s empirical science

        “So fooling people, by your logic, should still be pretty easy. ”

        Yes it is – if you buy into the confirmation bias, of those spinning the contrary.
        Science doesn’t have any.
        As it’s instant kudos to those that find out the *fooling* science.
        So you therefore must involke conspiracy/incompetence …. beaten by the ability to Google stuff on the internet.

        “Plus, rather than an actual physical artifact, global warming is math, adjustments and pretty graphs”

        Only if you don’t understand the science my friend … or more likely here, don’t want to.

        “In time, the fact that the majority was fooled comes out—even with global warming.”

        No, in time those that wanted to be fooled by the minority of *invested* commentators ( McIntyre is NOT a scientist … and neither is Ridley … or Monckton).
        Get my drift?

      • Toneb, I notice you don’t use Marcott. Is that because thry said 20th century warming was not robust? Or perhaps that the uptick was because of the methodology used?

      • Toneb: You aren’t seriously saying Arrhenius’s theory is all there is to climate science. Without feedbacks and forcings, CO2 is inadequate. And Arrhenius thought that CO2 warming was beneficial. Why would that have changed if Arrhenius’s theory was all-encompassing? Empirical science that uses one factor in hundreds is not empirical at all.

        Confirmation bias works both ways. It amazes me that somehow believers in AGW or CAGW think they are free of the phenomena. Unless you’re a robot and not a person, your confirmation bias drives you to believe what you want to believe, just as anyone else’s, in the same amount you claim the skeptics are affected. You are just as blind as those who don’t believe, if you believe confirmation bias is the major factor in this debate. You are not pure as the new fallen snow and free of bias. You BELIEVE.

        I never invoke conspiracy. AGW people invoke the conspiracy of Big Oil all the time, yet, again, you overlook your own side behaving as you chastise others for.

        I understand the science just fine—I can actually do statistical calculations, test hypotheses, etc. Not a problem.

        “Invested commentators” like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, etc? Again, you show your own complete lack of understanding of confirmation bias. You believe only those who you agree with. Perhaps further study of the phenomena would help, though there are none so blind as the “true believer”.

  16. Interesting to note that YouTube’s snippet of the August Q & A session is trailed as ‘Cox …destroys Roberts’!
    Fortunately, a good number of the BTL comments put the matter straight.

  17. I’ve heard it said that the best way to predict the future is to study the past. Climate models have it backwards.

    • No, they study the past by back forecasting and then they can predict the future accurately. See how it works :)))

      • I see. Any time somebody makes a claim like that my first instinct is to hold onto my wallet. Then I ask to see where they have ‘forecast’ the past. Then the snickers and guffaws start to burst out.

  18. “Climate Change” is such a capricious and duplicitous term used by Leftists to avoid clarity.

    There is ZERO empirical evidence indicating any clear signal of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). That’s why Leftists go apoplectic whenever the correct and definitive term CAGW is logically used.

    There hasn’t been a discernible global warming trend in 20 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years.

    The only “manmade” warming over the past 20 years has been the massive raw data manipulation conducted by pro-CAGW grant hounds, which proves corruption and malfeasance, not the efficacy of the CAGW hypothesis. Unmanipulated global temp data show CAGW to be a disconfirmed hypothesis under the criteria of the scientific method.

    CAGW is dead, dead, dead… In 5~7 years, it will be laughed at.

    • Not dead, just suppressed. It will pop up in another “guise”…as the next “planetary emergency”…some day. I really hope there are intelligent beings out there that will stop by this rock and say hi!

      Don’t hold up much hope if they can tune in to our radio.

      • Patrick-san:

        I think the political blowback against Leftist ideology will be spectacular following the demise of the biggest and most expensive Leftist scam in human history.

        Leftist ideology has utterly destroyed the world economy, ruined Western Civilization and cost 100 million lives at the hands of Leftist despots over the past 100 years.

        The world is on the cusp of a huge economic collapses from 100 years of Leftists running up $100 trillion in sovereign debt, failed Keynesian economic policies, fiat currencies, insane monetary policies, excessive government control of science and the economy.

        Like CAGW, Leftist ideology is destined to fail because it doesn’t work, it only destroys.

      • SAMURAI: I’d love to believe that. Unfortunately the socialists have conned most of the people into believing that all of the world’s problems result from the free market being insufficiently regulated.

  19. Malcolm Roberts is having to ask questions as a result of the scientific method not being followed . True scientists purse the truth while lobbyist’s create their version of truth to suit their lobby interest .
    The Creepy Climate Clowns pretend their propaganda is based on proven scientific theory in order to create a false aura of credibility because on their own they have zero credibility . Al Gore has virtually no
    scientific credibility himself so like the little clique of AG’s witch hunting Exxon it is all about being seen to be aligning with people that should be credible . Same pattern exactly .
    Malcolm Roberts is going to absolutely shred the exaggerated claims of the global warming complex and the closer he gets the more security he is going to need .
    Isn’t it refreshing when a politician isn’t bullied or bought ? Mr . Roberts strikes me as being like one of those little white dogs that once they sink their teeth into you have to almost kill them to let go . (No disrespect intended )
    Well done Mr. Roberts . There is hope when people like you don’t suffer fools .
    The Creepy Climate Clowns days are numbered .

  20. ‘Most people agree that adding CO2, considered in isolation, should produce a mild warming effect.’

    But we know as fact that when we burn fossil fuels which produce a variety of products, we are not adding CO2 in isolation For example, we are taking oxygen out of the system and replacing it with other gases including water vapour, and in so doing we are greening the planet and this is impacting upon both the water cycle and on the carbon cycle.

    We may know the laboratory properties of CO2 under laboratory conditions, but planet Earth is not laboratory conditions.

    It is patently absurd and disingenuous to talk about adding CO2 in isolation.

    This why the question as to whether there is any Climate Sensitivity to CO2, and if so how much can only be answered by observation. Unfortunately our data is of poor quality, much of it is so bastardized as to be rendered useless, the data is extremely noisy due to the impact of natural variation and the error bounds of our data sets are large. It is for that reason that we have been unable to eek out the signal (if any) to CO2 in these data sets.

    Given the poor state of our data sets, that are not fit for scientific purpose, there is no prospect in the immediate future of answering the question posed, namely the evidence of CO2 induced climate change.

  21. I find it worrying that I keep hearing that we have to listen to the experts. I am not sure what that means as there is more than enough evidence of expert opinion being available for sale. The track record of ‘experts’ is so bad that I would want my money back if I paid out for it.
    I still remember the rather sharp question that Queen Elizabeth II put to the experts at a dinner hosted by the Bank of England post the 2008 economic crisis. “Why is it “, she asked ” that none of you saw this coming?”. There was only an embarrassed silence to the quetion.
    As for Brian Cox, he is a talented scientist with a gift for education. Even in his own field he will admit that the experts are frequently wrong and that questioning the data is fundamental. Yet he blindly accepts what the ‘ Climate Scientists’ are saying depite the fact that it has been shown repeatedly that the data they are using is at best faulty.
    Every reasonable person understands that there are cycles in temperature and weather. It is still not understood why we had planetwide glaciation during periods when carbon dioxide levels were much higher than the current period. What I still remain to be convinced about is the position of IPCC that the warming is all anthropogenic. This is not science but religious belief.

    • ” Even in his own field he will admit that the experts are frequently wrong and that questioning the data is fundamental. Yet he blindly accepts what the ‘ Climate Scientists’ are saying depite the fact that it has been shown repeatedly that the data they are using is at best faulty.”

      That’s when I stopped watching the remake of Cosmos. Almost immediately after Tyson explains that consensus in science doesn’t make it correct, noting consensus shooting down theories that were actually correct, he then parrots AGW. Either he hasn’t actually looked into the actual science and is blindly accepting the experts opinion (ie the consensus) and is a bad scientist, or he’s a paid shill who doesn’t care, and he’s a bad scientist.

      The science is bad. It may or not ultimately be correct, but the science doesn’t show it.

  22. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    WATCH THIS SPACE! Senator Malcolm Roberts challenging Australia’s premiere science body – the warmist CSIRO – to provide proof that human CO2 emissions cause “global warming.” At present, NO empirical evidence exists. Only predictive models that, currently, do not observe reality.

    At last, an “Australian politician with the skill and meticulous attention to detail required to dissect anything the bureaucrats who run government science organisations can throw at him.

    “His demand for proof that humans cause warming has struck at the weak point of the entire AGW scare campaign – because *there isn’t any proof available to provide. Just a load of conjecture, based on a weak set of models which don’t work very well.*

    “Most people agree that adding CO2, considered in isolation, should produce a mild warming effect. But the entire climate scare campaign is based on models which assume that the initial warming effect from anthropogenic CO2 is dramatically amplified by feedback, by climatic responses to the initial warming.”

  23. One point that still bugs me. Sorry I don’t have all the references to hand, but doesn’t the official “97% Consensus” as explained by the IPCC say that the man made warming started in 1950? I know there are more recent papers that try to say it started during the beginning of the “Industrial Revolution”. I know that the activists like to say that because it fits in with their obsession with dismantling western civilization and returning to feudalism.

    But why do those on the skeptic side concede the point? Why argue about something that is not remotely scientific, is not in the official IPCC position, is not in the “consensus” and literally makes about as much sense as the Flat Earth society?

    I can see why the activists have a problem with the official IPCC position. If the “man made warming” started in 1950, what about the cooling in the 70s? How do you explain the warming trend in the 40s that is almost the same slope as the 90s? How do you explain the “pause”? How do you answer the objection that natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is responsible for most if not all of the modern warming? It makes very little sense even to someone who has the time and inclination to study it. That is because it is based on faulty science cobbled together to prove a faulty political point.

    But I wish that those like Mr. Roberts who challenge the fakers would stick to the IPCC version of the man-made warming nonsense. It is much easier to refute. It makes no sense even to those who pretend to “believe” it.

    You can pull out the widely published charts and papers that provide the underpinning of the models and show them to be absolute nonsense.

    All the activists really have is the models. They are based on the same assumptions as the IPCC reports. There are no new models based on “warming since the Industrial Revolution”. They are based on warming since 1950. Without the dire predictions (projections? Guesses?) of the models they have no case.

  24. Look at the basic assumption of the alarmists.

    Namely that all increases in temperature are man made. It’s a whopping assumption.

    They need to be able to extract out the natural change first, but they don’t. They make the null hypothesis that there is no change.

    It’s that lack of proof of the null hypothesis, certainly over the short to medium term, that’s the issue and the cause of their inability to forecast in advance.

  25. The normal talking point: “It had also been established that atmospheric CO₂ levels had been rising measurably from human activity since the start of the Industrial Age”
    You could even question if the rise in CO2 is caused by humans. Yes we have put a lot of CO2 in the air, but only half of this gives a rising level, and natural processes exhale and sink a 20 fold amount. A little unbalance in these sources and sinks would override any human source.
    Look at the yearly variation in CO2 which is 2 to 3 times larger in Arctic and nearly stable in Antarctica.
    It is possible to find it here, even if it not so easy: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
    Summit on Greenland has a very large variation!

  26. I watched the video of Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel’s “explanation” to Senator Malcolm Roberts of what he said was the link between CO2 and climate change.
    The alarmist Fairfax Melbourne Age Online site covered it under the tendentious heading “Schooling for Climate Sceptic” (or similar)
    I was staggered at how absolutely simplistic and lacking in content Dr Finkel’s exposition was.

    Now following Nick Stokes it may be unreasonable to expect the CS to know all the nuances and the latest findings on climate change, but what I am continually amazed at is how few of the ardent warmist people I talk to actually can explain even in outline the theory they purport to believe in.
    Most say “its CO2 wot does it” and are content to leave it at that -much the same as did Dr Finkel !

    But surely the Chief Scientist might be presumed to know a bit more about climate change theory than the average member of the public.

    Finkel started off by describing the initial work by Arrhenius ( whom he wrongly described as Swiss when I understand he was Swedish-but let that go)
    Finkel said that Arrhenius showed that CO2 absorbed and then emitted long wave radiation thus warming the atmosphere.( I know – it is better described as slowing the rate at which the atmosphere loses heat energy to space)
    Finkel then described Ultra Violet light from the sun passing through the atmosphere warming the earth and oceans which release long wave radiation which is absorbed by CO2 thus warming the atmosphere
    .
    He then adverted to the annual growth of CO2 at 2ppm ( which he did not explicitly say but left understood was all man -made) and said 2016 would be the hottest year on record
    He then concluded somewhat elliptically with “after that we have models” leaving me wondering the import of that remark.
    This simplistic presentation was trumpeted by the Melbourne Age as the “education on climate change needed by” Senator Roberts.

    The large number of gaps in Dr Finkel’s presentation in the orthodox theory of enhanced global warming include:-
    :-
    He made no mention of the claimed greenhouse effect of water vapour, nor that there is not only more of it than CO2 by a factor of ten thousand, but that each water vapour molecule has about twice the absorptive and emissive power of a CO2 molecule.
    Nor did he explain the claimed forcing role of CO2 and the subsequent claimed feedback loops caused by increased water vapour etc resulting from the warmer atmosphere being able to hold more vapour which in turn has increased as it will have been released by the now warmer oceans having higher evaporation rates.
    .
    Also not mentioned was the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature ,with all the implications that has for CO2 emissions and the Paris Agreement targeted controlled increases in global temperature of 1.5 and 2 c ( my sub point being without positive feedback effects or with very limited such effects then those targets would seem quite reachable without the need for large scale changes in emissions)

    Nor did he distinguish long term trends in global temperatures from periodic upticks associated with El Nino events nor was there any mention of the role of the oceans in absorbing CO2 or regulating global temperatures.

    There was so much from the IPCC reports that he might have used but in common with my experience with warmists (many of them don’t even know what the IPCC has found and when you tell them they don’t want to believe you), he too seemed unaware of the findings of the IPCC ( not that I am suggesting the IPCC is the last word but that given it is the Bible or Koran of the true believers you might think they might at least know their scripture)
    Just one example not mentioned is the admission by the IPCC that the warming emissions from atmospheric CO2 are about 2.5 WM2 compared with solar heating reaching earth surface (I think) about 130 WM2.

    Nor did Dr Finkel mention any of the most recent (2013-14) findings of the 5th IPCC Report particularly:-
    their admission their models did not match observations:- ,
    that there had been a long period (15 years plus) of static temperatures not predicted by their models
    that their predictions of Antarctic sea ice were wrong both in size and sign, and
    that they were now reducing the range of predicted temperature increases from earlier predictions or projections

    Given his Government appointed position it would be too much to expect Dr Finkel to give a sceptical analysis of prevailing climate orthodoxy.
    However if I as a retired economist with no formal science studies at all can give what I hope is a reasonably accurate outline of the prevailing theory of enhanced global warming sufficient for the understanding of a layman, then I think it a fair question to ask why does such an explanation seem beyond our highly paid chief scientist?

    • What is telling to me in the overall situation is the speed with which the media morons jump in on the politically correct side of an issue they know nothing about. Also, if Finkel cared thing 1 about his credibility one would think his reply would include some references to PR papers or technical explanations from those “experts who toot the same horn. Maybe he likes dramatic charts drawn in Crayon by Mighty Mike Mannn.

    • As a ‘retired economist’ your summary is rather good, Thomho. You should try to have it accepted in a main-straem newspaper.

    • ‘Given his Government appointed position it would be too much to expect Dr Finkel to give a sceptical analysis of prevailing climate orthodoxy’
      There can be no doubt that our chief scientist has an excellent mind, specialising in neuroscience and engineering.
      When he says that it is now up to the models and their predictions, which indicate accelerating warming, he does not address the question, what significance level do I attach to them?
      After all, he keeps on being asked questions about GCM’s.
      He can be hardly expected to answer that one as he is a statutory head.
      No doubt he is hearing a lot of grinding of axes in the background noise.
      In a lot of ways science is a Cinderella enterprise here in Australia.
      Many scientists have to leave Australia to obtain work, some simply, before Uber, drove cabs.
      The real shake out Federally here is, Can Australian scientists predict at a level of significance that is of any use, the climate in our many climatic regions out to 10 years?
      We are talking rainfall,humidity, drought and temperature.
      Will the SA government persist in unsustainable base load power supply, triggering a crisis in defense material supply?
      Will SA be able to build our submarines?
      What is a realistic engineering answer that we, and the poor, can afford in SA, now Victoria and soon Qld?
      The clock is ticking.
      These are the national questions best put to the chief scientist by a senator.
      For the rest, keep publishing the failed global predictions and confounded CO2 theory.
      Eventually someone in Australia will listen.

      • “lewispbuckingham October 23, 2016 at 2:24 am

        Eventually someone in Australia will listen.”

        I very much doubt that. Australia is now populated with people who think the productive owe those that sit on their posteriors, on CenterLink benefits, are

      • Patrick MJD October 23, 2016 at 5:03 am
        “lewispbuckingham October 23, 2016 at 2:24 am

        Eventually someone in Australia will listen.”

        I very much doubt that. Australia is now populated with people who think the productive owe those that sit on their posteriors, on CenterLink benefits, are entitled to the money in your wallet. Sheesh, forget about taxes, they want more. In Aus there is a growing “gap” between those that earn, and pay taxes, and those that draw from the state (They still pay taxes…on “earnings” would you believe?). It’s ~30 years away, but what you see in Greece, Spain and Italy should be a warning to Australia. Nah!!!

      • I can only hope that it’s ~30 years off. The reason why countries such as Greece and Spain managed to survive is because other countries propped them up.
        As more countries go from productive to non-productive, the strain on the remaining productive countries increases rapidly. The collapse when it does come will be much more rapid than many predict.
        This same logic works for people as well. As more and more people discover that they don’t have to work, but can rely on government to give them a portion from the labor of those who bother to work, the burden on those who work increases.
        This causes more of those who work to consider why they work so hard, but don’t see the benefit of it themselves. They quite and go on the dole. Which of course increases the load on those still working, causing more of them to consider life on the dole as a viable option.

  27. 1) Per IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 prior to year 1750 CO2 represented about 1.26% of the total biosphere carbon balance (589/46,713). After mankind’s contributions, 67 % fossil fuel and cement – 33% land use changes, atmospheric CO2 increased to about 1.77% of the total biosphere carbon balance (829/46,713). This represents a shift of 0.51% from all the collected stores, ocean outgassing, carbonates, carbohydrates, etc. not just mankind, to the atmosphere. A 0.51% rearrangement of 46,713 Gt of stores and 100s of Gt annual fluxes doesn’t impress me as measurable let alone actionable, attributable, or significant.

    2) Figure 10 in Trenberth et al 2011jcli24, in addition to substantial differences of opinion, i.e. uncertainties, 7 of the 8 balances considered, 87.5%, showed more energy leaving ToA than entering, i.e. atmospheric cooling.

    3) Even IPCC AR5 expresses serious doubts about the value of their AOGCMs (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3).

    The sea ice and sheet ice is expanding not shrinking, polar bear population is the highest in decades, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 turned into yet another empty and embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Roseanne Roseannadanna, “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”

    • That’s the hair of an ex “pop star”. But he likes to wear t-shirts in his documentaries, and they do show that he does have the muscle structure more akin to that of a woman.

  28. I don’t recognize Aussie celebrities, but the lady on the right needs a little more makeup on her facial hair.

  29. “We have models to try to predict what that will be and that’s difficult,” Dr Finkel said, adding that models did predict significant climate change.”
    Try impossible. Climate is far too complex to predict, even if we had super computers with 100x the capacity we have today. Finding all the variables, weighting them correctly, etc. is most probably beyond the scope of human ability.
    At one time, most people laughed at psychic predictions, but when we made pretty colored graphs and catagorized the predictions as “science”, people foolishly believed. Science can no more predict the future than Madame Freida in her little shop with her tarot cards and crystal ball can.

  30. The prime evidence for greenhouse warming, according to Prof Lindzen and others, is increasing tropical tropospheric temperatures (and therefore temperature-altitude). And the atmospheric warming should be 3x the value of any surface warming, according to Lindzen. And so this should be easily detectable by radiosonde temperature data and DWLWR data (downwelling LW radiation).

    But none of the datasets I have seen show any increase in tropical atmospheric temperatures over the last 20-30 years. Ergo, the Co2 greenhouse warming effect must be very small – almost too small to detect.

    Can anyone here find a tropical DLR (DWLWR) or radiosonde dataset that shows any warming?

    R

    • Increasing tropical tropospheric temperatures (2 – 3 times the rate at the surface) would be a signature of water vapour feedback in response to warming caused by added CO2 (or any other forcing factor I assume).

      • >>Trenberth’s hotspot.

        Yes, the very same. And if there is no hotspot, there is no increasing greenhouse effect.

        And yet I cannot find any evidence of this tropical tropospheric warming. Nor can I find any climate ‘scientists’ who are bothering to look for it. But if there is no warming, there is no increasing greenhouse effect. It is that fundamental.

        R

      • >>signature of water vapour feedback in response to
        >>warming caused by added CO2

        Both.

        As far as I can see the IPCC figures do not include the additional water vapour feedback, as that is too difficult to model. So the main tropical tropospheric warming should be from Co2 alone, with any water vapour effects as additional.

        But whether single or combined, it is not there, as far as I can see. And if there is no atmospheric warming, there is NO increasing greenhouse effect.

        R

  31. Why do they let them set the premise that the answer to the cause of warming is simply CO2. The original problem was explaining the warming coming out of the Little Ice Age. Co2 is one possible explanation. Having given an explanation for an established and on going trend, it is not legitimate to turn around and say: we believe that OC2 causes warming, it is warming therefore it must be CO2. This is the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

  32. Global Temps appear to be nose-diving right now. It took a little longer than normal for the 2015-16 El Nino impacts to wear off (but then we’ve seen that before with other big El Ninos). Australia has had a couple of very cold months recently. Temps will be heading back to normal shortly and then the adjusters will be forced to dip even deeper into their bag of tricks.

  33. As a retired electrical engineer, I would trust another engineer of any sort over a ‘so-called’ “Climate Scientist”, because if I had used the same level and quality of ‘science’ as these alarmist hypocrites, all of my very expensive projects for manufacturing plants would have failed miserably, and I would have been looking for another line of work decades ago. Engineers must produce real world and cost effective results or be fired. “Climate Scientists” are NEVER held accountable for their mis-application of ‘science’ and their utter failures.

    • Allen

      I understand your intention, but for clarification (esp to Nick), you might want to consider modifying your “trust in engineers” statement to include only those with considerable commercial (i.e.: non-academic) experience.

      The commercial environment’s rigor of accountability is faster and harsher than academia: there’s a fairly short path between bad engineers and dead people.

      • ” include only those with considerable commercial (i.e.: non-academic) experience”

        Alan’s bio here.

        “…before leaving academia to found Axon Instruments, a global science and technology company based in the US.[4] During this time, he invented a commercially successful device which substantially speeds up drug research.[3][5]
        Since then, he has used his wealth…”

      • …and that wealth is a measure of how the public valued (by purchasing) the device he invented, Nick.

        Too bad there’s nothing valuable about the CAGW meme–for those who feed at the trough of grants take taxes that could actually be put to a useful cause.

        Alas, the CAGW meme is just another form of theft from the public purse.

  34. I keep asking for proof also. A lady at NASA told me that “it was not all in the same place” I said surely for the worst crises mankind has ever known you could get it in one place. She said “that’s not how science works.” I guess I will have to sue the Ontario and then the Canadian government to produce the proof that their cap and trade/carbon tax will change the climate.

    • Kimir Those are a totally useless set of experiments. They are so badly designed that the results would be meaningless. You will have to do better than that.

    • Hehehe!

      Call that science?

      You clearly wouldn’t recognise science if it scuttled under your bridge and bit you on the snout.

      Back to school for you, child!

      • Cat …

        Kimir is obviously very young with undeveloped critical thinking skills.

        I only scanned those experiments, but #11 caught my eye.

        “To demonstrate that storms and temperature changes threaten existing vegetation.”

        By removing cress sprouts from their growing medium and using a hair dryer to blow hot air on them? Result … “After a short time the plants will be lying irreversibly flat on the ground.” DUH!

        This experiment was designed by an ADULT? For teaching CHILDREN? About SCIENCE?

        This is appalling.

    • Kimir:

      Your description of the process of science is inaccurate and misleading. In legitimate science we do not merely “test” hypotheses but rather attempt to falsify them. Today’s AGW models are designed for absence of falsifiability. According to IPCC AR4 (report of Working Group 1), in the modern era, falsifiability has been replaced by peer review! So long nullius in verba. With luck we’ll see you again when we emerge from the modern Dark Ages.

Comments are closed.