Australian Parliamentarian, and Sceptic, Banned Prevented from Tabling Climate Data
Posted by jennifer, December 2nd, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change, Drought, Murray River, Water
DR Dennis Jensen BAppSc (RMIT), MSc (Melb), PhD (Monash) is the only member of the Australian Parliament with any training in science a PhD in a science discipline.
[As correctly pointed out in the comments following this posting, my brother Jim Turnour, also a member of the Federal Parliament, has a Batchelor of Agricultural Science. Other members with science and science-related degrees are listed in a comment in the following thread.]
Yesterday Dr Jensen suggested in the Australian Parliament that many of the current problems facing the Murray Darling Basin are the result of low runoff as a consequence of changed land management practices (including more plantations in the top of catchments), catchment-wide drainage management plans (place in the 1980s and 1990s to lower water tables) and more efficient water use (resulting in less leakage).
He explained that it was wrong to blame climate change for the low levels in the dams, because there had been no long term decline in rainfall in the Basin.
Dr Jensen also explained that many of the climate models used to predict regional rainfall, including the CSIRO models (relied upon by Ross Garnaut in his report on climate change to the Australian government), are unreliable and unduly pessimistic.
When Dr Jensen asked to table supporting information in the Parliament by way of charts and tables, the request was denied.
Much of the information that Dr Jensen was banned from tabling can be found in a recent publication from the IPA entitled ‘What’s Happening to the Murray River?’.
**************
The picture of Dr Jensen is from his parliamentary website.
Advertisement
75 Responses to “Australian Parliamentarian, and Sceptic, Banned Prevented from Tabling Climate Data”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All
Dr Jensen has previously expressed doubt on AGW as is recorded on ABC’s PM on 13/8/07.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2003991.htm
‘The opening words of the report read: “there is now compelling evidence that human activity is changing the global climate”. But four Coalition MPs, a majority of Government committee members, beg to differ.
Dr Dennis Jensen, Danna Vale, Jackie Kelly and Dave Tollner have penned a dissenting report. They maintain climate change is a natural phenomenon that’s always been with us and always will be.
DENNIS JENSEN: There is considerably uncertainty expressed in the technical reports as opposed to their summary for policy makers.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you think there’s any need to reduce greenhouse emissions significantly?
DENNIS JENSEN: My personal view right at the moment, having a look at the science is, no.’
Peter Garrett quite naturally poured scorn on the only scientist in the house. Go back to burning beds, Pete
Banning? AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was weak at best, and now the evidence contradicts it. The current situation is like a return to medieval times, when political authority held sway over empirical evidence. What has happened to our “progressive” Labor Party?
When all you have left is lies …
The good news, if the the current solar trend continues, it will soon be cold enough that even the dumbest amongst us will know Al Gore is a kook.
Jennifer, can I recommend that the IPA FACTS sheet would be strengthened considerably if it included more specific references. For example: “source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Trend line is linear regression.” is a bit general - if it is a specific Bureau publication, then reference to that publication would be advantageous. If it is derived from Bureau data, then a reference of “Derived from historical data (name of data set)” would help clarify where the data originated.
This is a weakness across the IPA’s FACTS series and not limited to the Murray-Darling paper alone. Some papers do however at least refer to the data series as well as the agency that produced the data.
Also, the paper includes a graph with trendline of rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin from 1900-2007. I would be interested seeing a trendline from 1970-2007 as that seems to be the period under general discussion.
I do hope that this is picked up by someone in the mainstream press.
That the Australian parliament, in 2008, should block the tabling of scientific graphs and data relevant to an important public issue is beyond any normal mortal’s comprehension.
Indeed, in a very real sense such an action is contempt of parliament, not to mention contempt for the qualified MP involved and for the Australian people that he and other MPs are supposed to represesnt.
Welcome not just to pre-Enlightenment times, but to a new RRR Dark Ages (Rudd Recidivism Rules).
Cathy
This report ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs14.pdf ) provides observational facts about rainfall over SE Australia in recent years, which clearly account for the water crisis in the MDB. Regarding climate change, it depends on the frame of reference. In terms of the last century the recent succession of dry years is pretty well unheard of in the MDB. In that context the climate has changed. Whether this is a temporary shift, or a permanent shift we don’t know. Over the longer term (centuries to millenia) we can’t assert anything about climate change in the MDB because we have no reliable observational record. Notwithstanding, attributing the dry conditions to increasing concentrations of CO2 is unproven.
“The good news, if the the current solar trend continues, it will soon be cold enough that even the dumbest amongst us will know Al Gore is a kook.”
Non sequitor.
If the earth cools because the sun has reduced it’s radiation, has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
“AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was weak at best, and now the evidence contradicts it.”
The physical basis is soundly based and well understood. CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation. This slowing down of the transmission of radiation from the earth to space effectively warms the warms the earth. Pat Michaels agrees that this is a fact. His only disagreement is the only argument worth having, to what extent will a rise in CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to warm.
Usual accuracy for a post here. Jenson isn’t the only parliamentarian with any scientific training - as you’d well know.
Your brother, Jim Turnour, is an agricultural scientist, is he not? Perhaps you should mention to him next time you catch up that in acquiring his degree in agricultural science, he didn’t actually receive any science training.
Nexus, mate, usual accuracy for you too. You missed the point. Good on ya! But you’re right it was poor form to not mention every bloody parliamentarian who’s been to scientist class. At least those whose passed. Anyway, back to the plot…
One wonders where all the civil libertarians, so numerous only a few years ago, have gone? I kind of miss that mob these days.
Where are the howls over the suppression of the right to free expression? The lamenting that the Government is eroding our Aussie egalitarian values? The wailing that the majority is crushing the tradition of the fair go, intolerant of dissent and creating a culture of mean spirited small mindedness? Where are the forecasts that at this rate we will soon be a one party police state! Oh, the pathos!