CANBERRA, Australia: Four Australian governing party lawmakers rejected on Monday the idea that humans are causing global warming, the conclusion reached by their colleagues on a parliamentary committee.
Read more here:
Coalition MPs dispute climate finding
Garrett questions PM’s climate change stance
Australian governing party lawmakers doubt human contribution to global warming
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yes, but John Howard doesn’t agree with them.
WOW, four of them, one for each corner of their little world. Shame, Paul, why do you bother? I still do because you are responsible for slowing sensible global risk management.
Look if NASA can’t measure the temperature of the USA why would you trust them to measure other planets? Unless McIntyre has personally checked the data from other worlds it’s sus. Being near a star they may be suffering a heat island effect?
IMO Denis Jensen is the most interesting one in the quadrangle
See this comment in 2006 at the height of our alternative power debate
http://www.naturebase.net/content/view/2329/770/
Paul: Given the Jensen agenda, this lot would be wasting our time hey
http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/ecarbon/enews_Jun05.cfm?CFID=2629299&CFTOKEN=69019445
By contrast we have the Roaring 40s
http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/07/29/1991088.htm
Posted because it’s an Australian story – a story that Garrett seems to be enjoying!
Self inficted energy insecurity is the real risk. Don’t make the mistake former UK PM did:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/13/renewableenergy.energy
Well I dont know, ex CSIRO Jensen quotes IPCC Vice President Yuri Israel “I believe that the link between man’s activities and rising temperatures has not been proved completely. Natural factors and the impact of man seem to be interlinked.”
Jensen did gain a PhD in nuclear physics which could explain his interest in that area.
…”statistical interpretations of the target”…
no probs, right up their alley!
Peter Jensen’s statement – “The science related to anthropogenic global warming is not, despite the assurances of some, settled in the scientific community,” they wrote. is entirely correct.
Despite an expenditure of about 50 billion dollars on climate change research, the hypothesis that greenhouse gases emitted by humans is causing climate change has not been proven, nor has it even progressed to the next scientific stage of development into a stated theory, nor has it even passed the very earliest stages of scientific repeatability.
To claim consensus, that is, everyone agrees, is a claim about opinions. But it is not supported by fact.
Arguing whether the warmest year was 1998, or 1934, does nothing to verify the hypothesis, because there is a very simple statement that “coincidence does not prove correlation”. That is, even if it can be shown that temperature is increasing at the same time as CO2, does not prove that CO2 causes warming. The IPCC states very clearly that it’s definition of climate change consists of a natural component and an anthropogenic component. But it has not stated how much of predicted temperature change is due to each of the components.
There is so much information being published which does not fit the AGW hypothesis, and indeed contradicts it, that there is genuine uncertainty as to what the natural effects really are. Ice cores from the arctic showing temperature changes of 6 degrees in ten years, cyclic effects of deep ocean currents off Greenland, the mass balance of the antarctic being positive, not negative, the mass balance for Greenland being neutral, or slightly positive. On and on.
And detailed investigation showing serious deficiencies and duplications in the data used by Mann et al to generate the hockey stick graph, and subsequent congress investigation which showed serious flaws in the statistical methods used to generate the hockey stick graph.
Now significant problems demonstrated with UHI effects in the US temperature data set. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has withdrawn all photos of its weather stations so that they cannot be investigated.
Research agencies denying access to their data sets and algorithms to people who want to test repeatability.
It is like a tsunami getting bigger, washing away claims based on science that AGW even exists.
Neptune’s an interesting one – from a different Lockwood:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764, 19 April 2007
Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature
H. B. Hammel
Space Science Institute, Boulder, Colorado, USA
G. W. Lockwood
Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Abstract
Long-term photometric measurements of Neptune show variations of brightness over half a century. Seasonal change in Neptune’s atmosphere may partially explain a general rise in the long-term light curve, but cannot explain its detailed variations. This leads us to consider the possibility of solar-driven changes, i.e., changes incurred by innate solar variability perhaps coupled with changing seasonal insolation. Although correlations between Neptune’s brightness and Earth’s temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment.
I listened via the web to some of the Senate rumblings about the tabling of this dissenting report. What was the substance of Petro Georgio’s? That it contradicted the opinions of other scientists and that it didn’t provide precise numbers when it disputed the IPCC – not that Georgio provided any proof of the IPCC figures.
I think someone said years ago, a country gets the politicians it deserves.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22237112-661,00.html
“HOPES of drought-busting rain have dropped as chances of a La Nina weather year wane. The news comes as more farmers sign up for cash relief.
Climate experts recently downgraded predictions of a La Nina, which is linked to wetter than normal conditions in eastern Australia.
The revised forecast is likely to drag out the recovery of farmers enduring a decade of punishing drought.
The blow comes as the Federal Government revealed almost 9000 Victorian farming families ravaged by drought are relying on emergency aid to stay on their feet.
The number has more than tripled since October last year.
Almost 500 small businesses dependent on farms are also getting money or interest rate subsidies to survive.
The Government has just expanded the scheme to the entire state for the first time.
Victorian farmers have received $410 million in federal assistance in the past seven years.
“This drought, the worst on record, has taken a severe toll on farmers, their families and rural communities,” Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran said.”
La Nina seem to be fading already, maybe that has something to do with Johnny’s position. The drought is still hanging on.
What a load of utter utter piffle Pirate Pete.
You may find that AGW science is built on a tad more than correlation. Try reading for a change instead of pulling opinions out of your bum.
“The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has withdrawn all photos of its weather stations so that they cannot be investigated.” What like this one and many others. WTF ?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/map/stations/063005.shtml – come on let’s not be silly.
You can get access to any amount of data from the Bureau. You want raw – you want processed – what exactly? It’s all there.
The very well run Australian reference set gives a very familiar profile of climate change over the last century.
Look familiar http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi
So how about not talking utter crap Pirate Petey or you’ll have to walk the plank !!
I’ve been scooped at this now group-blog by Paul! 🙂
I was going to post on this very topic but have been busy all day. Anyway here is the link to the actual report: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report.htm
And the dissenting report:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report/dissent.pdf
And bravo to Dr Dennis Jensen MP, Hon Jackie Kelly MP, Hon Danna Vale MP and Mr David Tollner MP
for their alternative perspective/dissenting report tabled on Monday 13 August 2007, when the House Standing Committee on Science and Innovation tabled its report on the inquiry into Geosequestration Technology entitled ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place’.
Bravo? Jeez Jen. This will be a classic document to put next to the Steiger Vortex gun story. They’ve got the Aussie time series graph of rainfall. Giggle. Tremble. trying to hold back.
Jen will these dudes be attending the AEF meeting to cheer Bob on? I’m sorry but at some point it gets really funny. I think this is it.
Come on Jen – you should be able to list the responses we’d make to all these “dissenting” points by now.
ROTFL to the MAX. Heheheheheheheheee giggle. I think I’ve wet myself. Be right back. Pit stop needed.
SJT and Ender – let’s lobby Johnnie to adopt the dissenting report .. I want to believe .. .. heheheheheheeeee I can’t see.
Luke,
What is wrong with the “Aussie time series graph of rainfall”?
I know most people have this idea that it would show long term decline. But it doesn’t.
Jeez I didn’t think of that. Drat.
The UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs has made criticisms of the structure, workings, pronouncements, and reports of the IPCC:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
The Bureau of Meteorology site is excellent.
The “Climate of the 20th Century” section provides a particularly useful reality check whenever AGW enthusiasts gleefully pounce on some recent event as further ‘proof’ of ‘climate change’ (aka anthropogenic global warming).
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/index20.htm
Jennifer – “And bravo to Dr Dennis Jensen MP, Hon Jackie Kelly MP, Hon Danna Vale MP and Mr David Tollner MP”
Completely agree Jennifer. As a member of the Labor Party, one that takes climate change seriously, this should be the final nail in the Howard Government’s coffin.
Roll on the election.
Ender: Between the lines; a piece in my paper on p5 from an environment writer with her nose close to the grindstone tells us the PM deliberately let Jensen & co handle the can. Their leader (Jensen) according to Greens Christine Milne owes John Howard his political life.
gavin – “Their leader (Jensen) according to Greens Christine Milne owes John Howard his political life.”
Don’t think that it will work. For most people Howard is too firmly entrenched as a hidebound 1950s man with 1950s ideas. Not that Rudd is really much better however you have to vote for one of the lizards.
(read Hitchhikers guide for lizard reference – once read all political processes suddenly make sense)
Ender: My simple philosophy after years of trying to make sense of our process is all pollies become clowns in the end. I’m never disappointed at election time.
Don’t expect too much hey. At times though we are better off watching a flock of sulphur crested cockies sort the pickings round about.
When in that house MPs divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum too,
They’ve got to leave their brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell’em to.
But then the prospect of a lot,
Of dull MPs in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves is what,
No man can face with equanimity.
I sometimes think it’s wonderful,
Fa lal lala, fa lal lala…
(Apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan)
Jennifer
the uninhabited West is getting more rain, the inhabited East is not. It’s like saying it doesn’t matter if there is a drought in Italy, because Poland is getting more rain. Or, if my feet are in the freezer and my head is in the oven, on average I’m feeling quite comfortable.
Politics is the art of the possible (at least in a democracy).
Fanatics at both ends of the spectrum are constantly disappointed when their zealotry is ignored.
Slinging off at pollies doesn’t get you anywhere.
They deal with rude people all the time and are are capable to ignoring zealots with ease.
Ender seeks strange parallels to the real world.
You should try out that hypothesis SJT and report back your findings.
Truly!
SJT highlights the flawed metric of a ‘global average.’
A little anecdote on “freethinking” Jackie Kelly. A few years ago a scientist I know met her. It was part of an exercise for politicians to “meet a scientist”. Did JK meet this scientist in any meaningful way? JK gave her a (no doubt well-meaning) rant on how scientists don’t communicate their message well! My wife’s summary: “Well that was a waste of time.”
At least there are 4 sensible Auusies in Australia who have not been overcome by the Global Warming Religion.
But Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius had advice for those – like the jeerers above – who prefer the ignorance of the many to the facts of the few: “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
OldOzzie
Global Warming Sceptic
Chrisgo curiously thinks there is a reality check for the global warmers in the Bureau of Meteorology “Climate of the 20th Century”. Interestingly for a climate study it is mainly about extremes. ( climate is about what you expect, and climate change about what you didnt.) Interestingly too, if there were no trends in climate we would be seeing fewer records set each year. But the BoM report in one of its rare time series did say in relation to the decline in frost frequency and in the peculiar conservative language that government scientists were proferring just a few short innocent years ago ‘But similar upward trends in minimum temperature are also evident in many other parts of the world – giving rise to the suspicion among some that the “enhanced Greenhouse effect” is responsible.’
It’s fascinating that in a nation with a rainfall trend like page 34 of http://epress.anu.edu.au/nature_na/pdf/whole_book.pdf Jen, Jackie Kelly and Older Aussies aren’t more curious at least. But it’s the lucky country and if you feel lucky.. .. well .. ..
“SJT highlights the flawed metric of a ‘global average.'”
Not at all. The earth can be considered as one system in terms of it’s temperature. While you won’t get fresh water magically transporting itself from one side of the country to the other, the global temperature is part of a connected system. When extra heat is trapped, it will raise the temperature of the whole planet, even if the response will not be equal across the whole planet.
Somewhat off thread but given the famous (infamous?) 1934 tea-cup storm thread is about to sink below the blog low water mark it might be interesting to review some of the big differences in philosophy at comment 225 with Steve McIntyre and Gavin Schmidt at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/langswitch_lang/sk
The whole RC thread has some great comments both ways.
Might encourage some of us to attempt an intelligent conversation. Too much to hope for?
Luke : For once Gavin (sigh) is engaging Steve McIntyre in debate and the blog is better for it.
The temperature record is a can of worms and Gavin knows it. He says he is embarrassed by the mistake, and I suspect he knows there are more. That is why they do “adjustments”. Steve McIntyre is simply asking to see how the adjustments are done. And Gavin says “Find out for yourself” Interesting.
Given that according to the most vocal AGW faithful like Ender and Luke the “AGW science” is so iron-clad, this one should be an easy little earner for one or more of the distinguished “climate scientists”:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/index.htm
Not that I’d be holding my breath…
I would only hope that at least some of the people responsible for the whole AGW con are going to end up in jail one day. The amount of money and energy wasted on this scam makes the likes of Enron look like pocket change.
Well John Bayley you’re a total clown by the sound of it. We so need a laugh. So humans and natural systems are already severely impacted periodically by droughts, storms, extremes of temperature etc. We know very well the physics of how greenhouse gases work in warming the Earth. One can reasonably surmise from everything we know that more energy will end up in the system from increased greenhouse gases. The sum total of the that knowledge ends up in the science literature and in mega-reviews like the 4AR.
At this point it’s a risk management decision about the future. Intelligent business has already made its determination on the issue.
So as to the $100,000 ruse it’s clearly a con and bit of rehorical bulldust – as the criteria are such that nothing will satisfy. Their conditions: “JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.”
They can piss off. What a bunch of con merchants. Nobody is going to sign up for crap like that. They’ll decide on “anything” suitable. But I can see that’s the Enron style of business that impresses you.
On the other hand if you’re so sure of your own position – take your tiresome tirade over to http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html and put up a wager. Only the ruskies have thus far.
Well chrisl – as I said – “too much to hope for”.