Parliamentary legislatures around the world, diverse though they are, generally all share a committee system of review. The review process usually consists of either ad hoc or standing committees that are convened to discuss particular issues or draft pieces of legislation.
Thus in the United States, until recently, members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works under the chairmanship of Senator Inhofe – ignoring political blandishments and distorted science alike – have trail-blazed a path of sensible and moderate commentary on the vexed issue of dangerous human-caused climate change.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, in 2005 the powerful Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords conducted an investigation into the economics of climate change, concluding that “the scientific context (of climate change) is one of uncertainty” and that IPCC procedure “strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process
Now a third parliament has chimed in, this time in the Australian lower house. There, a committee under the leadership of government MP Petro Georgiou was asked to advise the Howard government regarding the feasibility and costs of sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In a politically bizarre development, Mr Georgiou – whose view is that “there is now compelling evidence that human activity is changing the global climate”, and who insisted on making clear reference to this view in his sequestration report – needed the support of the Labor party opposition members of the committee in order to produce a majority report. And four of Mr Georgiou’s government colleagues, led by Dr Dennis Jensen, issued a separate minority report which provides a restrained, rational and sensible discussion of the climate change issue.
Dr Dennis Jensen is that rare animal, a politician who is both a PhD-trained scientist and an experienced researcher. Dr Jensen, who represents a West Australian seat in the Canberra Senate, has worked for two of Australia’s premier research organizations, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation (CSIRO) and the Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO).
His minority report points out that the widely promulgated and alarmist British Stern Report has been “thoroughly debunked”, and that “most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance – by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of lack of scientific training and lack of an ability to differentiate between sound science and computer-based scare mongering”.
With delicious irony, such a diagnosis encapsulates exactly the astonishing and fierce reaction that release of the minority report provoked from the majority members of the committee, other politicians and the press. Chairman Georgiou averred that Jensen was wrong because 43 out of the 46 submissions that the committee had received said so, apparently being unaware that matters of science are not decided by unrepresentative and unqualified consensus. Deputy Chairman Harry Quick badged Jensen’s report as “philosophical waffle”. Labor’s environment spokesman, former rock musician Peter Garrett, wondered out loud in parliament “What planet are these government MPs on?”, and Greens senator Christine Milne called Dr Jensen “a dinosaur”. Finally, The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper referred to the group of four dissentient MPs as the “Flat Earth Four”, and their reporter described one of them, Danna Vale, as simply “daffy”.
What’s remarkable about that, I hear you thinking? Politics is politics. Well, yes it is, and so is science. Dennis Jensen’s minority report contains a careful and accurate assessment of the science relevant to the global warming issue, and advances logical argument and facts in support of the view that human-caused warming is not proven, nor likely, to be dangerous. Yet not one other Australian politician, scientist or media reporter is prepared to discuss any of the science issues, let alone to try to show where Dr Jensen might have erred. Instead, en masse, the commentariat have scorned and abused him for daring to challenge the mighty shibboleth of human-caused global warming.
Of course, Prime Minister Howard – whose government is well behind in the opinion polls and who faces an election in the next few months – is in a politically exposed position regarding climate policy. Recent informal polls suggest that as many as 75% of Australian voters remain unconvinced of the danger of human-caused warming. Nonetheless, with strong bias the media continue to promulgate the shrill climate alarmism of extreme groups like the IPCC, NGOs such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Australian Conservation Foundation, and the Labor and Green political parties, and this has forced the Liberal government to make an in principle commitment to the future introduction of a carbon trading system.
It surprised no-one, therefore, that Mr Howard’s comment on the Jensen minority report was “No, I don’t agree with their views”. Pragmatism, after all, is what wins most elections.
The reality is, however, that over the last few years, the legislatures of the U.S., U.K. and now Australia – all, incidentally, nations with strong scientific credentials – have given independent assessments of the in-vogue claims of climate change disaster, and each has found them wanting.
The Jensen group’s third review, launched in Australia this week, closely follows several other sensational revelations that undermine even further the already very weak case for dangerous human-caused global warming.
First, that bastion of warming alarmism the British Hadley Centre has finally faced reality by publishing a computer model which acknowledges that warming has not occurred since 1998 (and conveniently threatens “but just you wait until 2014”!). Having ignored natural climate variability for 15 years, the modelers now take it into account and discover – guess what – that climate varies.
Second, earlier British research which suggested that the late 20th century warming of the ground temperature record was not due to urban heat island effects was found to be unrepeatable, and therefore must be discarded. This calls into question the accuracy and usefulness of all thermometer-based surface temperature data.
Third, NASA acknowledged that since 2000 its much-reproduced US temperature record has been inaccurate because of a computer programming error. After appropriate corrections, it turns out that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year of the century in the US, and that only four of the hottest ten years on record occurred around the turn of the 21st century.
Finally, and fourth, an in-progess audit of the quality of the Global Climate Network of weather stations maintained by NOAA is showing that many stations are sited in unsatisfactory locations. This revelation shows, once again, that the ground-based thermometer stations provide unreliable data. Perhaps even more serious, it shows that major government and international climate agencies have been, at best, asleep on the job
The wise men and women of our three houses of parliament may mostly be professional politicians, but nonetheless they have discerned correctly the non-alarmist nature of contemporary climate change. The world has many more pressing problems to deal with than quixotically reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere in order to feel good. The global warming scare campaign needs to be recognized as such, badged as such, and then disregarded as such – and in short order.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Bob
you never did answer that question about what level of risk would make you not take a plane flight on the ABC.
“Dennis Jensen’s minority report contains a careful and accurate assessment of the science relevant to the global warming issue”
“careful and accurate assessment”
“careful and accurate”
You really do have to wonder.
Any junior level student could slice and dice that report. Bob/pollies if you are going to have a go at least ring Biggsy up first and get a hand.
But you still have to admire the subtle tricks “much-reproduced US temperature record ” hmmm .. .. I thought it was the “much-reproduced GLOBAL temperature record “.
Next.
Luke – you thought wrong. The reference to US temperature records is quite correct. (Why are you unaware that the US record was recently modified when errors were found int it?) The serious implication is whether the global temperatures, based on thousands of thermometers around the world which are read and kept to undoubtedly some variations in quality, might like likewise be inaccurate.
“Any junior level student could slice and dice that report.” Really, so why didn’t you, Luke?
John, Luke is merely pretending to be unaware of the changes. It is a classic case of Nelson’s eyeglass.
Ian Mott – “Really, so why didn’t you, Luke?”
Because how many times can you slice and dice something. Which is exactly why Coby’s guide on how to talk to a skeptic should be numbered. If it was then you could respond to Carters rubbish with “Ahh Number 7, Number 5 and Number 17” for instance. It would save a lot of typing.
Ian – nice try – but I left it as an intelligence test for you to spot the porkies. See how many you can get as an exercise. Surely you can see a few even with your meagre accountant’s intelligence.
As I said Bob needs to get Biggsy to give him a hand to get rid of the rampant nonsense. And it is utter utter crap – what a scummy piece of drivel the pollies “report” is really. Even you could do a much better job than he’s done. OK the pollies wrote it themselves did they. Vincent Grey quoting his own “papers” as definitive. ROTFL.
Maybe it’s worth transferring to the dark side on contract to help out for a while.
Next ! zzzzzzz
No John – it’s the GLOBAL data set that is popular unless you’re a yank. The icon is the GLOBAL set. Couldn’t disagree more.
Any report that relies on the warming on some planets deserves a “F” right from the start. Cherry picking at it’s finest. Did they bother to even look at if this applies to the whole solar system? Where there recognised local reasons for the warming?
To correct Mr Carter, Dr Jensen sits in the House of Reps for the electorate of Tangney, not in the Senate.
The left and the GWA alarmists are struggling with the minority port, it does clearly set out in concise language that reasons GWA used BS.
Since the report went public this week, I have not read one response from the GWA/left that deals with or even diminishes slightly the facts presented in a minority report. The ultimate GWA/left reply was from John Quiggen in the fin review, he tried the same tactic as Ender, but again failed to carry out the simple task he was referring to (that is, to slice and dice the report)
Dream on GWA alarmists your world is unravelling
And theres warming on Triton? You may as well claim you can win on the pokies because a bell just rang on the machine over there? What the hell is up with these people? Now they are including moons and planets in the solar system. How may bodies is that, about 130? Now they are claiming that because four are warming up besides earth, something is up? Even though the sun is staying constant at this point in time. Maybe they should be asking why the earth is warming, when so many aren’t warming up?
Well JA you must be the world’s greatest dope right wing boof-head if you believe that bilge.
OK – three minutes is all its worth:
Vincent Grey – troposphere story – WRONG
Also he’s not a meteorologist and anyone can be an IPCC reviewer. His edits are almost universally ignored as being rampant opinion and that of a crank.
Reiter is disaffected after severe disagreements with his colleagues on issues of disease spread. His views are not universally held.
The other “scientists” opinions are long winded sermons about nothing.
Warming on other planets – what a try-on – RC has dealt with this.
(And hey aren’t the contrarians saying it’s now cooling on Earth – can’t have it both ways – ROTFL)
1.18 – demonstrably wrong – RC for good answer
-IPCC 0.6 C paragraph – demonstrates an amazingly stupid simplistic analysis of the climate system in that temperature increases do not need to be monotonic. Latest Hadley research demonstrates quite well that internal variability (IPO, AMO, El Nino etc) has temporarily checked temperature patterns in the past. Latest 1934 storm in tea cup has not fundamentally changed any trend information at all.
Antarctica cooling significantly – NO
Mass increasing – highly debatable – maybe decreasing
There are good reasons why Antarctica isn’t showing any great movement YET
Highest level of mid-tropospheric warming is above Antarctica
42 glaciers – WRONG
Snow cover & ice cover reducing – WRONG – an attempt to blur into Greenland issue
A few glaciers are melting for non-AGW reasons which is well acknowledged – rampant try-on
Sea level rises WRONG – are increasing above the rate predicted by modelling
Rainfall patterns – WRONG. Yes it is new and of great consequence that droughts have increased.
The overall Australian rainfall pattern has changed dramatically – showing the average of a wetter NW and a drier eastern Australia is a disgusting try-on. SHAME. Jensen has a PhD in bulldust by the sounds of it.
Trenberth – selective disgraceful interpretation of what he said – of course there are no predictions – correct. They’re not weather forecasts.
Ask Trenberth whether he is still most concerned about AGW and its consequences – he is.
Why go on – the document is an utter utter disgrace. If it were a company prospectus I think we’d be charging its authors for fraud.
It’s actually outrageous that our politicians can get away with this tripe.
My oh my, aren’t all of those suffering from AGW brain fever taking the heat. World unravelling around you folks – eh?
Oh, BTW, the USHCN is the recognized data set with the highest quality so when it is falling apart, the GHCN won’t be very far behind.
Better find a new crisis you Leftist fools.
Well alas Sammy Seal – it isn’t. The Australian data set is better. Toodle off now.
Jennifer/Bob – what, Sen. Inhofe has “trail-blazed a path of sensible and moderate commentary” on climate change?! There’s not a moderate hair on Inhofe’s head, or that of his staffer Marc Morano; both have clearly allowed ideology and oil interests to affect their sense of reality.
Republicans in Congress are not paying attention to them any more, and even Exxon (which has scientists on IPCC panels) has moved on to support carbon pricing.