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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
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!
I understand Jim Turnour is an ALP member. Would he be permitted to vote in Parliament differently from the party line (ALP consensus / majority vote). I doubt it
Dr Jensen as a Lib member, has greater freedom to state his concerns and vote accordingly. His record shows that he has been a research scientist (CSIRO 95-99) as well as other analyst employment. He is the most highly qualified scientist in Parliament, would have the training and experience to carefully analyse data, including CSIRO data.
OK. Apology in order. Nexus is correct. My brother is now a member of parliament and he did a lot of science to get that Bachelor of Agricultural Science degree. I’ve corrected the original post.
I think we need a bit more information here. Just what were the reasons Dr Jensen’s attempts to tabulate material were turned down, presumably by the speaker or deputy speaker? Was it procedural? If so why didn’t Dr Jensen know that? A reasonable assumption could be that he has been in Parliament long enough to know what the procedures for tabling supplementary information are. We need more information before deniers or AGW supporters start jumping up and down in their respective corners and yelling “yah, boo, sucks!” at each other.
Robert; your link is interesting but appears to contradict other data sources from BoM;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=dtr®ion=mdb&season=0112
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rranom®ion=mdb&season=0112
These 2 graphs show Rainfall and Temperature anomalies for the MDB from 1900-current; I can’t see anything exceptional.
Oh Will; “The physical basis is soundly based and well understood. CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation. This slowing down of the trasmission of radiation from the Earth to space effectively warms the Earth.”
I can only assume you are starved for attention; looking at Miskolczi’s eqn 4;
AA=SUA=SU(1-TA)=ED This reduces to ED=SU[1-TA], which means that regional variations between the LDR, ED, and the upwelling LW, SU, can still occur but overall that there is an atmospheric LTE as stated at assumption (c), and most importantly, “at the top of the atmosphere the net IR radiative flux is equal to the global average outgoing long wave radiation.” (Miskolczi p12); this is in accord with Pielke’s observations about regional Stefan-Boltzman and the spatial distribution of SU; if this were not the case and the AGW model were correct there would be a huge, 25W/m2 discrepancy between ED and SU; the spectral anaysis performed by Miskolczi using HARTCODE and the Cabauw measurements confirm this is not the case; also, if CO2 did as supposed by the AGW model there would be a THS, which there isn’t, and Stratospheric cooling, which there isn’t, outside of volcanic activity.
Is that enough attention Will?
Jeremy,
A motion to table information is put to a vote of the Chamber. The nays had it. Acceptance for tabling in Parliament gives public importance to documents. Otherwise, it is just something emanating from an MP’s office. Most ALP menbers would be unlikely to break ranks and vote for it, and the greens certainly would not. The motion to table got rolled by the majority vote.
“rolled by the majority vote.” Must have been that Oreskes consensus; this will be the legacy of AGW; the integrity of science undermined by political expediency and ideological cultism.
Naturally Dr Jensen, who’s PhD is in materials engineering (Ceramics, more specifically the duplex toughening of zirconia-based ternary alloys) would, as a scientist, admit that his knowledge of Climate Change is relatively recent, unrelated to the scientific discipline in which he focussed and comes in part through his relationship with the Lavoisier Group, an organisation of climate sceptics funded (until recently) by Exxon Mobil as part of their climate change denial campaign.
Well done Grendel; as asinine, condescending and irrelevant bit of ad hom as I’ve had the misfortune to read for some time.
Cohenite:
I admire your tenacity, but suspect it is misplaced.
SJT, Grendel et al have never changed tactics in the face of hard empirical evidence. Grendel doesn’t want such data made public.
Silly low-level sarcasm, ad hominens, straw men, cherry-picking time grabs … we noted this pattern from them over 12 months ago. Even the “climate change denier” epithet is still smeared throughout their posts.
For these people, science as a dialectic is the point. Contrary evidence and direct questions are not allowed. Intellectual honesty is simply a minor nuisance to them.
I’m now quite happy for Rudderless to be hoist on his own petard … “circumstances changed” is my best bet for his line of defence.
cohenite, as a regular practitioner of ad-hom yourself you should know that when credibility is an issue, as it is in this case, it is not ‘ad-hom’ to point out that a scientist acknowledges both strengths and weaknesses in their knowledge and always indicates source and discloses interests.
Since Dr Jensen attempted to table in Parliament information from a paper published in the IPA, authored by a member of of the AEF (which was started following the IPA’s Eureka Forum) and linked in with The Lavoisier Group one starts to see that Dr Jensen relies on that group to support his arguments against AGW rather than own any particular field of expertise from his scientific training.
If you are to claim here that as a ‘scientist’ his credentials mean something then show how that is so. His field is substantially removed from climate science and as a scientist I would not expect him to claim otherwise.
If you don’t agree, perhaps you might support a strategy to alleviate the doctor shortage by allowing medical researchers to conduct brain surgery on the basis of their ‘medical’ training.
On the contrary IanL in my first comment on this post I specifically asked that the additional information be made available – or at least the references of the sources from the IPA’s FACTS sheet.
And please find one comment of mine here where I refer to anyone as a “climate change denier”. In the case of Exxon Mobil I do however refer to that organisation as “climate deniers” since that is how their own shareholders referred to them, and as a large multinational corporation they have no feelings to be hurt, only an image to be tarnished, which incidentally they seem to manage quite well themselves at regular intervals.
Dr Jensen is such an attractive youthful politician? Is he married?
Oh look another negative reality inversion. WTF ! Jen’s IPA publication intro says “So far there has been no long-term decline in rainfall” – (apart from lowest on record rainfall in the Murray headwaters) I didn’t read on after that – what’s Jensen on about anyway …. zzzzzzz
Watch it luke; it’s a leap year and in some quarters your statement could be construed as a proposal.
Grendel; you miss the point; the gov’t did not look at Dr Jensen’s information; they banned it on principle; unless you are claiming they are prescient and knew beforehand that Jensen’s information was so ‘tainted’ it was useless to the debate (sic).
Dr Jensen (as far as I know) has made no attempts to conceal his association with the Lavoisier Group and I am sure the whole Parliament is aware of it, thus it took no prescience on anybody’s part to know, as you suggest, that the information “was so ‘tainted’ that it was useless to the debate”.
Erm….. I’ve just been ploughing through Hansard for December the 1st and Dr Jensen’s contribution on the Murray Darling discussion/debate is on pages 167 and 168 (it was his second contribution for the day the first was a quite passionate/excited, venting on industrial relations centring on how unions will steal your money, ravish your wife and sell your children). In regard to documents he wanted to table Hansard records this as ‘Leave not granted’. Cohenite said this sort of thing was voted on but Hansard saying, ‘Leave not granted’ isn’t recording it that way. So was he ‘banned’……. weeeellllll, hmm. I need more convincing that he didn’t make a procedural mistake. Perhaps the material he was trying to table was not pertinent to the Murray darling debate or had material that wasn’t. I have tried to find info about under what rules material is tabled e.g. what that material has to relate to. Seeing I’m sitting here typing in London perhaps someone can ring up the Parliamentary library in Canberra for me and ask the question. They should know and can settle for us whether Dr Jensen has been a courageous victim of the global AGW conspiracy or if he just stuffed up.
“When Dr Jensen asked to table supporting information in the Parliament by way of charts and tables, the request was denied.”
That’s what creeping facism looks like.
Sorry, I should’ve referenced Helen not Cohenite in my previous posts. My mistake.
from a Reader:
I haven’t done the Senate, but I think this is a comprehensive list of those in the House of Representatives with science training (apart from Jensen and your brother). Jensen might be the only one with a PhD. I think you need to make some further disclosures.
John Forrest MSc
David Hawker BE
Harry Jenkins BSc
Andrew Laming MBBS (Qld), DRCOG (London), MPubPol (NTU), MPA (Harvard), FRANZC
Richard Marles BSc, LLB(Hons) (Melb).
Scott Morrison BSc(Hons)(NSW).
Brendan Nelson BM BS (Flinders), MRACGP, FRACP (Hon), FAMA.
Andrew Southcott MBBS (Adel), BEc (Flinders), MBA (Adel).
Mal Washer MBBS (UWA)
And if he felt so strongly about tabling the documents why didn’t he move a motion? It only takes one person to object to a tabling by leave for it not
Well Jeremy C, it must be all that warm weather you’re having in merry England; I did not say “this sort of thing was voted on”; I was actually quoting from Helen’s comment above mine; as I understand it; Jensen sought leave to table his information; the speaker asked whether leave was granted; the whip for the government told him that it wasn’t and that the government’s numbers held sway; occasionaly, in such circumstances, the opposition will still call for a division to gain some moral ascendency; here they did not; Jensen does not have complete support from within the liberal party; his leader, Trunbull abd Greg Hunt, the shadow minister for bloody stupid AGW, are disciples, Hunt because he is genuine, Turnbull because his electorate is full of Eastern suburb urbanites whose defining characteristics are ego and cognitive dissonance and who would turf him out if he interfered with any opportunity for them to assert their moral superiority. What would be interesting is a conscience vote on this issue because I’m sure a number of labor members are sceptics as well; but that ain’t gonna happen because Rudd and Wong and that eminently qualified member, Garret, have too much esteem invested.
And I’ve put a strike through the word ‘banned’ and added the word ‘prevented’.
First, I must correct my former statement about the procedure of tabling in Parliament. I was wrong on details, but not on effect. My apologies.
The Govt has the right to disallow documents be tabled. Dr Jensen was speaking in the main committee room, which is also used as there is not enough time to deal with all issues in the House.
The Labour member on quorum duty, Annette Ellis, disallowed the tabling of Dr Jensen’s information. It was not put to a vote.
“Jensen does not have complete support from within the liberal party; his leader, Trunbull abd Greg Hunt, the shadow minister for bloody stupid AGW, are disciples,”
Disciples? The science makes a lot more sense than your incoherent ramblings and dependence on every incompetent who turns up denying the scientific case. There is a well understood physical basis for CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and even Pat Michaels agrees. The only argument is the extent of warming it will cause.
So how many people have been ‘prevented’ from tabling stuff in Parliament during 2008 and were they all victims of unswerving discipleship or did they just stuff up? Perhaps in Dr Jensen’s case the speaker prevented (or saved) him from making a fool of himself in front of the nation given his form on his previous contribution that day (you don’t believe me then download Hansard and have a look at pages 49 through 51). Or is this whole discussion just a script for Today Tonight or a Current Affair?
However I am genuinely interested if someone can get an actual rundown or authorative quote on tabling procedures for federal parliament.
I understand the information that Dr Jensen was prevented from tabling included rainfall charts from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. This is information that many Australian politicians (and Luke) can’t bring themselves to look at. They prefer to see the charts of runoff.
Helen. Thanks very much for that clarification. It came just after my last post and makes it perhaps irrelevant but it would be good to know just what are the rules for allowing and disallowing things to be tabled because as you can see the issue is giving us all quite fevered brows.
Jennifer, do you have evidence that politicians push rainfall charts away in order to gaze at run off charts.
Jeremy C.,
Yep. And many also prefer output from computer models to observational data.
Jennifer, were the charts from the bureau or compiled on the basis of bureau data?
Also, what time period did the charts cover?
Jeremy,
Annette Ellis, is, by repute, a very nice person. She had the power to disallow tabling of the charts etc supporting Dr Jensen’s speech. She may have acted a little hastily.
The usual fate of tabled documents, petitions and reports, is that they die on the table. They are frequently neither read nor acted upon. Disallowing tabling of Dr Jensen’s supporting documents probably gave his concerns a wider hearing than would have otherwisw been the case. Politics is a complex business. You never quite know how the rabbits will run.
Post it up then!
BTW what sort of computer models do you mean, the ones that fly plans, put landers down on Mars in one piece, shuffle packets on ATM circuits and fibre rings, image data out of CT scanners etc?
Helen, much appreciated
Give it up, JeremyC, your attempt at diverting the issue into a cul de sac is plain for all to see.
The facts remain that the parliament has opted to allow an improper exercise of power by way of refusal to consider relevant facts. That definition of improper exercise of power applies throughout the OECD nations and many others.
To do so by way of omission is negligence but to do so deliberately is both fraud and official misconduct. The Labour member on quorum duty, Annette Ellis, who disallowed the tabling of Dr Jensen’s information has acted in contempt of parliament and contempt of the right of ordinary Australians to be governed by proportionate responses to real and relevant risks.
Well, that figures. See. http://www.annette-ellis.alp.org.au/lhsmenu/biography.php
This piece of undemocratric swill was not only elected by Canberra public servants, she spent all her previous life as one too. This classic political eunuch has a bio that is completely devoid of any reference to personal, family or community links but would no doubt justify her offensive behaviour by some self proclaimed concern for “future generations” that her own DNA will play no part in. Beware the climate zombies.
Ian, shall we, as an exercise, review every single time over the last two years that “he parliament has opted to allow an improper exercise of power by way of refusal to consider relevant facts”
That would give equal time to both the Howard and Rudd governments.
To be quite frank, the hysteria here is not from those who accept AGW but from those who do not. You read far too much into the standard daily political plays, which are the same from Rudd as they were from Howard. Labor has the numbers and they use them, just as Howard did.
Talk about ad-homs, that last comment of yours was a doozy.
How about climate clones?
Jeremy, post what up? Are you seriously saying that AGW is not GCM driven and virtually a virtual science? Haven’t you heard of Koutsoyiannis, Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer, or Stockwell and their exposes of the modelling supporting AGW? Here is a comparison between a range of GCM predictions and reality;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Now, you give one example where the GCM’s have got it right in respect of some crucial aspect of AGW being validated by actual data.
The difference, Grendel, is that the relevant facts that have been ignored in this instance go to the very veracity of the whole MDB Gullible Wanking scam. And at this stage you have failed to provide a single example of past failings by earlier administration. Yet you have chosen to try and excuse this clear and proven example on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that it is some sort of “norm”.
You are nothing more than a sleazy apologist for policy by deception.
The posts from Jeremy and Grendel suggest that AGW supporters believe the suppression of data that does not lend support to the theory is a legitimate method in advancing their policy goals.
If history offers any guide….When the best way to advance a political agenda becomes the suppression of information rather than demanding that all the facts be widely distributed, it’s a good time to start hedging your position towards a quiet shift in paradigms.
Wes, that has to be the ultimate in ironic comments when posted to a blog that has as its raison d’entre the suppression of data that does not support its own theories.
What an ethical lilliputan you have revealed yourself to be, Grendel. You ascribe a raison d’etre to the blog but once again fail to provide a scrap of substantiation. But you are damned even more by your pathetic lack of basic logic.
How, exactly, can a blog that can only function through the addition of words and links in a sequence of files possibly take an action that would suppress the data of others?
It appears that your brain has certain similarities with those recorded in schizophrenics and serious THC abusers. You are capable of ascribing actions and intentions to what is essentially a passive medium. As if this blog is capable of entering other blogs and publishing media and altering the data.
I always suspected that much of the green religion and its climate cult could only ever be properly explained with blood tests and brain MRI scans. So be very, very careful, Grendel, this big blog brother is watching you.
Grendel is on an evangelical mission to save the planet from the evils of the free exchange of ideas, goods and services. Good on ya, mate! A worthy cause.
Facts which don’t confirm Grendel’s favorite socio-economic tropes are the product of a conspiracy. We know this, because Grendel tells us so.
After all, the coming climate apocalypse is so conducive to global economic prosperity; naturally big business will pull out all the stops to destroy our biosphere. Makes perfect sense. The rich can always find another planet to exploit once this one is a blackened cinder.
Like Luke, Grendel supports the RC Wiki pogrom to round up all the denialists and pin yellow stars on their research.
So let’s not pretend that Grendel is here to support the freedom of individual expression and dissent in the face of statist orthodoxy.
Quite the contrary, Grendel is defending the suppression of the presentation of valid data before our parliament during a policy debate. When you are saving planets, the end justifies the means.
And with his usual impeccable Orwellian logic, Grendel rightly concludes those calling for a transparent review of ALL the science are trying to suppress the suppression of the free exchange of information.
Grendel clearly has the moral high ground staked out on this one.
I’m sorry guys, I’m having trouble formulating a coherent response while I laugh so hard at the red faced ‘righteous indignation’ you are attempting to portray above. Unfortunately the irony metre has run off the scale tonight and won’t be repaired until morning.
Its like a Monty Python script – you guys have the most amazing free run in presenting your case but use the public space you inhabit to complain about how repressed you feel.
Pathetic.
Wes – You call for a transparent review of ALL the science. How far back do you want to take that review?
To the dawn of time.
Does Grendel think that any past attempts to suppress valid evidence (for example, by a Bush, Mao or Mugabe) is justification for the current government’s suppression of data during a policy debate? With such high standards Grendel certainly can establish precedent for the most enthusiastic means.
Regardless of Grendel’s Pythonesque logic, the free and open exchange of ideas and data remains a fundamental of prerequisite of functional policy formation in parliament.
“….you guys have the most amazing free run in presenting your case but use the public space you inhabit to complain about how repressed you feel.”
Does Grendel wish to deny us this simple liberty?
spam, spam, spam,,,,spam, spam, spam, spaaaam, spammmmm, spam, spa, spa, spa.spaaaaam…spsammmmm. spam, spam…
“Like Luke, Grendel supports the RC Wiki pogrom to round up all the denialists and pin yellow stars on their research.”
You have got it the wrong way around. They take bad science that is being publicised and criticise it according to who said it.
It’s about time CSIRO stopped pissing around and got the gloves off with denialists like Jensen really. They’re being too nice.
Fancy letting him get away with such a wanky rainfall analysis and plainfully spurious arguments. But they’re probably busy doing something serious.
Aussies are such a tolerant lot. We still think Motty is cute for an anachronism.
Come on Luke. We all know that the CSIRO people are too busy running around, trying to get money out of everyone to have any time left to do any science.
What a terrible end for a once great organisation.
Dr. Jensen is a well known hard right nutcase. Oh BTW Jen I think some joker has hacked you site and inserted a link to Andrew Bolt’s blog in the “Blogs I Read” list. No thinking person would publically admit to that.
cheers
Patrick.
And not unexpectedly he’s from WA. The state where we don’t want uranium mining but we voted for the only man who would allow it. Bunch of bloody morons over here.
Actually it’s quite weird, this is a link to his site: http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/ which has a recent photo of him. Obviously his concern over the AGW conspiracy is causing him great distress.
The usual unsubstantiated slurs from the “boy wonder”. Of course, in the Qld public service misleading the parliament and the people is now regarded as a core competency. Tell us about the “salinity hazard maps” again, Lukey, we could all do with a good laugh.
One of CSIRO’s main roles these days is to provide consulting “expert panels” that deliver all the key elements of misinformation to the policy process that even the most venal departmental officers are unwilling to put their name to. Of course it comes with the inevitable report with conclusions that have minimal relation to the data that has been presented and always, always, has half a page of indemnity clauses and disclaimers.
It is purely, “No care taken, no responsibility accepted, but do as we say or else”.
Just another day in the brave new green utopia.
“Are you seriously saying that AGW is not GCM driven ”
It is driven by the physical basis, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Without that, there is nothing.
And do tell us, SJT, which of the GCMs predicted that 2008 would have the same global mean temperature as 1979? Exactly half of the total increase in atmosheric CO2 has taken place since 1979 but where is all that warming? In a word, Gone.
And did this loss of warmth have anything to do with curbs on CO2 emissions? Not one jot.
So the cooling we have had over the past few years was entirely natural. The management of total CO2 had absolutely nothing to do with it. And the management of human CO2 emissions had even less to do with it because they both kept going up.
And now we have our little climate retardi mates trying to tell us that it was nature that lowered the temperature but it wasn’t nature that made the temps go up by the same extent only a decade earlier? Awesome logic there SJT, awesome logic.
And of course, when global temperatures drop we can also expect global sea level to drop. But don’t worry, you can always revert to longer and longer moving averages to keep the delusion alive.
“And do tell us, SJT, which of the GCMs predicted that 2008 would have the same global mean temperature as 1979? Exactly half of the total increase in atmosheric CO2 has taken place since 1979 but where is all that warming? In a word, Gone.”
The models don’t pretend to be able to make projections year by year. The warming hasn’t gone, the current dip is no different to the other dips in the record, which will be followed by a rise.
Breathtaking ignorance there, SJT. A drop in global mean temperature is a lot more than a mere “dip” on a graph. It clearly indicates an absence of warmth, and an end to any process of warming. It is, as John Cleese might have said, “an ex warming”.
You do accept the fact that a lower annual global mean temperature is proof that heat that was there before is no longer there now, don’t you? That is exactly what it means, isn’t it?
And if that heat has gone then it follows that any “warming” has also gone, does it not?
And if the heat went without any assistance or intervention by man then it must be an entirely natural correction of a past increase in total heat, mustn’t it?
And if nature can correct the totality of a past heat build up then it is equally likely that nature was responsible for that past build up of heat, isn’t it?
And if nature was responsible for a past heat build up and a corresponding correction of that build up then it follows that nature is more than likely to be responsible for the next heat build up as well, don’t you think?
Now run along now, thats a good fellow, and tell your mates that they have all been a little silly.
Watched the 7.30 report tonight. Deputy PM Julia Gillard answering the opposition and citing supporting references … “which I table …”which I table” …”which I table” … and on, and on. She acted as if she owned the bl–dy table!
The question of this whole post is why, when an opposition MP raises an issue, which is recorded in Hansard, he is then disallowed from tabling the supporting documents. Censorship comes to mind.
“Breathtaking ignorance there, SJT. A drop in global mean temperature is a lot more than a mere “dip” on a graph. It clearly indicates an absence of warmth, and an end to any process of warming. It is, as John Cleese might have said, “an ex warming”.”
Have you looked at the past temperature record? It zig zags all over the place, but the underlying trend is up.
Hey Mottsa – checked your salt levels lately since it started raining? I hear levels are rising.
And BTW how did punching out your fellow Aussies go down at Goolwa? Or did you give it a miss (again)?
Pardon me but I don’t believe that all “science” education is equal.
The “hard science” needs to be understood to recognize the fundamental flaws in the CO2->AGW hypothesis.
To wit, the laws of thermodynamics with at least a passing exposure to convective heat transfer in fluids and gases. It also helps to have a feel for enthalphy; the heat storage capacity and density of materials. And, almost as a passing thought; some wave theory to understand spectral content and how it interacts (potentially) at the molecular level.
A large part of that used to be done in senior high school physics, chemistry and mathematics. (When I were a lad!) And then enriched in the first years of Engineering and hard and some applied science courses.
MBBS I gather is a medical qualification. Those and other qualifications listed are very unlikely to have been exposed to the hard sciences to the necessary degree. (Pun incidental)
BUT! Science education doesn’t limit the scope of learning and wisdom. It opens many doors. Scientists and Engineers should all be equipped with the ability to use the perspective that they’ve gained from science education. That hopefully includes a recognition that they know very little at all; to take spare moments of their lives to broaden and deepen not only their knowledge and understanding; and most importantly; to keep looking again for errors in things that they hold to be true.
It is not beyond those without a formal qualification to graps the concepts involved. It requires persistence and the ability to think logically and abstractly.
There is no greater mistake than to be without doubt about one’s own beliefs and thoughts.
(N.B.: I could be wrong about that!)
There must be no unequal doubt. Scrutiny should be not be biased by the qualifications of those presenting ideas.
Gosh, SJT has discovered that the temp line zigzags all over but the trend is up.
Of course the trend is up, bogan, there has been a long term trend out of the maunder minimum and we have not yet reached the same heights that were present, naturally, before we entered the maunder minimum. Therefore, the trend is still entirely within the natural range of variation.
More importantly, if 2009 has that volcanic eruption that we are rather overdue for then both the actual and the trend will be well below the comparable mid 1980’s and 1990’s troughs that made the 1998 El Nino look so unusual.
This argument of the climate scum that the trend is entirely related to CO2 is pure Bull$hit, as the temp data makes quite clear.
“This argument of the climate scum that the trend is entirely related to CO2 is pure Bull$hit, as the temp data makes quite clear.”
Show me the quote where the IPCC says that.
Will; show me the quote; AR4, Executive Summary p131-132 allocates 2/3’s of GHG forcing, as expressed in temperature to CO2; TAR and AR4 also allocate a temperature response to a doubling of CO2 of 3C, best estimate.
Thanks, Cohenite. I assume they were applying the 2/3rds figure to contemporary forcing. But to my knowledge no one has been either willing or able to determine if or when the entirely natural trend out of the maunder minimum stopped or how it declined.
The obvious next question is how, exactly, did the IPCBull$hit arrive at this 2/3rds figure? Was this another one of those little round the table guesses, where each member plucked a number out of their bum and they then averaged the plucked numbers?
In any event, knock a third off the trend line in the satellite lower atmospheric series and that little bulge from 2002 to 2005 is looking sadder and sadder all the time.
“Of course the trend is up, bogan, there has been a long term trend out of the maunder minimum ”
barf – here we have it – the “scientific” sceptic philosophy – oooo – it’s nature – oooooo swoon – oooooo ! what a science platform – give us a break
And how do you know he/she is a bogan – might be Gothic or Emo
So you agree he’s wrong. Thanks.
Ian; I have a shot at it here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/
Since I wrote that, proving ( ha, ha) that temp trends in the 20thC are entirely natural, the White and Cayon paper and the Compo and Sardeshmukh papers have surfaced proving tha temp trends are entirely caused by ENSO and SST coupling; Bob Tisdale, who is not old, has recently produced a piece on ENSO caused temp trends. I’m beginning to think Will is a character from an Orwell novel.