Shock-horror – climate skeptics spotted alive in Australian science academy

This article from todays Canberra Times – which so often reads like a GreenLeft news sheet – fumes at signs climate skeptic ideas are lurking within Australia’s peak science academy.
It seems The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering has circulated a short draft statement that is not 100% IPCC compliant.
Pro-IPCC sources are quoted in force by the Canberra Times whining about this lapse from orthodoxy.
My spies tell me that other science bodies downunder might also be harbouring climate skeptics.
From page 1 Canberra Times 14 May 2010
From page 2 Canberra Times 14 May 2010

7 thoughts on “Shock-horror – climate skeptics spotted alive in Australian science academy”

  1. Wow, what a crazy world we’re living in. It seems The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering will re-write the draft to be 100% IPCC compliant, shutting out the truth.

  2. Heaven forbid that the heaterists could ever acknowldegd that climate change which has been evident for thousands of years and the level of CC that may be caused by increased levels of C02 gases is quite a different things..and trivial.

    It is a measure of the fundamental dishonesty of the heaterists that they set out to deliberately conflate the two.

    It is also measure of their duplicity that they remain silent whilst the Chairman of the IPCC has his hands in the till with conflicts of interest that wouldnt survive in any civilised and properly functioning society.

    But then what else can you expect from Canberra. These are the intellectual pigmies who see nothing ludicrous about naming a new Govt body the Australian Government Climate Change Regulatory Authority.

    Nothing surprises me anymore. We are run by idiots and their silly little boys clubs like the AATSE.

  3. So much of the evidence shows that climate change is a natural process with little or no human effect. The science clearly is Not settled and requires objective research instead of political agenda as a substitute. What kind of s… is it when you have to falsify data, rig reports and shut out all opposition in order to push for government control, sky-high taxes and greatly reduced freedom for the people. A pox on your house.

  4. ‘Climate Change’ remains a quasi-political crusading movement. There are many young people who want to campaign about something, but they have had the rug pulled from under their feet by the collapse of communism and the narrowing of the range of issues that can generate moral condemnation.
    Thus many of them have moved into ‘environmentalism’ in a big way. It has echoes of Left sentiment: saving the planet, and condemning the neo-cons or the oil barons who are destroying it.
    But bear in mind that climate needs a high level of science: atmospheric chemistry, meteorology and planetary physics. The global warmers are saying that CO2 is increasing faster than at any time in history, but this is not so. You have to go back millions of years before you can see any change in ANY of the gases on Earth. CO2 is 385 ppm, repeat 385 ppm, and it was 385 ppm in 1950, 1920, 1880 and you can go right back to BEFORE the Industrial Revolution! (This 385 ppm is just 0.03% of the total – not 3%, but 0.03%!).
    But, say the warmers, “The science is settled: all the world’s leading scientists have agreed there is global warming, and CO2 is increasing dramatically…”
    But they are NOT the world’s scientists, and they are lying. Of about 2,500 people at the IPCC only about 350 are genuine climatologists, and the rest have Ph.Ds in other science subjects. And the summary that is issued to the press every few years is fine-tuned and edited by non scientists.
    Further, the global warmers are doing harm to science: barely 25 years ago scientists were saying that climate is controlled by the Milankovitch cycles (the tilt in the Earth’s orbit over thousands of years), and controlled also by meteorological principles (not radiative principles as the greenhouse gas argument implies). In other words as the sun beats down on the oceans it sets up storms and winds that cool the Earth down. Earth is a WET planet, remember, and not a bone dry one like Mars or Venus. I have spelt this out in two earlier books: Earth’s Changing Climate: The Cosmic Connection (1989), and Beyond the Warming: The Hazards of Climate Prediction in the Age of Chaos (1996).
    So the climate changers are not only pumping you full of junk science, they have actually promoted an anti-science counter-revolution, and critics are only now trying to work out how and why this happened. The global warmers have certainly taken the whole world for a ride: the Pope, Prince Charles, the UN Secretary-General, virtually every top politician and public figure you can name.
    As Richard Lindzen, a leading climate scientist, pointed out at his keynote address at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York in March 2009, “Most arguments about global warming boil down (now) to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science.”
    Many scientists see the dangers in all this. It is as if geologists had suddenly turned their backs on Continental Drift theory an reverted back to the discredited ‘land-bridge’ theory, and Soviet-style, pushed the entire western political establishment along with them.
    Inevitably, then, the sceptics don’t get the press or air time (or Internet space) to put the countervailing arguments. Still, there are more books explaining how we got into this bizarre situation than pro-warming books. They go into the junk science, the politics, the lies, the propaganda and the campaigning. I recommend ‘Red Hot Lies’ by Christopher Horner, and ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker, but there are many others (but not a single one of them will be reviewed by the New Scientist).

    I am a climate change insider. I was attending climate seminars and lectures in the 1980s and 1990s and I could see the change from ‘global cooling’ to ‘global warming’ taking place before my very eyes. In fact I could see who was doing it and how it was done: Dr James Hansen of the Nasa space agency, Dr Wallace Broecker and Dr Roger Revelle, both oceanographers, Dr Stephen Schneider, atmospheric scientist, Dr John Gribbin, British science writer, leading figures at the Met Office (but only from 1995 onwards)and the editors of leading science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American, all succeeded in turning the tide. There were others, of course. Later, David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government (but not a climatologist) and Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and Britain’s leading planetary scientist (a surprising defection this), sided with the ‘warmers’ (Both Schneider and Gribbin originally supported the Milankovitch ice-age theories, before they switched in the mid 1980s to the radiative theory).
    This is an interesting, if alarming, sociological fact in itself: how did a handful of rogue scientists manage to subvert the whole of western science? Because, believe me, it has dreadful ramifications, since so many interlinked subjects dealing with ecology and earth science are also being subverted (one fundamental abuse of science is the term ‘clean energy’. Energy is a principle of science, and is neither ‘clean’ nor ‘dirty’). This junk science is a tragedy also for environmentalism, the charities and aid agencies, and is actually making fools of genuine right-minded people. It is sidelining the real issues: air pollution, over-population, poverty, malnutrition and natural disasters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *