Australian Attorney-General: ‘Climate Science Is Not Settled’

GWPF | 21 April 2016

Poll: Australians More Skeptical – Climate Change “Dropped Off” Political Radar

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis has questioned the science of climate change, saying he’s not ‘at all’ convinced it is settled. ‘It doesn’t seem to me that the science is settled at all,’ Senator Brandis told parliament on Tuesday during debate on the tabling of documents relating to the CSIRO. The attorney-general was addressing a recent CSIRO restructure – undertaken internally – which will move the focus away from collecting climate data. —Sky News, 20 April 2016

In Australia the latest (unpublished) opinion poll shows concern about tackling climate change has fallen from 55% in 2007 to 35%. Common sense is winning. —Jo Nova, 20 April 2016

1) Australian Attorney-General: ‘Climate Science Is Not Settled’
Sky News, 20 April 2016

2) Poll: Australians More Skeptical. Climate Change “Dropped Off” Political Radar
Jo Nova, 20 April 2016

3) Faulty Climate Models: “Drought Forecasts Are Barely Trustworthy”
Spiegel Online, 7 April 2016

4) Adrian Berry – Viscount Camrose (1937-2016)
The Daily Telegraph, 19 April 2016

5) And Finally: Climate Egg On Their Face
Power Line, 19 April 2016

Global warming is supposed to produce more droughts. But now an analysis reveals that climate models can barely calculate rainfall. A new study, however, questions these very models. Climatologists lead by Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist of Stockholm University have analysed historical climate data. In the case of rainfall, the data contradict the results of climate models, the researchers report in the science journal Nature. –Axel Bojanowski, Spiegel Online, 7 April 2016

The 4th Viscount Camrose, who has died aged 78, was a scion of the Berry family which owned The Daily Telegraph for nearly 60 years; as Adrian Berry he was the paper’s science correspondent from 1977 to 1997, and author, in later years, of its lively monthly “Sky at Night” (later “The Night Sky”) column. He was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Geographical Society and the British Interplanetary Society as well as serving on the advisory committee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank chaired by Lord Lawson. —The Daily Telegraph, 19 April 2016

Here’s another sign of the bankruptcy of both the climatistas and the liberals who fawn over “democracy” until the people don’t do exactly what they want. –Steven Hayward, Power Line, 19 April 2016

1) Australian Attorney-General: ‘Climate Science Is Not Settled’
Sky News, 20 April 2016

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis has questioned the science of climate change, saying he’s not ‘at all’ convinced it is settled.

George Brandis has questioned the science of climate change, saying he's not convinced it is settled.

Labor has seized on comments by the senior Turnbull government minister that there were a number of views about the cause of climate change, arguing it proves the deep climate scepticism in the coalition.

‘It doesn’t seem to me that the science is settled at all,’ Senator Brandis told parliament on Tuesday during debate on the tabling of documents relating to the CSIRO.

The attorney-general was addressing a recent CSIRO restructure – undertaken internally – which will move the focus away from collecting climate data.

About 200 jobs are at risk, however the overall head count is expected to return to current levels within two years.

Senator Brandis said he wasn’t embarking on the climate debate himself, but challenging the illogical position of the Labor party.

‘But I’m not a scientist, and I’m agnostic really on that question.

‘Senator Brandis said, if the science was settled – like Labor claims – why would Australia need climate researchers.

CSIRO head Larry Marshall said in an email to staff when announcing the restructure that the question of climate change had been proved and it was time to refocus on solutions to it.

Full post

2) Poll: Australians More Skeptical. Climate Change “Dropped Off” Political Radar
Jo Nova, 20 April 2016

In Australia the latest (unpublished) opinion poll shows concern about tackling climate change has fallen from 55% in 2007 to 35%.

Groupthinking struggles to understand:

The aversion to talking about climate change during the election campaign reflects a wider problem: our concern for this issue has fallen even while it has become larger and more urgent, writes Mike Steketee.
Climate change dropped off the political radar – ABC Drum

It sure does reflect a wider problem: that democracies need real public debate, real choice, and we are not getting it. Skeptics want climate change to be a voter issue — bring on a plebiscite. Let the public decide how much they should spend to change the weather. But that’s exactly what the believer politicians fear. They know they have to hide the topic because it’s electoral death. Everyone wants to stop pollution and “save the planet” — it’s motherhood and apple pie, but no one wants to pay much to try to change the climate. Eighty percent might believe the climate changes, but only 12% want to pay two dollars to offset their Jetstar flight (and it’s less for Qantas). Therein lies a diabolical dichotomy.

IPSOS poll shows Australians care less — there are more skeptics

Common sense is winning.

… a sobering reality: in the last eight years, many Australians’ concern over climate change has fallen even while the problem has become larger and more urgent.

There is no conflict here. “The problem” has become almost non-existent — the rains filled most dams, the seas barely rose, and the temperatures didn’t warm — except for El Nino noise.

The market research company Ipsos has been conducting surveys on the issue since 2007. In that year 54 per cent of people who were presented with a list of issues said climate change was one that needed to be addressed. In the latest report, still to be released, this fell to 38 per cent last year. This is about the same as for the previous two years, although higher than in 2011 and 2012.

Different descriptions on the list for essentially the same issue confirmed the finding, but more strongly. For example, concern about tackling “global warming” fell from 55 per cent to 35 per cent over the eight years. Renewable energy was at the top of the list of issues that needed to be addressed but it also has fallen significantly – from 68 per cent to 51 per cent.

Climate skeptics are gaining ground:

But it also has meant ceding ground to climate sceptics. They certainly did not worry about selling their message too hard: to the contrary, they thrived on their shrill advocacy to grab attention.

The groupthink churns. Look at the language. Steketee thinks skeptics are “selling” something when the vested interests, rewards and resources are almost entirely on his side. And who’s selling “too hard” — the people who say the climate has always changed or the people who say Armaggedon is coming, and climate change causes volcanoes? The hard sell program is the one that tells us we are evil, selfish and stupid people if we don’t drink the kool aid.

And what does “thriving” mean? Believers have jobs and junkets. Skeptics get sacked, and live off donations if they’re lucky. If skeptics were thriving, the government would be giving them grants, awards, and paying for two week extravaganzas in Paris.

Full post

3) Faulty Climate Models: “Drought Forecasts Are Barely Trustworthy”
Spiegel Online, 7 April 2016

Axel Bojanowski

Global warming is supposed to produce more droughts. But now an analysis reveals that climate models can barely calculate rainfall.

Scientists predict a fundamental change in the climate, because humankind constantly emits greenhouse gases into the air. The gases retain heat in the air so that the temperature rises.

The greatest risk involves the water cycle between soil, air and sea: Global warming would boost this cycle as more water would evaporate. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas; if its levels increase in the air, it would enhance the warming.

What’s more, an accelerated water cycle, paradoxically, would intensify droughts – as shown in calculations of climate models on which climate change forecasts are based.

A new study, however, questions these very models. Climatologists lead by Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist of Stockholm University have analysed historical climate data. In the case of rainfall, the data contradict the results of climate models, the researchers report in the science journal Nature.

For the period of man-made climate change in particular the computer models incorrectly stimulate the real changes in precipitation.

The study poses a great challenge for climate research, according to Matthew Kirby of California State University in a Nature commentary on the new paper.
Eduardo Zorita, co-author of the study, explains in the interview, what the findings mean for the credibility of climate predictions.

Interview with Eduardo Zorita

Eduardo Zorita studies the climate of past millennia. He is a renowned expert on climate models and historical climate data. Dr Zorita works at the Helmholtz Centre for Materials and Coastal Research in Geesthacht near Hamburg.

Eduardo Zorita

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Zorita, you have disturbing news for your colleagues: The climate models that predict how the climate will change in the future seem to have significant shortcomings according to your research, right?

Eduardo Zorita: Well, the forecast that the air and the oceans will continue to warm up in response to man-made greenhouse gases is not in question. With regards temperatures the models seem to be working well. But our study shows that the climate models have problems with calculating changes in precipitation.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: That would go to the heart of climate predictions because the most important predictions relate to changes in precipitation. What should we think of the warnings of more drought events?

Zorita: These forecasts are untrustworthy. Our work shows that the results of the climate models differ evidently from the climate data for precipitation.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How did you find out?

Zorita: We analysed changes in moisture conditions in the entire northern hemisphere during the last 1,200 years, based on the growth of tree rings, deep sea sediments or stalactites.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Every year growing trees add a new ring, its trunk is slightly wider. In rainy years, the rings are thicker, in drought years they are thinner. But in addition to the effect of rain, there are also other environmental influences that effect the annual tree rings – why do you still trust their data?

Zorita: We have checked for plausibility by evaluating the climate data independently. It turned out that they provide individually similar results as in the overall analysis. In addition, the interpretation of climate data is derived from other studies that were made by colleagues who work independently from us and we have now united the data into a survey.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do the data confirm that the climate has already changed the way it has been calculated by the models? Precipitation too would have to show a change during the 20th century due to human influences.

Zorita: Our data do not show any abnormalities during the 20th century; precipitation nothing really changed. From the ninth to the eleventh century it was similarly dry, but then there was no man-made climate change. Even severe droughts like the recent one in the western United States are tempered by similar data from the Middle Ages. In addition, the data of the last 1200 years show that rainfall appears to be more volatile than was previously thought.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Dry regions are predicted to become drier according to the climate models, damp regions are predicted to become wetter – these are the warnings of climate predictions. Can you at least confirm this assumption?

Zorita: No, we can’t. Although the scenario is physically plausible, we do not see it in the data.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: It is considered basic knowledge that warming temperatures boost the water cycle, i.e. more water will evaporate in response. Water vapour as a greenhouse gas would thus lead to an acceleration of global warming. Is that also wrong?

Zorita: No, the assumption seems plausible for the future, provided that the warming intensifies. However, for the last 1200 years we don’t have detected any evidence for a link between global warming and changes in rainfall. This is food for thought.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?

Zorita: Our study is a warning signal. It shows that we need to test climate models better. They can hardly model the water cycle which is the central climatic phenomenon.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you not afraid that you will now draw the concentrated criticism of climate modelers?

Zorita: We hope there will be criticism – that’s what keeps science alive. Our study is not comprehensive after all; for example, it is only based on information about the northern hemisphere – and even there are some areas that are only lightly covered. And we cannot make any statements about extreme rainfall since our data show only moisture averages over several years. Nevertheless, we consider our results to be an urgent commission to fill gaps in our knowledge.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What kind of gaps are you thinking of?

Zorita: We must better explore the behavior of clouds and airborne particles, the so-called aerosols. Even our understanding of how moisture is exchanged between ground and air is insufficient. This is problematic because it is these factors that largely determine the future of the climate.

Full interview (in German)

Translation GWPF

4) Adrian Berry – Viscount Camrose (1937-2016)
The Daily Telegraph, 19 April 2016

The 4th Viscount Camrose, who has died aged 78, was a scion of the Berry family which owned The Daily Telegraph for nearly 60 years; as Adrian Berry he was the paper’s science correspondent from 1977 to 1997, and author, in later years, of its lively monthly “Sky at Night” (later “The Night Sky”) column. He was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Geographical Society and the British Interplanetary Society as well as serving on the advisory committee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank chaired by Lord Lawson.

Viscount Camrose with his wife Marina 
Viscount Camrose with his wife Marina 

Berry was Tiggerishly enthusiastic about science, though his interests tended towards the melodramatic. Catastrophic supernovae, mega-tsunamis, earthbound giant asteroids and prehistoric monsters were preferred over the incremental laboratory grind.

At editorial conferences, the paper’s daily “news list” of articles for the next day’s paper would frequently feature “a Very Big Story by Adrian Berry” – regardless of subject matter. Family members sometimes referred to him as “Adrian Batty of The Daily Telescope”.

When Neil Armstrong stepped on to the Moon in 1969 Berry was in the Houston press room as assistant to Dr Anthony Michaelis, the paper’s science editor. The astronaut stepped out of the module at 3.56 am British time, close to the paper’s deadline.

So Berry and Michaelis dictated down the phoneline to the paper’s copytakers in London over the clack of 500 typewriters. Soon afterwards Berry “made a reservation with Pan Am for a room on the future Lunar Hilton: that’s how convinced I was of the future of interplanetary travel.”

Unfortunately, however, US president Richard Nixon immediately started cutting the space budget. When Michaelis subsequently left the paper, Berry took his post.

Berry’s endearingly gung-ho faith in scientific progress was apparent too in some 15 books of popular science, including The Next Ten Thousand Years: A Vision of Man’s Future in the Universe (1974); The Iron Sun: Crossing the Universe Through Black Holes (1977) and The Next 500 Years: Life in the Coming Millennium (1995).

In the last of these he swooped across the next five centuries of human history with swashbuckling relish, presenting a glowing picture of intensively farmed seas; human lifespans extended to 140 years; ever-willing robots; the storage of human personalities on computer disks for resurrection purposes; the colonisation of the Moon and Mars, and the development of starships capable of zapping between the galaxies at speeds of millions of miles per hour.

Berry’s clear and lively writing made him a brilliant science journalist from the reader’s, though perhaps not always the academic, point of view. His insouciant dismissal of the “panic” about global warming and ozone depletion (climate change, he confidently maintained, “has more to do with the violent outbursts of energy that our solar system meets on its eternal passage through the Milky Way” than on the “fashionable theory of climate change caused by carbon dioxide”) prompted one fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society to demand that Berry’s fellowship be revoked.

The one environmental catastrophe Berry regarded as probable was another Ice Age, which he believed was long overdue. But technology, as always, had the answers. The problem could be solved, he suggested, by increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, “by placing giant mirrors in orbit”.

[…] Berry began his career in journalism on the Wallsall Observer and Birmingham Post before moving to the Investor’s Chronicle. After a year spent writing a film script for a comedy thriller about industrial espionage, he spent three years in America, working on the old New York Herald Tribune, then Time magazine. He also wrote two spy thrillers.

On arriving at the Telegraph in 1970, he worked briefly in the news sub-editors’ room, wrote the parliamentary sketch, then was sent to join the three-man science department under Michaelis, with his father’s instruction that he was to receive “no crown prince treatment”.

When he received his first payslip he was so disgusted that he threw it into a wastepaper basket, where a colleague retrieved it to discover that he was on the minimum pay scale.

Berry often arrived at the paper’s offices in Fleet Street by bicycle late in the morning after exercising his dogs, wearing a large black hat and puffing on a cigarette holder. Always in a hurry, he would sometimes leave the office for an interview only to ring in later to say he had forgotten where he was meant to be. […]


Adrian Berry, on right, with former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore in 2000 Credit: Brian Smith

Whatever their scientific content, Berry’s columns were so lively that three collections came out as books. He also established a niche following among students of futurology, his The Next Ten Thousand Years selling half a million copies and winning effusive praise from the science fiction writers Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke.

After retiring as science correspondent, he was appointed the paper’s Consulting Editor (Science). In addition to the “Sky at Night” column he wrote a monthly column for Astronomy Now magazine. […]

The 4th Viscount Camrose, born June 15 1937, died April 18 2016

Full obituary

5) And Finally: Climate Egg On Their Face
Power Line, 19 April 2016

Steven Hayward

Here’s another sign of the bankruptcy of both the climatistas and the liberals who fawn over “democracy” until the people don’t do exactly what they want.

Science authorities in Britain put the naming of a new Arctic research ship to an online vote of the public. And the public chose — by a landslide margin — “Boaty McBoatface.” Which I suppose is better than “Biff McLargehuge,” for you MST3K fans out there.

Anyway, Her Majesty’s government is not amused:

After Internet users overwhelmingly voted to christen Britain’s new $300 million research ship “Boaty McBoatface” in an online naming poll, a government official suggested the name wouldn’t be used.

“There is a process now for us to review all of the public’s choices,” Science Minister Jo Johnson told the BBC Monday, per Newsweek. “Many of them were imaginative, some were more suitable than others.”

BBC host Nicky Campbell exclaimed that the government would “ride roughshod over democracy” if it did not go through with naming the ship “Boaty McBoatface,” which garnered 120,000 votes — four times that of the next closest choice.

Britain’s National Environment Research Council, which sponsored the contest, noted that it retains authority to choose the final name.
“I think we were clear when launching the competition that we were looking for a name that would be in keeping with the mission,” Johnson said.

He noted the boat’s focus on polar research means it will aid the study of serious issues, such as climate change.

“So you want a name that fits the gravity and the importance of the subjects that this boat is going to be doing science into,” he said, according to the magazine.

Maybe the people who voted online have correctly grasped the “gravity and importance” of what you’re up to.

Full post

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s