Prev
Next

After climategate, the science still has the same message

Bruce Mapstone

by Bruce Mapstone

12 Jul 05:35am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

32

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

145

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

70

Filed under: Climate Change, Climategate, Environment, Politics, Science

83 comments

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have emerged from the six-month “climategate” inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact. However, many in the public remain skeptical, so the challenge for scientists across the world now is to communicate clearly the realities of climate change to a public that simply wants straight answers.

Clearing the air: Sir Muir Russell announcing his findings. Pic: AP

The Independent Climate Change Email Review in the United Kingdom, led by Sir Muir Russell, a former top civil servant, concluded that “the rigour and honesty” of the UEA scientists “was not in doubt” and that there was no evidence “that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments”.

The challenge of clearly and openly communicating climate change to a public understandably alarmed about the associated changes to our world is as real in Australia as it is for people in other countries. Sir Muir has put the challenge for scientists into plain English: “They should learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand.” 

Tackling the challenges of climate change will require us all to understand not just the science of climate change but also what options we have to respond to it and mitigate further change.

We must not just talk about the future, because there are essential steps that have to be taken now if we wish to prepare for the changes ahead. We must be clear about what is happening now and that information must be available to everyone.

The next most important opportunity to better communicate the work of climate scientists will come with the next important stage of the world’s leading climate change science research body - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

There was nothing found in the leaked university emails to undermine the reports or the IPCC. A report released last week by the Netherlands Environment Agency also found the IPCC was “robust” and the handful of mistakes did not alter the conclusions that modern climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human actions.

However, the challenge remains for the more than 800 experts who will now begin work on the Fifth Assessment report by the IPCC to be clear with the public.

831 researchers have been selected to lead work on the report, which will involve almost four years of work and is due to be published between 2013 and 2014. Eight scientists from CSIRO are among this highly qualified group.

Scientists working for CSIRO and other organisations have been studying and observing the many changes to our climate for a number of years now.

Recent debate about climate change has led to CSIRO receiving high demand for practical information from the public, industry and government. The message has been clear: tell us what is happening now as well as about the likely climate in the future.

CSIRO joined forces with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to publish the State of the Climate Snapshot earlier this year to update Australians about how our climate has changed over recent decades and what those changes mean. The snapshot can be accessed here.

More extremely hot days and fewer cold ones; wetter in the north and drier in the south of the country; sea levels higher around the country: this is not a forecast for Australia’s climate but part of the snapshot of recent changes.

The consensus amongst CSIRO’s climate scientists and those across the globe is that these and longer term changes show climate change is real and happening now. In fact, climate scientists have been convinced by the evidence about this for years, but we recognise that there has been doubt among some people in the community.

It is important for all Australians to have confidence in the understanding of climate change that has been developed at CSIRO and other agencies. The State of the Climate Snapshot provided Australians with some plain English information about how climate has been changing within our lifetimes. 

People need to understand these recent changes, and those expected in our future, to plan for adapting to a changing climate and to take action to reduce the extent and impacts of future climate change.

Most commented

414Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
309Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
255Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
230South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

83 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:54am | 12/07/10

      Never mind communicating more clearly to the public - scientists need to stop doctoring the evidence.

      Despite the whitewash by a politically appointed committee, the scandals continue to multiply - and the warmists continue to deny.

      This article is an example of sweeping the damning details under the rug: it fails to mention what the problems were with East Anglia, other than vaguely citing some “emails”. Yet, bad as the emails were, they were not as shocking as the computer programs and its accompanying text message which was also leaked. That the article fails even to mention this shows that it is not a serious analysis of Climategate at all.

      And that’s before we get into the multiple examples of dodgy data and unconfirmed sources in the last IPCC report.

      Sorry, scientists, if you want to regain the public trust, you’ll have to dio better than this. Rather than simply asserting everything is okay with the science, you’ll have to come clean with a full admission of the flaws in the methodology of many groups, and an explanation of how you propose to do better in the future.

      Repeating the same old discredited mantras is not going to work any more. Too many intelligent and informed people are able to review your claims.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:33am | 12/07/10

      Very true Eric, and I would also like to point out the irony of an article about communicating more clearly, that essentially communicates nothing at all about the debate.

    • AliceC says:

      10:04am | 12/07/10

      @Adam

      BRILLIANT!!! : )

    • Barry says:

      12:13pm | 12/07/10

      Eric, Adam etc - you’ve missed the point here altogether - here’s our own authority on science in Australia saying scientists have to lift their game and speak in the language we all use so that we can discuss climate change. Then CSIRO gives not some speculation about the future but what has changed already to our country - that’s a good example of lifting their game.

    • Tii says:

      01:06pm | 12/07/10

      Barry you’ve also missed a point:

      “Our own authority on science in Australia” has appointed a corporate banker as it’s chairman. And he already has an agenda: Mr McKeon says he wants to see the issue of climate change elevated to the top of the political and public agenda.

      That’s a good example of BUSINESS AS USUAL.

    • Eric says:

      05:12pm | 12/07/10

      Barry, you’ve certainly missed the point.

      After Climategate, it’s obvious to any thinking person that climate science as it stands has no credibility.

      Scientists have to lift their game, but that isn’t about condescendingly “speaking our language”. It’s about owning up to their mistakes and shortcomings, and convincing us they can do better.

      So far, the score is zero on both points.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      10:04pm | 12/07/10

      So who are you going believe—all those (nearly all of them non-climate) scientists who took Exxon’s $10,000US to sing the denial song?
      Climate change denial is, in the phrase of Prof. Hobsbawm primitive rebellion. Primitive rebels oppose things but can’t explain why they feel the need to oppose them. The modus operandi of deniers is simple; don’t confront any of the mountains of data produced under the auspices of reputable scientific bodies such as NASA, the Royal Society or the CSIRO which show that AGW is real and happening now, run away and hide till the heat dies down and then come out and peddle the same lies all over again!

    • MenarefromMars says:

      01:43pm | 13/07/10

      Steve:
      Who are you going to believe? The doctors and physicians that warned us about eggs being bad for us? That potatos were bad for us? That pasta is bad for us? That Meat(beef) is bad for us?

      Oh, wait. That was the 70’s and 80’s now with further research it been found that eggs, lean beef, potatoes, pasta are actually good for you, claiming they were bad was just an over-reaction to the discovery of cholesterol and carbohydrate intakes….

      I wonder what the current batch of climate scientists will say in 20-30 years, oh actually carbon isn’t that bad it was just an over-reaction….

    • Press says:

      07:10pm | 13/07/10

      “The United States Senate does not agree.. “

      Totally misleading statement.

      Did Ryan trouble to read just the cover page of the report? Or check the US Senate Environment and Public Works Cttee pages?

      The report he linked *does not* represent the view of the US Senate at all. It doesnt even represent the view of the Environment and Public Works Ctee.  Quite misleading to claim that it is.

      It is the *minority* report of that one committee. Nothing more than the dissenting view of the minor party of that particular Senate Committee.

      Bah. Cheat.

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:11pm | 13/07/10

      MenarefromMars:
      Actually, all of those (meat, potatos, pasta, eggs) are bad for you in enough quantity.  Much like carbon.

    • Ryan says:

      10:38am | 14/07/10

      @Press: please show us any report or statement where the US Senate says it does not agree with this report that bears the US Senate Seal, other than your own biased opinion of course.
      Fact is, your little fraudsters were caught with their pants down manipulating and fudging figures, underhanded and dishonest, just like the person who was censoring me posting this link onto this discussion piece (over 3 times) and probably the same person who removed the original post that had this link in. What is obvious is that there can be no open discussion on this, no instead there is fudging of figures, hiding the decline and censorship (googlegate who were caught censoring and hiding climategate links and autosuggestion).
      If you global warming evangelists want to be taken seriously and if you aren’t up to no good, then its time to start acting in an honest manner.
      If you cannot act in an open and honest manner, share raw data with sceptics and engage in open debate, then it is an obvious conclusion that the how AGW theory is nothing more than that, a theory that has progressed to a full blown scam.

    • Press says:

      01:44pm | 14/07/10

      The short answer is that Ryan just doesn’t “get” that a Senate *minority* report is just that. Tough.

      Censorship conspiracy on The Punch, eh? And directed especially at Ryan!  Oh dear oh dear.  Whatever next!

      As for the ranting personal insults, pffft.

    • MenarefromMars says:

      11:14am | 15/07/10

      Northern Steve:

      What quantity of Carbon is bad for us? As the alarmists of the 70’s said Eggs have too much Cholesterol thus are evil, the current alarmists are now saying Carbon Dioxide “the gas of life” is evil.

      How much is too much?

      Are you aware that every day you drive your car you are personally subjected to levels of somewhere between 724 to 4334 ppm?

    • iansand says:

      07:13am | 12/07/10

      Sir Muir Russell is obviously part of the conspiracy.

      And so it goes….

      Reply

    • Gary Cox says:

      08:03am | 12/07/10

      Ha. Climate change is soooo 2009

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      08:05am | 12/07/10

      Interestingly enough analysts have spoken of the perception of the scientists being exonerated when the findings showed that non scientific methods were applied to inflate the claims of global warming believers. It is kind of an uncomfortable truth that campaigners keen to access funds for more ‘research’ are in danger of ignoring. Political bodies around the world have devoted billions of dollars to the myth while those who legitimately question the so called science have been terribly smeared.

      Reply

    • Press says:

      08:23am | 12/07/10

      The boot is on the other foot.

      As the evidence continues to accumulate, the systematic distortions and siller smears will pass inot history. And we will still have to deal with man0made climaets change, just later tahn we need have, and more expensively than we could have.

    • MenarefromMars says:

      11:36am | 12/07/10

      Press: Learn to proof read before clicking “submit” it will make your argument a little stronger.

      Can you explain why man made climate change has been delayed? Is it because Copenhagen failed?

      Why is it that carbon levels keep rising yet temperatures have been stable for over a decade? Isn’t carbon the enemy?

      Here is some evidence from Apollo Bay a “high resolution weather station” with 146 years of data disproving any level of warming. http://bit.ly/avYdkW

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:36am | 12/07/10

      Any idea of what the solutions are or the steps that need to be taken now? And I mean real, possible solutions not pie in the sky, living in cave kind of solutions.

      Putting a price on carbon makes it more expensive, but with an increasing population domestically and world-wide I fail to see how this will create major reductions, particularly in the short term.

      Reply

    • PatC says:

      01:47pm | 12/07/10

      The one solution that will have to be addressed either now or in the future is population control. Unfortunately, we have corporate sponsored politicians paying baby bonuses so that corporations can have a growing customer base in the future so any move towards sustainable population levels are along way off.

      The argument often trotted out is that policies to curb population growth would take too long to have any effect. I think that is crap and a meaningful policy that was going to work could start showing results about 9 months after it was implemented, in the same way the baby bonus started showing results about 9 months after it was bought in.

      I’m not considering any crazy futuristic movie type draconian solution. Just a change in policies that make life a little easier for women who choose not to have children and remove the financial incentives for those that do.

      I also do not believe that a price on carbon is going to have any effect. Given that global warming is at best an unproven theory and proof that global warming is carbon driven is even further away. A correlation between atmospheric carbon and any global warming that may be occurring, is not proof that carbon causes global warming.

      There is a direct correlation between the number of rescues performed by the lifesavers on Bondi Beach and the amount of ice-cream sold in shops along Campbell Parade but no-one of any intelligence would suggest that eating ice-cream causes a spike in rescues or conversely that rescues on Bondi Beach cause people to eat ice-cream.

    • onu says:

      08:44am | 12/07/10

      A corporate banker has been appointed chairman of our peak scientific body CSIRO, with a pre-determined agenda to promote a global warming agenda which no doubt includes a carbon tax trading scheme which surprise surprise will be an astonishing earner for his bank.

      You couldn’t make this stuff up. I find it extraordinarily depressing that the Australian public are treated with such contempt by their own government.

      Reply

    • Sherlock says:

      08:47am | 12/07/10

      Seriously? Does anybody really believe the climate change myth anymore? Junk science at it’s best with data twisted to reach a pre-determined conclusion,other data spun out of all meaning to fit the warming story, one outlandish apocalyptic prediction after another that failed to materialise as well as countless lies, character assignations and rorting of the peer review process.

      It’s actually a little funny hearing a scientist say that they should be giving straight answers when it’s been so hard to find an alarmist that actually wanted to argue the science.

      While the alarmists played the man the sceptics played the ball and argued the science. While the alarmists lied about the so-called scientific consensus the sceptics, many with PhDs in related fields, kept putting up their hands to illustrate that the consensus was just another alarmist lie.

      While the alarmists laughed at Christopher Monckton’s bulging eyes, a symptom of Graves disease, and engaged in their typical attempt at assassinating his credibility, Monckton travelled around the country preaching the science relatively unchallenged to packed hall after packed hall.

      The unconscionable actions of the scientific community as well as the other alarmists converted far more people to climate change scepticism than anything the sceptic community could have ever achieved. When the general public saw the tactics the alarmists stooped to they relied that the alarmists had no faith in their own science

      Reply

    • Andy W says:

      11:02am | 12/07/10

      The reason he Lord Monckton went unchallenged is because he lost all credibility when he added “Nobel peace prize winner” to his list of professional achievements and then later claimed he was “only joking”.
      Lord Monckton claims the global warming conspiracy is fabricated by a secret world government trying to gain control of the world.
      But I guess you are right Sherlock what would the CSIRO and those wacky scientists Know?

    • Sherlock says:

      11:55am | 12/07/10

      Thanks Andy.

      You illustrated my whole point beautifully. Why play the ball when it’s so much easier to play the man?

      Don’t you think it’s a little rich to say he “lost all credibility” when not only was it standing room only but thousands more hopeful attendees were turned away? Just who are the “deniers” here?

      Anyhow by all means keep playing the man while we sceptics continue argue the science.

      As I said, you alarmists do a far better job converting people to scepticism than we could ever do. If this is the best argument you can muster than it’s obvious to the whole world you have absolutely no faith in the science.

      On behalf of sceptics everywhere I ask that you keep up the good work.

    • Andy W says:

      12:54pm | 12/07/10

      Sherlock, I am playing both the ball and the man.

      I think it is reasonable to question the sincerity of a man who is caught lying about his credentials in such a major way. If Monckton was performing a public service why would he turn anyone away who like to hear his message? And why would he charge $50 for the privilege?
      Do you really believe it is a world government conspiracy?
      I try to keep an open mind in regards to climate change (within reason) and I am yet to come across any science that would make me sceptical of global warming.

    • PatC says:

      02:14pm | 12/07/10

      @ Andy W.
      “global warming conspiracy is fabricated by a secret world government trying to gain control of the world”

      Actually it was… almost.

      It wasn’t a global warming conspiracy
      - They just used global warming as the vehicle.

      It wasn’t secret.
      - It was spelt out in the original draft Copenhagen Agreement

      It wasn’t a government
      - It was an unelected bureaucracy.

      and

      It wasn’t control of the world they wanted
      - It was control of the worlds finances.

    • WayneT says:

      06:24pm | 12/07/10

      @ Andy W - Who was charging $50.00 for his talk?  More bloody lies.  I attended the Perth leg of his tour and paid $10.00 to cover the coffee and cake.  His tour was paid and sponsored by two well known Australian scientists.  Just more lies by Warmists.  When is someone going to organize a genuine debate on the issue and get the real science out on the table?  Just somebody show us the direct link between man made CO2 and temperature rise.  It’s because you can’t, and why people like Al Gore won’t sit down and debate the issue.

    • Anthony of WA says:

      09:56pm | 12/07/10

      Andy W, I think you need to get a transcript of what Monckton actually said with regards to the Nobel prize, instead of recycling someone elses BS.

    • Gore is a Groper says:

      04:12am | 13/07/10

      Correct Wayne,Alleged climate salesmen have found a watershed for legal theft in this religiously fervoured bulls… and is now a lumbering juggernaut that will not be easily quashed,but there are so many who believe in nothing that many need something to follow apart from discount sales catalogues

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:47pm | 13/07/10

      Sherlock,
      I did as you suggested,and did my own research on Monckton and his speeches.

      The man is a first-class lunatic.

      Here is a website for an organisation (of which he is a director), still claiming his Nobel Prize.  Is it still a joke?
      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html

      One of the articles on his website claims that global warming is caused by the orbit of the planets on the solar system.  Hmmm

    • NO ETS says:

      08:48am | 12/07/10

      ‘carbon trading’;

      i.e. a scam that has the purpose of extracting monies from ordinary people and transferring those monies to financial corporations.

      Reply

    • Eddy says:

      08:54am | 12/07/10

      The AGW is nothing more than an attempt by the far left to control every aspect of our lives. No energy equals no life. It really is just that simple. If they can control the energy supply through carbon trading, they can control every aspect of the economy as well as every aspect of our lives, right down to the breath we exhale.

      The greens glorify the peasant lifestyle. You know, the good old days? The truth is, these are the good old days. Cheap energy has made possible virtually all of today’s modern conveniences and people are living longer than ever before. Well, at least in the developed world they are. The people in the poorer parts of the world who live without electricity and clean running water are one step shy of the dark ages. For them, life is short and brutish.

      I want to see Al Gore and the rest of his ilk live the peasant lifestyle for a year and then tell us exactly how much of their western lifestyle they are willing to sacrifice to appease Gaia.

      It has, is and always will be about the money! People are beginning to pay attention as the pandering politicians try to pick their pockets. I look forward to the day when Gore and the rest of the warmanistas are broke because of judgments obtained against them and doing life without the possibility of parole for their crimes against humanity.

      Global warming is the greatest and most expensive fraud ever concocted and as Shakespeare once said, “The truth will out.”

      Reply

    • Sherlock says:

      10:04am | 12/07/10

      Completely correct.

      There was a recent report that suggested that Australia could fulfil it’s energy requirement solely by using currently available renewable energy sources. The more you read the report the more laughable it became.

      The whole report was based on the specious reasoning that we’d halve our energy use over the next decade or so. Does anyone really believe that’s going to happen? It’s the Green’s peasant lifestyle dream that nobody apart from them wants.

    • Charles says:

      08:58am | 12/07/10

      The Muir Russell enquiry is a whitewash, just like the other two enquiries.  Apart from the ‘pass the parcel’ scheme between Russell and Boulton; “...but I thought you were looking at the science.  No, I thought you were”, when you ask questions of only one side, then the answers are going to look fairly similar.

      Many of the Muir Russell panel were either former colleagues of the CRU or else had a vested interest in AGW (e.g Geoff Boulton).  None of the anti-AGW scientists (McIntyre, McIttrick, Holland, etc.) were interviewed.

      No notes of interviews were kept, the list of e-mails reviewed was not released to the public, the various papers which were at the heart of the dispute and which were presumably reviewed was also not released to the public.

      This inquiry was halllmarked by the standard operating procedure of public science, obfuscation, secrecy and behind closed doors conversations.  This argument has a long way to run.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      09:08am | 12/07/10

      65% of the population cannot understand the effect of mortality and subsequent necrosis on the chances of revival, let alone climate science.  All they need to know is

      Atmospheric CO2 is one of the main nutrient for plants - stop deforestation and plant more trees.

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      10:43am | 12/07/10

      stop the deforestation in Brazil, they are the main source of the worlds oxygen I believe, that rainforest goes we are screwed. Stop cutting down trees to build all these houses

    • Tedd says:

      11:22am | 12/07/10

      Not just Brazil - Asia (esp. Indonesia), Africa, North America, and even some of Europe need some re-forestation, if not stopping de-forestation as well.

      Most housing wood is from sustainable forests?

    • Deria says:

      09:11am | 12/07/10

      These so called ‘inquiries” have been a farce.

      The leaked emails highlighted CRU scientists routinely referring to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needed to be kept out of the public domain.

      The emails proved the scientists were actively subverting the peer review process and operating within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.

      The Russell report described such actions and descriptions by Jones and the CRU as “robust” and “typical of the debate that can go on in peer review”  Sure it does ... *NOT*

      This is what happens when classified information gets leaked:
      1. It gets covered up. They failed. E-mails got out thanks to the internet.
      2. It gets denied. And they’re trying pretty hard.
      3. The powers that be officially admit their guilt but say it’s no big deal.

      Reply

    • Terry T says:

      09:14am | 12/07/10

      “Integrity” is about the only thing that comes to mind that would undermine the conclusions of the IPCC and East Anglia scientists.

      Reply

    • john edwards says:

      09:27am | 12/07/10

      In Australia, the propaganda machine of the Government and MSM has been doing it’s job, as usual, with it’s hallmark efficiency.

      ‘Omission’ as a tactic in the propaganda war involving AGW works very well here. Discounting, ridiculing, advocating acceptance of massaged/misleading data, and using various media tools to marginalise anyone who offers a contrary view on AGW also comes in very handy.

      Most Australians have been well trained to accept, without question, the immutable right for our governments to interfere with the economy with the big levers of tax and spend.

      The Australian people have not been properly informed of the implications of the Carbon trading system with regards to it’s use as an under pinning for a new form of Fiat-currency called Special Drawing Rights that the IMF already have operating but want to turn it from a form of intergovernmental loan facility into a full blown Reserve Status Currency.

      In other words we will have the foundations intact for a supra national organisation, (the IMF) to become the worlds Treasury. From that treasury a One World Government would have to be formed to administer the Carbon Credits Scheme and the tax funds produced by all the participating countries.

      The Australian Government has got it’s self in a tangle trying to explain the implications by saying little of any value except to maintain that by letting the market decide the cost of Carbon through the price of Carbon Credits, only those industries worthy of being part of the ‘New Green Economy’ will survive because of the involvement of brokerage houses like Goldman Sachs handling the day to day trade of these Carbon Credits. Not to mention Al Gore and his ‘Green’ financial investment vehicles.

      However. with the news that GS was up to it’s neck in market manipulations for years with CDO’s in the sub-prime housing market, shorting their BP stocks just before the Deep Horizon disaster, and many, many other dubious dealings, it sounds like a recipe for rampant market manipulation on a scale hither-to-fore unknown on the worlds Stock Exchanges to me.

      If people were allowed to think for themselves instead of being constantly distracted by the bombardment of our senses with sounds and images of mindless, ego-centric, fantasy and misinformation from the idiot box, people might have a chance to put things into perspective and stop reacting out of fear.  Fears and insecurities that are fed to us through all the appropriate channels that exist in our society.

      Reply

    • TOny Heley says:

      09:34am | 12/07/10

      Dr Bruce Mapstone is Chief of CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research division. Therefore, should we expect anything but the party line! Show me the money, comrade.

      Reply

    • Steve Putnam says:

      10:12pm | 12/07/10

      “Show me the money, comrade” Perhaps you might be better placed directing that comment to those scientists who took Exxon’s US$10,000 offer to say that climate change wasn’t real.

    • Ryan says:

      10:42am | 14/07/10

      @Steve Putnam: surely US$10,000 is pure pocket money in comparison to the endless pot of gold that climate change “researchers” have found in the global warming scam. I know Al Gore has made a few good dollars out of it, hell he even bought a property at sea level not so long ago.. clearly he is another heretic who doesn’t “believe”.

    • bob klinck says:

      09:36am | 12/07/10

      One would hope that by now most people who pay some attention to political events would have realized that ALL inquiries are self-serving.

      I was told this by the leader of a political party in Canada about thirty-five years ago (he said that inquiries function to cover up rather than discover the truth), but such is the power of hope that it has taken me practically all the intervening time to have the point sink in.

      The uselessness of all public inquiries is surely an indication of the radical corruption that grips our societies. If the facts about any controversial event were fully revealed, the people would be so scandalized that the administration would no longer be viable.

      Yet demands for public inquiries continue to be made. For example, many elements in the “9/11 truth” movement want a “proper” inquiry into the events of that day. It’s a vain aspiration. Can you imagine how many influential people are directly involved in or compromised by the events of that day?

      Currently many Canadians are petitioning the government to investigate abusive policing in Toronto during the G20. Even if an inquiry was set up, it would never come to full, objective conclusions about what happened. The reason is obvious: because the people who orchestrated the policing will establish the terms of reference and other parameters of the investigation. Governments are quite content to spend our money uselessly, and must get a kick out of doing so at our own request.

      We have to realize that when top-level people are implicated (and when aren’t they?), the fix is ALWAYS in. What else should we expect?

      Perhaps the best approach would be systematically to resist the organization of inquiries, accompanied by a clear indication that this is because of their track record of futility. It might create a problem for the elite if this form of relief valve ceased to be in their repertoire of control devices.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      10:31am | 12/07/10

      One hopes “enquiries” are more open than they were 30-40 years ago, even if by way of more rigorous media and blog discussion of them

    • M says:

      09:40am | 12/07/10

      A shameful cover-up by those we are supposed to trust. All they’ve done with this inquiry is fuel the fire.

      Copies of those emails went all over the world via the web and anyone who read them saw the clear bias and blatant attempts to discredit those who wanted the truth out. They can’t hide the truth and they can’t put the clock back!

      On the back of that, show me the man/woman who says they can fight/battle climate change and win and I’ll show you a FOOL! Our wonderful Mother Earth is more powerful than any corrupt leader could ever hope to be and the man/woman to follow is the one who says they know how to adapt and change with her…..

      Reply

    • Jay Santos says:

      09:42am | 12/07/10

      The Independent Climate Change Email Review was set up by the University of East Anglia (UEA).

      So they set up an investigation themselves to investigate themselves….and that extensive investigation into themselves found that they themselves had nothing to answer for.

      Groundbreakingly independent and objective.

      Is that really the best the Warmenists can do? 

      I note the author here dogmatically pursues bogus correlation means causation argumnet in trying to link recent weather events as evidence of “climate change”.

      When will you learn?

      If that is still the prescribed mantra within the CSIRO the organisation needs a damn good purge for being an (continued) unparalled embarrassment to science.

      Reply

    • kL says:

      09:52am | 12/07/10

      These emails show that it’s not just a case of doing science and getting it wrong; they’re clearly attempting to pervert the course of whole-of-world climate policy, all with public money.

      May they receive all that they deserve.

      Reply

    • Fint JJ says:

      09:59am | 12/07/10

      The AGW is 100% political.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      11:24am | 12/07/10

      A lot of the debate is irrational and political, because the science is so vast, because climate is a decades thing.

      AGW is an on-going project

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:11am | 12/07/10

      You need something else before you open your mouth to clearly and openly communicate, you need to be honest and credible. You need to be 100% transparent with your work. People should not have to jump thru FOI hoops to get their hands on this secret data that was and is used as input to the IPCC docs.  This must be freely available. You also need to keep your distance from the politicians even though they pay you because they will discredit you and your work. You know - sleep with dogs wake up with flees.
      Once you have honestly communicated the cause, you need to also honestly communicate those options that are available to “fix” the problem.  As for part of the fix Ziggy Switkowski was pretty clear -

      “…. the only option open to us is nuclear power. Many countries have already reached this conclusion: 15 per cent of global electricity is produced from nuclear power at 440 reactors in 31 countries.”
      And he continues

      “With the exception of Italy, which can purchase nuclear electricity from France, no economy of Australia’s size or larger is without nuclear power. Australia now stands alone among the world’s top economies in excluding consideration of nuclear power in our long-term energy and climate change strategy.”

      When this topic becomes fashionable again I wonder if all options will be considered and be robustly debated.

      Reply

    • em says:

      10:20am | 12/07/10

      The flat earther forum-bot software is obviously working brilliantly.

      Reply

    • MenarefromMars says:

      11:17am | 12/07/10

      em:

      Great comment, any other comments that don’t attack skeptics as stupid?

      I’d like some concrete information that the recent climate in the northern hemisphere and recent freezing temps in Sydney (coolest in 80years), are well within the ever higher predictions of global warming.

      Copenhagen ended with an agreement from all governments “not to exceed a 2 degree increase” - this under current predictions will take two centuries to reach - in other words no one cares anymore.

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:27pm | 12/07/10

      MenarefromMars:
      Think Climate Change, not Climate Warming.  The changes predicted by climate change science show a higher variance in min and max termperatures, as well as rainfall.

      This is not inconsistent with previous climate change events.  Go back about 10,000 - the warming earth caused the ice covering eastern Canada to melt, resulting in huge flows of cold, fresh water into the Atlantic.  This stopped or slowed the ocean currents in the Atlantic that normally bring warm water from the equator to western europe.  Without that warm flow of water, Europe cooled and was covered in 1km of ice within 10 years.  Climate change is highly variable and unpredictable.

    • iansand says:

      11:31am | 12/07/10

      Enough rhetoric.  It is time we sceptics routed the foe by producing vast numbers of scientifically rigorous academic papers refuting the scam that is anthropogenic climate change.  There must be tens of thousands of them by now.  Well thousands, at least.  Can anyone find a hundred?  Any at all?

      Reply

    • MenarefromMars says:

      11:46am | 12/07/10

      iansand: here’s one to add to your list:
      http://bit.ly/avYdkW

      Cape Otway weather station one of only a few Australian sites that has uniterrupted data for over 100 years giving a complete picture of australian climate (at least in the southern victorian area). It clearly shows no cause for alarm.

      Another weather station with siilar credentials can be found in Jerry Plains Post Office - 1000 kilometres away with very similar climate patterns - although not identical.

      Its all to do with when scientists begin their measurements. Many think 1960 is a good year, but looking at the longer term, its shown that the period around 1940-1960 was a cooling trend for climate and inevitably any reference from then on will appear as an increase. Taking the start point to 1880 would show that the climate has gone full circle and we are headed for cooler climate for the next 20-30 years. Problem is there are not too many stations with this much quality history, so scientists have to use proxies - and therein lies the problem for most skeptics.

    • iansand says:

      04:44pm | 12/07/10

      Sherlock - Have you read any of those papers.  I took a random look at the abstracts of a few.  One seemed to think that Newton’s laws of motion were an agency for the dissipation of atmospheric heat.  Another couple were debates about the extent to which CO2 contributes to warming without any mention of forcing effects.  Another one was all about whether the effect of Mt Pinatubo was long term or short term.

      Do you realise that you are being duped by ratbags?

    • Sherlock says:

      06:34pm | 12/07/10

      You asked for papers so I gave you some. Now you wish to dispute the contents. Seeing they were prepared by specialists in their field, most of which hold PhDs I think I’ll listen to them until you can list some arguments.

      It’s typical of an alarmist though. You’re original comment implies there are no papers that dispute the global warming theory. So when somebody shows that’s not correct all you want to do is say that all must be rubbish and WE’RE the ones being duped.

      Refusing to accept alternate theories and trying to bury them is the root of the climate change movements problems.

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:02pm | 12/07/10

      Sorry Sherlock, iansand is right.  You posted this same website to another article here a week or so ago, and I picked 2 articles and random.  One supported climate change theory, and the other twisted science so transparently a high school kid could pick errors in the arguments.

      Stop using this reference - you’ll just keep shooting yourself in the foot.

      However, if you can find some science that actually proves that either
      1) that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or 2) that we are not producing a significant amount of CO2,
      then you’ll be right.

      Unfortunately, those two points are both facts, beyond dispute.  The rest of the science is just about the how much and when the climate will change.

    • iansand says:

      06:58am | 13/07/10

      Sherlock - So the PhDs who are sceptical are correct, but you reject the PhDs who think that climate change is anthropogenic.  There are many, many times more PhDs who think that AGW is a problem compared to the “sceptics” so your choice is not based on numerical superiority. What factor are you applying?  Surely a proper sceptic would not be blinkered by ideology?

    • Steve Frankes says:

      12:18pm | 13/07/10

      How about simple physics: Energy in = Energy Out
      There is no global warming. It defies the laws of physics.
      There is a great big ball of fire out there that dictates what our environment is - its called the sun. Which incedentally is in its solar minimum hence why we have had global cooling.
      Must be a travesty that they cant force warming to suit their agenda.
      Perhaps tax the sun that will fix it.

    • iansand says:

      08:18pm | 13/07/10

      Here’s yer problem.  Greenhouse gases slow down the “energy out”.  So what happens then?

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:17pm | 13/07/10

      To Steve Frankes,
      It’s not that simple.  Yes, the sun puts out a reasonably steady amount of energy, however, the amount that is actually absorbed by the earth and is re-reflected is a bit more complex than your year 7 science suggests.

      When sunlight hits the ground, it is absorbed, and then re-radiated, with most of it re-radiated in the infra-red range.  CO2 reflects infra-red back to earth again.  The more CO2, the more is reflected back in and bounces around until reabsorbed.  Light hitting ice at the poles is more likely to re-reflect as white light (not infra-red) and pass through the CO2 in the atmosphere.  As more ice melts (which it is doing), more light is absorbed and less reflected.  Funnily enough, the amount of Energy In and Energy Out depends on atmospheric and surface conditions more than anything else.  If we change those (by, for instance, increasing CO2), the equation changes, and the world warms up.

    • iansand says:

      12:08pm | 12/07/10

      MenarefromMars - But where are the papers?  Where is all the research refuting those anthropogenic warming scamsters?  I have looked and looked for the data to prove the sceptics right, so far without success.  So help me out and direct me to them.  If the data is so crap there must be thousands and thousands of papers making the reputations of their authors by proving the consensus wrong.

      Reply

    • MenarefromMars says:

      12:57pm | 12/07/10

      iansand: I just gave you two credible BOM sites with 100+yr trend data, which clearly show what you look for. Jerry Plains Post Office and Cape Otway. Go ahead and use the data - its available for download in any format you need.

      Unfortunately I cannot include any graphs from the site because the bom site uses some type of active scripting, but simply compare 1870-1900 max temps to 1940-1970 max temps and you will see a clear average disparity/anomaly.

      If you are angling for some type of “peer reviewed” is best argument, you and I both know the peer review process was proven as corruptible, I’d like to know whether all the peer reviewed pro-AGW work would withstand an independent “non-peer” review.

    • iansand says:

      04:58pm | 12/07/10

      MenarefromMars - I think your post illustrates my point perfectly.  The information is readily available from sources other than the East Anglian centre, but instead of using those data to do research refuting AGW the “sceptics” have launched an attack on the centre.  These people are spoilers, and nothing more, and they have duped the gullible.

    • stephen says:

      12:22pm | 12/07/10

      So when yer take all the oil out from the Earth’s crust (which we’ve been doin fer nigh on a century), what are we putting back in its place ? What i mean is, if yer take so much away, under such circumstances, wouldn’t the absence of so much material affect, say, the Earth’s rotation ? Our spin ?
      Recently, i read in a science journal (of no great reputation, mind you), that the Earth’s magnetic poles have shifted, and no-one is sure why.

      Reply

    • MenarefromMars says:

      01:24pm | 12/07/10

      :Stephen

      When the oil is taken out its usually replaced with water.

      CO2 is actually a rather heavy gas, compared to oxygen, nitrogen and many other gasses that make up the atmosphere. Being a heavy gas, most of it ends up being absorbed by plants or the ocean.

      There was an attempt to launch a specific CO2 mapping satellite past year(sept 2009) but it failed to launch correctly and crashed into the ocean. There is another satellite named aqua which is being used for climate research since 2002.

      Here is one point of view on the results of the aqua project: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185

      quote: “What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:40pm | 12/07/10

      To MenarefromMars:
      Your comments re the weights of various gases show you really do not understand the basics of science here.  Yes, CO2 as a molecule has more mass than nitrogen or oxygen gas, but this has no relevance as to whether it is absorbed or not - that is entirely down to chemistry.
      Yes, plants absorb CO2.  Yes, the oceans absorb CO2.  Plants can only absorb so much, and when the ocean absorbs CO2, it becomes an acid, which has consequences for life in the ocean - it’s not a get out of jail free card.  The world can absorb a certain amount of CO2 in the normal carbon cycle, if the amount increases, the cycle breaks down and things change.  Like the climate.

    • Wayne says:

      03:08am | 13/07/10

      They pump in seawater to force the oil to the well head as oil floats on water, and the water is heavier.  The earths magnetic field is constantly changing and is constantly being updated on navigation charts to reflect this.  It is driven by the molten iron core at the heart of our planet.  Removing oil doesn’t affect this.

    • MenarefromMars says:

      08:52am | 13/07/10

      Northern Steve:
      CO2 only becomes an effective greenhouse gas once it enters the troposhere. In the same way that Ozone created on land never gets to the ozone layer where its needed, but instead becomes smog. CO2 created on land has a similar issue and has its work cut out to reach the troposphere.

      Absorption is down to biology not chemistry, by the way. When you state that plants can only absorb “so much”, how much is that?

      Has anyone done any research on the effects of aviation and CO2 levels?

    • Hona says:

      02:31pm | 12/07/10

      I think what many people don’t know about the sciences is that they reject the notion of absolutes, which makes proving anything impossible despite evidence to the contrary. Rather they arrive at mathematics as Davinci knew in his day when discussing anything which deals only with the material universe. When our son was a patient at Randwick Children’s Hospital in Sydney, the top professor there made this statement, medical science and research is guess work based upon observations. Now here’s a scientist who understands the limitation of his science method and the problem of an epistemological certainty about what he thinks he knows. Socrates had this problem when he said, “The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” He to lived in a time where the concept for absolutes was absent and only human reason mattered. The Greek empire isn’t with us today because it’s roots were too finite, being firmly based in a context minus a concept for absolutes.

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      04:04pm | 12/07/10

      The problem is Bruce that you have lost the trust of the community, as in the haste of the climate community to “raise awareness” you elected to sensationalise and use mistruth in order to alarm.

      So I am afraid that it is now too late to simply say “climate change is real because I say so… ”

      First the climate science community needs to come out from behind the years of bullying and belittling anyone who differed in opinion and admit their deceit.

      Once that process is complete, all those complicit in the lies need to step down from the IPCC and the major science bodies and universities, hand over all their work to be fact checked by independent scientists with no link to any groups or climate bodies.

      From there we can start again, to examine the science and determine the true extent of the any climate change, man’s effect upon it and what we as a world need to do to create a cleaner and more sustainable environment.

      I would strongly suggest that pushing ‘climategate” and the exposed errors and deliberate deceptions at the IPCC under the carpet falls far from this, similarly to appointing a banker with environmental activism being his only experience to be the head of this nation’s peak science body.

      So Bruce I am sorry to say that you have a long way to go to win back my trust, and I have no doubt the trust of a large number of the community whom you are employed to serve.

      Reply

    • Press says:

      07:04am | 13/07/10

      “Because I say so”? But that *isn’t* what he said at all! Why are you cheating?

      There’s been no pushing under the carpet, either.
      There’s been a fair look at the emails, which found no fault,  and a bare handful of small mistakes, widely noted and publicly corrected. 

      Meanwhile, the data has been broadly consistent for over a decade and getting more clear and precise at each and every summary and across a range of different measures. We have warming already. Man-made emissions are contributing. It looks like there’s still time to do something useful about it, though the later we leave it the harder and more expensive it’ll be.

    • Cynic says:

      07:03pm | 13/07/10

      Anybody who has read even a selection of the emails knows there is a large case to answer. All three reviews are white-wash. They simply ignore the chicanery.

    • Press says:

      02:14am | 14/07/10

      Anybody who has read even a selection of the emails knows they were expressed as robust personal exchanges which - had they been intended for publication to a wide audience - could have been more precisely expressed so that even a conspiracy fantasist could’nt misrepresent them.

      There is no case to answer. To try and confect anything else out of them is nothing but chicanery

    • Joe says:

      09:43pm | 12/07/10

      The headline says it all. The climte lobby are dodgying the figures ans when caught out they don’t change. In the mean time they are investigated by the very people with egg on their face for falling for the dodgy figure in the first place so they say nothing is wrong. No wonder global warming is dead.

      Reply

    • WayneT says:

      12:47am | 13/07/10

      The inquiries very, very carefully avoided looking at the actual science being discussed in the thousand emails released by a whistle blower at the University of East Anglia last November.  Instead, they reached for the whitewash-bucket.  All of them did this.  Not one did its job properly or independently.  Why this failure to investigate even the most blatant incitement to destroy scientific material in emails from “Professor” Jones to fellow-“scientists”?  Why the failure to investigate the “trick” by which Jones had sought to conceal the growing discrepancy between rising real-world temperatures as measured by thermometers and the falling temperatures shown by the tree-ring records that he was trying to pretend were reliable enough to tell us there was no medieval warm period?  Why the failure to investigate why various of the Climate gate e-mailers – a poisonous, malevolent crew from the beastly tone of so many of the emails – had spent a year bullying and cajoling editors of learned journals to delay publication of a result they found uncongenial, so that they could cobble together an attempted refutation to be published at the same time as the paper they disagreed with?  Scientific dishonesty on this scale is not routine, even in the corrupted academe of today. But it was not investigated. The people who ran the inquiries knew what was expected of them. Their job was to look the other way. And why? Because almost the entire governing class of the world has foolishly signed up to the climate-extremist results of the UN’s climate panel, and governments never, ever admit they are wrong.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      05:56am | 13/07/10

      Government inquiries exist, to exonerate Governments.  Their allusions to ‘independence’ are but a fig leaf .  End of.

      Reply

    • pp says:

      08:58am | 13/07/10

      The Climategate Whitewash Continues.

      “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 11:30PM

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 11:27PM

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 10:06PM

@BrettS69 the loveliest thing about post-origin is the sledges from gloating qlders #ratherbeagoodloserthanapoorwinner

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 09:55PM

That is the video referee howler to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers to end all howlers #stateoforigin

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

by Daniel Piotrowski

0

Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

Football happened last night. One colour reigned supreme. Or there was a draw. This open thread was written…

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

by Anthony Sharwood

32

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

In the classic Hollywood sports flick script, a ragtag bunch of losers and misfits take on the arrogant…

Schapelle has done her time

by Daniel Piotrowski

145

Schapelle has done her time

Schapelle Corby has served more than seven years in Kerobokan prison for attempting to import 4.2 kilos…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed