[…] Paltridge wishes the Academy of Science would focus on real problems like “group think”, the lack of polite debate, and the failures of bureaucratized “peer review”.
Maybe the Academy could use the resource of its overall fellowship to identify those situations where scientists have too much skin in a political game. President Eisenhower foresaw that problem many years ago in his retirement speech to the nation: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, …… we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.
Garth Paltridge is a former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist and Director of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre. He wrote The Climate Caper, reviewed here.
Read it all (Jonova)
The SMH parrot report is here. No fact checking here please. Dr John Ray, at Greenie Watch, explains: You couldn’t make this up
The Australian Academy of Science has just issued an updated “explanation” of global warming. They note that “Most available material … usually omits some of the basics, such as how scientists know humans are causing global warming and what future projections are based on”. So in their latest “explanation”, what did they do to remedy that deficiency? Below is their full “explanation” of how human activities enhance the ‘greenhouse effect’:
“Today, human activities are directly increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide, plus some chemically manufactured greenhouse gases such as halocarbons. These human-generated gases enhance the natural greenhouse effect and further warm the surface. In addition to the direct effect, the warming that results from increased concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases can be amplified by other processes. Human activities are also increasing aerosols in the atmosphere, which reflect some incoming sunlight. This human-induced change offsets some of the warming from greenhouse gases”
In short, they have done NOTHING to fill the gap they identified. Their screed is all just assertion and in any case completely ignores the key question of climate sensitivity — i.e. even if we accept everything they say above about the greenhouse effect, how do we know HOW BIG the effect will be? Most skeptics do believe that there is some human effect but can see neither theoretical nor empirical grounds for expecting it to be anything but trivial. It is the Warmists who shriek about it not being trivial but what is their evidence for that? There is none. It is all just poorly founded speculation
If that’s the best that the scientific establishment can do to explain Warmist beliefs, then the explanation is an utter failure. One wonders if they really believe in Warmism themselves. […]