Here in Australia there has been some questioning of the UN/IPCC/CRU Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) conjecture but for some reason, perhaps due to our geographic isolation, we have largely been quarantined by main stream media from the plethora of overseas reports promulgated in the media.
In western civilization (with the exception of Australia and possibly New Zealand) there is continuing and growing questioning of CAGW in the main stream media. We have seen leading CAGW players Prof Phil Jones of CRU fame being stood down and investigated and Prof Mann (of IPCC Hockey Stick fame) currently being investigated by Penn State University. Now the UK Parliament has seen fit to run its own investigation into Climategate and the CRU. For the terms of reference see link at WUWT which is reproduced in part here:
Terms of Reference
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
—How independent are the other two international data sets?
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
The deadline for submissions is tight. The UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee asks for written submissions no later than Noon 10 February 2010 (I assume that is GMT) and any submissions must be in Microsoft Word 2003 format (ok no jokes as to why the Science and Technology Committee demands submissions to be made using software technology that is 7 years out of date).
What passes for reasoned debate here in Australia by comparison? Let us look at our beloved Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who in one of his brief stop overs here in Australia had this to say at a speech at the Lowy Institute on 6 November 2009 before jetting off again in a cloud of thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions:
“Climate change deniers are small in number, but they are too dangerous to be ignored.”
“This brigade of donothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer.”
He rambles on with a peer reviewed comparison of his pet theory to a game of cards.
“You've got to know when to fold 'em and for the skeptics, that time has come.
The Government I lead will act.”
Thanks Kevin for classifying those Australians that don't agree with your views as dangerous. Perhaps, Kevin, all these dangerous people should be rounded up and interred in government re-education "facilities". I hate to point this out Kevin but you are talking about 54% of Australians according to the latest Gallop Poll research.
Yes, our Idiot In Chief will act. Fast foward one month to Copenhagen. And how did that all turn out for Kevin and his 114 man invasion force delegation? Oh yes, 3 pages of nonsense from Copenhagen in the form of an Accord (download the accord here), no deadlines, nothing binding, and no one even silly enough to sign it before the caviar had run out and everyone deserted Norway for the next Big Conference. Thank God you’re not a general leading an army. If you were I would humbly suggest that your greatest danger would be from your troops behind you and not the ones in front if your same withering display of logic was presented to them.
It makes sense to Kevin to act before he even knows the question even if it means “acting” in totally the wrong direction, such is the state of leadership in Australia. Kevin Rudd, you are truly Australia’s Greatest Living Actor.
That bunch of dangerous right wing conservative radicals Kev, the UK Labour led Parliament, on the other hand obviously doesn’t assume that the debate is so clear cut and instead is conducting an inquiry. No chance of that happening here with Kevin at the tiller.
Kev, how about acting now to pay back the massive debt you and you alone have inflicted upon we Australians,
and our children,
and our grandchildren (these last two lines were lifted from Kevin's landmark Lowy speech so I thought it appropriate to reuse them here - H/t Kev).
Act Kev. Please, act.
Impose the higher taxes necessary to solve your problem. Slash your government’s spending. Let’s see you do that without your massive Bait and Switch Tax Scheme. Then take it to an election. And please, stop your ridiculous attempt at blaming your indebtedness on former Prime Minister John Howard who left this country massively in funds – you are just embarrassing yourself. It is called responsibility Kev. Look it up in your Cantonese-English dictionary. I am sure it will be in there somewhere. See also “the buck stops here”.
This blog is a about Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) which is global warming caused by the activities of man. The core issues are:
- Is the climate warming, - Is the warming outside of historic norms - Is it caused by anthropogenic CO2 - Will it result in global disaster as the IPCC insists
Only the first has been satisfactorily answered in part and the qualification is that the data upon which the IPCC claims are based has not been made available for full scrutiny as yet. The average terrestrial land temperature experienced slight warming this century. In some regions such as Antarctica it has cooled. The earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age since 1650 (see Akasofu 2007 & 2009) which is one reason this warming trend is expected. It appears that this is not outside of historic norms (see Medieval Warm Period) and that the IPCC and some scientists have attempted to downplay the Medieval Warm Period and the effects of the Little Ice Age. The later two issues are not settled despite UN and government spin towards the contrary. For some excellent background from a real climatologist not implicated in the recent CRU revelations see the links to Dr Roy Spencer's blog below who discusses these issues as a professional.
Australia Joins China and Iran in Net Censorship - Nanny State Cometh
Pearls of Wisdom & Otherwise
Glenn Reynolds (USA - Instapundit.com): "I'll believe its a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."
Nick himself (Counting Cats in Zanzibar blog): "Is it just me or has the spam-trade been entirely taken-over by performance poets on Arts-Council grants?"
Dr. Kiminori Itoh (Phd UN IPCC Scientist Award-winning environmental physical chemist): "When people know what the truth is the will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr. Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor of climatology, Lead author on many IPCC reports, in an interview with Discover Magazine 1989): "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Former US Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management- a London-based business that sells carbon credits, in an interview with Grist Magazine 9 May 2006 re his book An Inconvenient Truth) "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."
New readers may be interested to peruse two of my earlier posts concerning the Fear of Global Cooling which was popular in the late 1970's. I have posted a copy of a Newsweek article together with comments here and here.