- inhalers

April 24, 2012: "Government should re-examine the climate data" by ICSC Chief Science Advisor, Professor Bob Carter et al *, published in The Australian.

Two recent, widely publicised reports by the government's scientific advisory agencies on climate change have sought to raise alarm yet again about global warming.

With the world having warmed slightly during the late 20th century, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Commission all advocate that this warming was caused mainly by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, and that the continuation of emissions unchecked will cause dangerous warming of 3C-4C by 2100.

However, these and other climate agencies are now encountering a public that is increasingly aware of the lack of factual evidence for dangerous warming, and of the speculative nature of the arguments advanced in its favour.

For example, many people now understand that there is no direct evidence that 20th-century warming was caused mostly by carbon dioxide increase; that the late 20th-century warming has been followed by a 15-year temperature standstill in the face of continuing increases in carbon dioxide; and that the models that project alarming future warming are inadequate.

The dangerous warming hypothesis is embodied in the complex climate models that CSIRO and others use to predict the future climate.

But when the model predictions are tested against the latest high-quality data from our best instruments, they are seen to have comprehensively failed.

For example, the models predicted increasing global air temperatures (the measured rises have been much less than predicted), increasing ocean temperatures (there has been no change since 2003, when we started measuring it properly with Argo ocean-diving buoys) and the presence of a hot spot caused by humidity and cloud feedback at heights of 8km-12km in the tropical atmosphere (entirely absent).

The last item is especially important because it shows that the crucial amplification assumed by the modellers and which is responsible for two-thirds of the predicted warming (yes, only one-third is directly due to carbon dioxide) simply does not exist.

Finding that the estimated historic increase in carbon dioxide was not enough to cause dangerous warming on its own, the modellers guessed that atmospheric water vapour would amplify, by a factor of three, any initial carbon dioxide-forced warming.

That this assumed amplification is present in the models but not in reality explains why the models consistently overestimate recent warming.

What then should our government be making of all this?

Well, the government appears to take advice on global warming and climate change from a wide range of sources, which include the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Australian government agencies (CSIRO, BOM), state-based greenhouse or climate-change bodies, rent- seekers from many university climate-related research groups, business lobby groups and consultants and, finally, large environmental lobby organisations (Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, WWF). Phew.

The reality is, though, that all of these groups and organisations take their lead from, and support the views of, the IPCC (a political body that is unaccountable to Australian citizens).

Their starting assumption is therefore that human-caused global warming exists, that it is dangerous and that the way to avert the danger is to "decarbonise" the planet. The many agencies and groups giving advice are, in fact, just providing multiple conduits for the same repetitive, alarmist message, which derives ultimately from the same IPCC source.

Since the government's carbon tax legislative package passed the Senate last October, Australian press coverage of the global warming issue has been muted, doubtless partly signifying that there have been few government media releases that address the topic since the Senate decision.

That situation changed with a jolt during the week starting on March 12, when a wide variety of news media carried stories about CSIRO's Cape Grim air pollution monitoring station in Tasmania, followed later in the week by publicity for new reports on global warming by CSIRO/BOM and the Climate Commission.

In effect, the week revealed a co-ordinated and highly successful public relations campaign by three of the organisations involved in giving advice on climate change in Australia, with support and advance knowledge among some media editors and reporters. The aim was to rekindle the fast-fading fear of global warming alarm among the general public.

Very little scientific balance or analysis was provided during this week-long barrage of tired, speculative and highly controversial assertions about supposedly dangerous global warming.

Rather than being a new state of affairs, this assault in favour of warming alarmism by Australian climate agencies follows many similar propaganda blitzes during the past 10 years.

As experienced scientists, we have just completed a detailed assessment of the recent reports, which has been added to the list of earlier independent audits of IPCC and Australian reports at Quadrant Online (Google "global warming: an essential reference").

Our analysis of the "new" reports finds that they provide no evidence that dangerous global warming is occurring; nor that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause such warming in future; nor that recent Australian climate-related events lie outside normal climate variability; nor that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have any discernible impact on future climate.

Therefore, Australian public policies regarding dangerous climate change, sea-level rise and other climatic hazards are based on inadequate scientific advice, which is shackled to the shortcomings of inadequate computer model projections.

The climate models are incompatible with the measured data. In recent decades the model predictions have significantly exceeded the measured temperature rise.

In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, scientists go with the data and revise their hypothesis.

But in politics the opposite is true, for authority figures and political correctness reign supreme. In which context government climate scientists, Western governments and numerous influential lobby groups all strongly support the idea of dangerous global warming, despite the strong contrary evidence.

We conclude that an obvious and urgent need exists for the government to reassess its climate hazard policies. A good starting point would be to implement an unbiased review of the evidence.


Bob Carter is a geologist specialising in paleontology and marine geology. David Evans is a computer modeller and was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 1999-2005. Stewart Franks is an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle. William Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology, 1986-98.



Comments on this story

  • al of WA Posted at 12:30 AM April 18, 2012

my god, it took 20 years and countless billions of wasted dollars but FINALLY someone has captured the entire issue in a clear and concise manner. thank you for articlulating what many of us have know for a long time

Comment 1 of 50

  • Richard Adrian of Fremantle Posted at 1:37 AM April 18, 2012

Thanks to Bob Carter and his associates for explaining the reasons why Global Warming has simply not occurred as the IPCC and CSIRO models say it should. You cannot argue with good data and unbiased science. This should reinforce Tony Abbott's intention to repeal the carbon tax legislation and other irresponsible expenditure justified by carbon alarmism. Ms Gillard will of course take no notice of these inconvenient truths.

Comment 2 of 50

  • Bho Ghan-Pryde of Perth Posted at 2:05 AM April 18, 2012

The governments, agencies, media, individuals and so on who have been promoting this AGW thing have invested too much credibility to ever voluntarily and gracefully re-examine their modeling with a scientific eye. They have to carry on now right over the cliff - the trick will be not letting them drag the rest of us with them.

Comment 3 of 50

  • The Inconvenient Truth Posted at 3:15 AM April 18, 2012

Brave scientists who are prepared to challenge the political LAW on climate change. Facts that do not comply with the political LAW are not admissible. These scientists will have all government funding cut off for whatever projects they wish to persue. They will be driven out of universities like coalition sympathizers driven out of the ABC. Money is only ever made available to those who consistently aim to prove the political LAW and ignore any findings to the contrary. The political LAW of climate change is L-A-W.

Comment 4 of 50

  • Green Future Posted at 3:23 AM April 18, 2012

Or you can follow Flim Flam Flannery into economic oblivion, unemployment, living in caves without lighting or fire for cooking and heating.

Comment 5 of 50

  • Geoff of Tweed Posted at 3:37 AM April 18, 2012

According to Cape Grim measurement, since 1976 CO2 has increased by an average of 1.7 Parts Per Million per year. CO2 has increased by around 60 Parts Per Million in the Earth's atmosphere since 1976. "other" parts of the Earth's atmosphere have decreased by 60 Parts Per Million since 1976. ... and therefore 999,940 Parts Per Million of the Earth's atmosphere have remained unchanged since 1976. Can someone explain how the climate is changed by the movement of 60 ppm and static 999,940 ppm? I would suggest IPCC is having a lend of us. Y2K all over again?

Comment 6 of 50

  • Alan of Queensland Posted at 5:12 AM April 18, 2012

Unfortunately Bob, this Labor government has its hands over its ears with respect to climate change, and solely for political reasons. Having bribed the CSIRO and BOM with huge research grants, it intimidates them to stay "on message". No matter that even our once CSIRO's very own (Garth) Paltridge et al (2009) recently found negative feedbacks in historic radiosonde (weather balloon) data. Instead of positive feedback from assumed constant relative humidity, the clear, negative trends in the NCEP data implied that "long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2". This government also maintains the myth from one dodgy survey that 97% of scientists concur with the IPCC. The reality is that most scientists (and inquisitive laypeople) now accept that rising CO2 accounts for some of our very modest warming, along with human land-use change, increased black carbon, etc. and natural effects, but that the catastrophic forecasts are deliberately exaggerated. We badly need an election.

Comment 7 of 50

  • Ewen Sutherland Posted at 6:01 AM April 18, 2012

Thank God for your analysis and may you keep it up. This global warming scare must be shown for what it is. A left wing religion. Now Julia is going to hand out 10 billion dollars to any crackpot green energy scheme that can't get finance from the banks or anyone else. This will make the pink bats look like a blue chip investment.

Comment 8 of 50

  • Mike of NQ Posted at 6:18 AM April 18, 2012

PLEASE,dont let the truth get in the way of a good story!

Comment 9 of 50

  • Samuel DiGiovanni of melbourne Posted at 6:26 AM April 18, 2012

Bob The argument on climate change is a very complex one but with thousands of words written and reports for and against the question on climate change their is only one comment that makes sense and that comes from Rupert Murdoch although he does not believe in climate change his comment was "Give the planet the benefit of the doubt "the positive aspect is if the world changes to a clean energy will be good news for the our children and their children and societies in the furture they will live in a better clean world and Australia can be the leading clean energy economy in asia with our vast energy source from the sun and wave energy

Comment 10 of 50

  • annie barker of hunter NSW Posted at 6:30 AM April 18, 2012

All very fine, but the reason for the govt. to bring on a carbon tax, was to appease the Greens, not to save the planet. The carbon tax is for two different reasons, one as stated above, the other is to redistribute wealth. Even if the Greens now acknowledged that the climate is more stable than thought, the Govt. would still go ahead, it needs the money. We need to throw this govt. out before the damage is done, but that is proving not to be easy. I live on the land, the climate is very important to our livelihood, has it changed in the last twenty years? Well, NO. Australia will continue to go thru El Nina, El Nino, sometimes it is more obvious than other times, we simply need to build more dams, more than anything else, that should be our priority. The earth will continue to change and revolve as it always has, and anybody who thinks they can control it from Canberra are kidding themselves.

Comment 11 of 50

  • Larry Hunt Posted at 6:49 AM April 18, 2012

Thank you for this very concise and straightforward article. I hope to see a lot more of this type of analysis which refers to the observational facts as opposed to the hype that to many uninformed governments and media outlets ignore; for example, the ABC and BBC. The tide has shifted against the alarmist and other rent seekers and they are in a panic. It's a great scene to behold. Their arrogance is finally giving way to despair and desperation. I constantly have debates with people regarding their belief system and not too many can even point to any empirical facts but simply rely on the IPCC models which have shown to be false. It is time to dismantle the IPCC and severely cut back on funding for what can only be described as a farce. Good on ya mate!

Comment 12 of 50

  • lmwd of Qld Posted at 7:01 AM April 18, 2012

This is exactly what people need to hear. The TRUTH! The public do NOT know that all the alarm was built on a scientific assumption (unproven guess). Incredibly, it turns out that the assumption was incorrect, going by the recent research of many different scientists in this field. This knowledge just hasn't filtered through into mainstream consciousness as yet. Our climate has negative feedbacks, not just positive as assumed, so can we cancel the crisis and do away with all the apocalypticism? Unfortunately the sunk costs with this theory are now to the tune of trillions of dollars worldwide. Scientific organisations, which jumped on this fashionable and lucrative bandwagon and based all their projections on this assumption, are in a corner financially and with their scientific credibility. They need the funding the Govt dishes out and in order for the Govt to keep dishing out the funding, the Govt needs the alarmism to scare people into paying more taxes. True believer zealots of dangerous manmade warming, science bodies and Govt in a corner, fight nasty. I expect to see the usual low personal attacks to smear the authors instead of engaging intelligently with the argument.

Comment 13 of 50

  • Boxer Posted at 7:02 AM April 18, 2012

Finally some truth is starting to come out of this Alarmist Fiasco. When can we expect Gillard and Milne to review their current climate change ideology? OOps! Unlike proper scientists they dont check the facts, just continue with their political spin. Not the signs of true leaders. Bring on the election, ASAP.

Comment 14 of 50

  • John Nethery of Chillagoe, QLD Posted at 7:18 AM April 18, 2012

This is a very concise summary of the politics of climate change. I suggest that the article could have also mentioned that the 20th century slight warming can be attributed to long-term warming and cooling cycles throughout the Holocene, for which there is clear historical, archaeological and geological evidence

Comment 15 of 50

  • David Mason-Jones of Hunter Valley Posted at 7:22 AM April 18, 2012

Congratulations to the Australian for, once again, bringing the voice of moderation to the global warming/climate chane issue. This article can definitely NOT be characterised as a work of fanatical denialism or sociological deviance as some, like Prof Lewandowski at Uni of WA, would have us believe. It is simply a call for a review. What could be more moderate in its position than that? What could be more scientific in its approach and level- headed? I too have been fascinated in the past month at what appears to be a concerted onslaught of media releases and announcements about the impending doom. I have been fascinated by the fact that all this has been coming out, and yet many prominent scientists agree that any global warming trend is at a halt. They also agree CO2 levels are rising. The question is now, 'Who are the (so-called and emotive word) 'denialists'? Are the sociological 'deviants' the people who refuse to go along with the 'herd' who believe the globe is continuing to warm? Or are the sociological deviants the people who refuse to take heed of the fact that at least some of the scientific observations do not match the warming models. We need a moratorium.

Comment 16 of 50

  • Tony Downes of The Gap, Qld Posted at 7:49 AM April 18, 2012

The teal crux of the articlemcomes in the the last line 'Unbiased review of the evidence'. With the current government lead by Julia Gillard an unbiased review of anything would be impossible. Every current review, think tank, or agency is stacked with hand picked labor party friendly appointees. If a review was mabel and the government didn't like it's findings it wouldn't see the light of day. In the end the evidence of little or no warming will win out and the barrow pushers of global warming will be proved wrong. Hopefully this will occur before we run out of money promoting useless carbon reduction schemes.

Comment 17 of 50

  • Michael Cunningham of West End, Brisbane Posted at 8:03 AM April 18, 2012

There are so many caveats and uncertainties about alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that there are no grounds for taking strong action to reduce emissions. Actions to date have been very costly for no benefit. Temperatures have been flat for over ten years, we should scrap all anti-emissions measures until there is clearer evidence that (1) sustained long-term unusual temperature rises are actually occurring, (2) the costs of that rise exceed the benefits, (3) human emissions are the cause and (4) cutting CO2 emissions will actually have a significant impact on temperatures. None of these points have been proven.

Comment 18 of 50

  • Murray Shaw Posted at 8:07 AM April 18, 2012

But it wont. It has set its path and is obviously prepared to commit electoral suicide. When circumstances change it is circumspect to change your mind/direction. julia is completely wedged on the carbon tax, and is obviously prepared to die in a ditch for it. Trouble is she is taking the country with her. Time for the Coalition to dump its "direct action" policy,and accept that nothing should be done until our trading partners have acted, and/or the whole AGW hypothesis is accepted as dead. Julias carbon tax meanwhile will be out in the economy like a "pacman" vacuuming up everything in its path courtesy of our energy dependence. Not a very positive outlook. Global Warmists need to accept that the horse is dead, and no ammount of flogging will revive it.

Comment 19 of 50

  • Bill Banter of Brisbane Posted at 8:09 AM April 18, 2012

Every month that current temperature stand-still trends continue past 1998 is putting increasing pressure on climate alarmists and the IPCC to explain themselves. Yet all we get is hockey stick tricks; but no proper explanations. Many think Gillard's poll rating is so low because she lied. Maybe it is because she is so gullible? Meanwhile, green loans are rolling out by the billion - all taxpayer money being frittered away like pink batts.

Comment 20 of 50

  • Mick In Them Hills Posted at 8:16 AM April 18, 2012

The facts of climate change have been irreievant to this government ever since they got the scent of a tax grab on the whole population. And even better, they get to moralise about it. A Fabian's wet dream.

Comment 21 of 50

  • Dumb Punter of Perth Posted at 8:18 AM April 18, 2012

Now if someone from the Opposition got up in the federal parliament and stated this facts, imagine the furore erupting. Imagine the accusation of 'denier' from Gillard, Combet, Wong, Milne etc.The political correct 'Global warming alarmist's' make you scared to dare correct or challenge them because of their vitriol when challenged. There seems a madness in them that they are the chosen ones and everything they say is set in stone and cannot dare be disagreed with. You just need watch and listen to the likes of Wong and Milne rant and rave about the 'science' that appears to be their god.

Comment 22 of 50

  • Wayne P Posted at 8:21 AM April 18, 2012

Thank goodness for people like Bob Carter, who can give us the facts, as opposed to the global warming THEORY which is inconsistent with the data. Man made global warming THEORY is all about protecting the rivers. Rivers of taxpayers money that will flow through the troughs of the various bodies mentioned above in Bobs article, with large chunks going overseas. Here's a quesiton for JuLiar, manmade global warming is true, why so many lies? Why lie about the carbon tax, why lie about carbon dioxide being pollution (it isn't), why the lie about the big polluters paying the tax, when the reason some of us receive partial compensation is because WE will ultimately pay the tax? We live in dangerous times, thankfully we have scientists like Bob Carter to help shine some truth on all these lies.

Comment 23 of 50

  • HansBriz of Brisbane Posted at 8:22 AM April 18, 2012

It seems that the government works on the principle: If the facts do not support the theory, then change the facts

Comment 24 of 50

  • Aussie Padre Posted at 8:30 AM April 18, 2012

Can we please have more articles like this. I would not call myself a sceptic, but I agree that Real DATA should always be the main point over theories. I just wish someone would Wikileaks the Climate debate.

Comment 25 of 50

  • Peter Kemmis of Turner, ACT Posted at 8:44 AM April 18, 2012

It is surprising that many tertiary-educated Australians with ready internet access to a range of official data, don't have an urge to get past the persuasion on both sides of the climate debate, to get to some official data on which they can form their own conclusions. Generally, they accept what they are being told by "the specialists". Anyone under 40 years of age, has been told continuously since primary school, that humans cause pollution, overuse and mis-use of resources, and global warming. They accept that as readily as we now accept that the Earth rotates around our sun. And of course they mix all these issues up, and see them all as having a common cause. One useful official source is the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). There are many interesting and relevant data series, such as on historical global temperatures, and sea levels for the latter, . Look at some of these, then look at other sites of both sides of the argument, and make up your own mind. Just spend a few hours, that's all it takes, to provide better perspective to judge the arguments you read and hear.

Comment 26 of 50

  • Hugh of Gosford Posted at 8:45 AM April 18, 2012

Gillard Labor will never admit its wrong on climate change. My greater worry is that we do not have an opposition that takes a real-world view about the unreality of man-made global non-warming and CO2. True, the Coalition will repeal the carbon tax and wind back other Labor climate funding. But they still substantially support "the science" despite all the real world data that disproves the UN IPCC hypothesis upon which all this nonsense is based. I want an opposition to come out strongly, as Tony Abbott did at the very start, when he described this global warming CO2 scam very rightly as "crap"!

Comment 27 of 50

  • Peter H Posted at 8:57 AM April 18, 2012

It is to the great credit of The Australian and to "real science" that articles such as the above are published in the popular media. Clearly the public has become acutely aware of the increasing prevalence of carefully orchestrated media disinformation campaigns on climate and many other topics. The presence of a clearly articulated alternative view does a lot to restore the credibility of genuine science and faith in the media as a source of sound information.

Comment 28 of 50

  • Jan of Noosa Heads Posted at 9:01 AM April 18, 2012

Us sceptics strongly suspected all along that the climate funding grantees and beneficiaries were deliberate overstating the case so the climate doolallys would continue their lemming like belief of the modelling. What is unforgivable is our "government" joining them without at least an honest look at swimming in the other direction. I have no doubt the learned authors of this article have done much more than write an opinion piece for the Australian to get the governments attention (and we all know the degree of difficulty associated with that). Perhaps publicizing the letters, the meetings, the conversations that have no doubt occurred (creating their own Climileaks campaign) may sway enough of the climate doolallys to get honest science back on the agenda? We can no longer shrug and say "what are we going to do" and let this government lead us to laughing stock status!

Comment 29 of 50

  • Reality Bite of Sydney Posted at 9:04 AM April 18, 2012

But Bob, you don't seem to understand that the political left NEEDS everyone to believe that global warming exists. Without some overwhelming emergency like climate change there simply wouldn't be enough of an excuse for them to control our lives to the extent that they want to. Do you think the far left would be listened to by anyone if they tried to sell themselves as socialists or communists? Of course not! These days they get plenty of attention and support by pretending that our industrial wealth needs to be tightly controlled and diminished because of ENVIRONMENTAL concerns, and it's worked a treat for quite a while. It doesn't matter to them if global warming is actual reality or not. All that matters is that we all BELIEVE in it. We'll then be much more open to heavy regulation of most aspects of our lives. After all, it's an emergency, right? And we're to blame with our greedy consumption. Sacrifice will lead to redemption, for the end of the world is nigh, and all that stuff. Thankfully most of us are now on to them, and see through their transparent bid for power over us. And that's largely due to your efforts and courage, and of those like you. Thank you.

Comment 30 of 50

  • Paul of Brisbane Posted at 9:06 AM April 18, 2012

Yes, yes, it's all obviously a conspiracy.... btw, what is this "strong contrary evidence" you speak of in the second last paragraph? Are you implying that we have strong evidence that there definitely will NOT be dangerous global warming? As an "experienced scientist", you obviously know the difference between lack of compelling evidence in support of a theory as against "strong contrary evidence" that disproves the theory. You are implying you have the latter. So where is it?

Comment 31 of 50

  • barbara Posted at 9:44 AM April 18, 2012

julia's intention is not based on the environment. its obviously based on taxing industry and keeping the plebs dependent on handouts. she didnt even need to go along with the greens on this - they were never going to side with the coalition anyway. but they're a handy excuse for her lie.

Comment 32 of 50

  • retired of bayside Posted at 9:46 AM April 18, 2012

Thank you. An excellent expose on both the Henny-Penny culture of climate change, and the lengths to which politicians will go (with other people's money & lives) to be seen to be right.

Comment 33 of 50

  • BruceS of nswcentral coast Posted at 9:50 AM April 18, 2012

Thank you for an informative and accurate article. We do not get to hear about this information on Free to Air News and Current Affairs TV broadcasts. I assume that it is because of the tax bribes handed out by Gillard and Conroy. There is a large slice of the voters who rely on Free TV for all of their news and information, which is truly troubling.

Comment 34 of 50

  • Alan Purvis of Port Willunga Posted at 9:54 AM April 18, 2012

Hi Guys, In my past life I solved complex problems by first assembling all the known proven facts that I could on the problem. I then discarded all opinions, half truths, common sense statements etc. If it could not be proven it was discarded. Applying this technique to the global warming theory I have found and accept:- Fact 1. Carbon dioxide is a so called greenhouse gas. Fact 2. We have NO knowledge of the degree of global warming caused by the increased levels Carbon Dioxide. NONE! Fact 3. There is not one person or group of people who understand how our climate works. NO ONE!. Like Bob Carter I have spent many hours perusing various publications (such as the Critical Decade Report etc.) and find that they are filled with highly qualified statements and opinions that appear to me to be with out meaning. On what evidence, for example, would one base statements that talk about "Dangerous" global warming. Where would one get that knowledge? It is simply an opinion based on no evidence. I totally agree with the sentiments expressed in your article Bob. How can I help.

Comment 35 of 50

  • Lindsay Smith of Sydney Posted at 10:05 AM April 18, 2012

Stand by for the vitriol that will be heaped upon these scientists, who appear to have no vested interest in pursuit of the facts

Comment 36 of 50

  • Bryan of North West QLD Posted at 10:06 AM April 18, 2012

But the "science is settled" and a carbon tax is the "roit thing to do"

Comment 37 of 50

  • David John Lloyd O'Halloran Posted at 10:07 AM April 18, 2012

It would be good if this article could also appear in the "Herald" and the "Age". If necessary, a paid advertisement should be utilized.

Comment 38 of 50

  • John Godden of Neerim South Posted at 10:37 AM April 18, 2012

Such a review is extremely unlikely, at least by this government. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has invested the entirety of her political capital on the Carbon Tax. This term of this government would become a superfluous waste of time if it were to accept any scientific findings which contradicted the scientific rationalization of it's radical Carbon Tax agenda. The Labor Causcus are now joined at the hip to Julia Gillard so they must by necessity decry any factual evidence to the contrary. Labor and the Greens will if anything ramp up the propaganda machine to rationalize their existence and to save face. The political reality transcends actual reality, meaning that we are effectively led by people who are lost pretending to know the way.

Comment 39 of 50

  • Abloke of Perth Posted at 10:50 AM April 18, 2012

Oh Bob, you climate scaptic you, climate modelling are the true indicators of climate change and not measured data did you not know this, no one uses thermometers and wind gauges anymore to predict the cliamte, you should invest in a computer and a climate modelling software, these IT tools can do wounders with any sort of data,and the best thing is that you can do it it all in the comfort of your study, not need to venture out into nature, you should ask where the IPCC, CSIRO, BOM, Australain climate commission got their software from

Comment 40 of 50

  • Nick of Canberra Posted at 11:00 AM April 18, 2012

A 15 year temperature standstill despite increases in carbon pollution. Sceptics or as that Green Earthian and his new party leader Christine would say'The Deniers"have now every right to say'told you so". Computer modelling will produce answers that you require to support the argument. However as any computer nerd knows, garbage in equals garbage out. For this come 1 July we are being saddled with an unnecessary, unwanted and apparently unjustifiable carbon tax.This together with dodgy figures from Wayne Swan's Treasury are making Julia's government look even more irresponsible and inept

Comment 41 of 50

  • Evan Thomas of Sydney Posted at 11:10 AM April 18, 2012

David John Lloyd O'Halloran. Pigs might fly too John, but a paid ad. is a good idea. Perhaps one of the mining giants or giantesses might help out with the funds. The ABC is, of course a lost cause.

Comment 42 of 50

  • Peter Kemmis of Turner, ACT Posted at 11:25 AM April 18, 2012

To Paul of Brisbane (9.04 am today, 18th April). The facts are easy to find, and have been published in a range of forums. I had my doubts about global warming some years ago, and wondered if there was any at all. I decided to do my own research, looking at official data. There are two key types that we can reference easily - ocean and land surface temperatures since 1880, and sea level variations (some as far back as 120 years). I had to change my view - there is warming. It is at a very steady rate - about 0.9 degrees celsius (land and ocean surface measurements) over the last 100 years. Sea level rises are also there - around 3 mm per annum on average, or about one foot per 100 years. Significantly, there has been no acceleration in temperature or sea level increases. Temperature has in fact levelled out over the last 10-15 years. These statements are based on official data. Meanwhile carbon dioxide levels are increasing significantly, I recall at something like 30% over the last ten years (need to verify this). You may care to read also my comment above posted at 8.44 am today. Happy, enjoyable and easy digging on the internet.

Comment 43 of 50

  • mikem of Brisbane Posted at 11:53 AM April 18, 2012

My major issue with the climate change debate has always been rather hystirical utterings of the green movement scientists and their followers. This is the first article I've read that seems to lay out the facts. What it clearly shows is that the "debate" is politically rather than scientificaly motivated. Having said that I believe that countries should look at their pollution output to improve the quality of the air the population breathe. It would seem that the majority of countries that attended the Copenhagen conference got it right when they decided not to proceed with a global approach.

Comment 44 of 50

  • addinall of Brissy Posted at 12:56 PM April 18, 2012

Well done Dr. Carter et alia. I have never had any faith in the CAGW religion. Not a Geologist, nor a climate scientist. My face has been seen around the ABS however and I do know how to read a data set, and people who tamper with data are the very worst kind of people. Again, well done. Keep up the pressure in the name of sanity and scientific integrity.

Comment 45 of 50

  • Tassie John of Hobart Posted at 1:14 PM April 18, 2012

Samuel DiGiovanni of melbourne, I used to have the same attitude until the unintended consequences started to appear such as rent seekers like English organic farmers trying to limit access to their markets (based on food miles) for Kenyan organic farmers who are typically struggling women trying to support their family. My other concern (as a scientist) is what will become of the reputation of science in general. Another point, if the debate was serious more people would be willing to at least discuss the issue of nuclear power (especially thorium based). This has led me to believe that this is more about politics than science.

Comment 46 of 50

  • Peter Kemmis of Turner, ACT Posted at 1:24 PM April 18, 2012

So global temperatures and sea levels are rising at a steady rate over the last 100+ years (with temperatures actually flattening over the last 10-15 years). There has been an acceleration in the amount of human-produced carbon dioxide over this period. Over the last twenty five years, climate models have been predicting much greater temperature and sea level rises, together with other effects on ice, ocean currents, and atmospheric disturbance. It is clear that the climate models are inadequate, and as yet cannot form a sound basis for prediction. Therefore, any policies based on those predictions have no substance. Indeed "the king has no clothes!" Because people find it hard to change their views, I've taken to drip-feeding little disturbing bits of information to those with whom I discuss climate change, to give them time to adjust, and to start questioning. It's interesting that of all the 44 comments so far on this article, I think only one expresses doubt about its claims. Has the tide started to turn at last?

Comment 47 of 50

  • Peter Clark of Mount Gambier Posted at 3:16 PM April 18, 2012

It is difficult to understand what has motivated politicians to adopt what has always been a siginficantly distorted debate. Al Gore still has audience with prime ministers despite clear evidence that all of his rhetoric is grossly exagerated. As far as the CSIRO and BOm are concerned one would have to question the timing. Budget settings are under discussion in Jan Feb and Mar, the budget is under pressure to find savings,ha, and the CO2 tax starts in July. There is a more coherent correlation here than CO2 and temperature.

Comment 48 of 50

  • The Keeper of the Cheese Posted at 3:45 PM April 18, 2012

Everyone here seems to be ignoring the true threat - the planet is failing to adhere to our climate models. If the Earth continues to go off in its own direction and completely fail to pay any attention to what we tell it to do, who knows what can happen in the future. To rectify this stiuation, I suggest we implement a "preditcive modelling non-compliance tax" which will help to ensure that the Earth remains obedient for the sake of future generations.

Comment 49 of 50

  • Neville Hughes of Batemans Bay Posted at 4:55 PM April 18, 2012

That this factual assessment of the AGW situation has appeared in a national newspaper is a tribute to the dedication and preference for ethical science of Bob Carter et al and ‘The Australian’. It should be available to every thinking Australian. We are indebted you.

Comment 50 of 50