UPDATE: Just in case you were in any doubt about Chubb’s views on climate change, The Age helps us out:
Professor Chubb rejected accusations that he was partisan because he believed that ”the science is in on climate change”.
”Well, I don’t think that’s partisan. I think that I can read English – as Ross Garnaut once said – and understand it. And I think that the evidence is overwhelming,” he said at the National Press Club. (source)
Call me an old fogey, but I thought that the whole point of science was about challenging a hypothesis in order to see if it stands up to scrutiny, and if it does not, moving on to develop a new hypothesis. Apparently not, according to Australia’s own Chief Scientist, who is following in the same sorry footsteps as his predecessor, alarmist Penny Sackett. He seems to believe that science is done by counting heads. He needs an urgent lesson in the scientific method, and in scientific history:
AUSTRALIA’S chief scientist Ian Chubb has waded into the highly charged debate surrounding climate change, arguing people who disagree with the scientific evidence supporting human-induced global warming do not “deserve equal weight”.
Professor Chubb yesterday used the stage at the National Press Club in Canberra to say the debate on climate change had been “appalling” and “hysterical”, and to label the scientific literacy of politicians as lacking. [I agree with that - Ed]
He also signalled his intention to take a more robust involvement in policy development. [Call me an old fogey again, but what has the Chief Scientist's role got to do with policy development? - Ed]
Professor Chubb took over the job after Penny Sackett, who failed to secure one face-to-face meeting with Julia Gillard, resigned earlier this year.
He yesterday took aim at the media’s coverage of the climate change debate, saying it had not conveyed the science in a “proper and balanced” way. [No, just look at ABC and Fairfax - bias is in their genes - I don't think that's what he meant - Ed]
“I think attacking people because they’re giving a message is appalling. I think some of the language that’s used is bordering on the hysterical,” he said. “I’ve seen literature that suggests (more than) 90 per cent of experts in climate science are all of one view. And that is that the planet is warming and humans have intervened to accelerate that process.
“So somebody who comes along and says it’s not true doesn’t deserve equal weight. [Try telling that to Galileo, or to Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall - Ed]. They deserve to have their views considered if they’ve gone through the proper and scientific process and it’s ended up in the peer review literature.” (source)
So I assume he will be speaking out forcefully and standing up for giving equal weight to Professors Carter, Lindzen, and the hundreds of other highly respected scientists who have published peer-reviewed works challenging the alarmist consensus. Oops, I don’t think that’s what he meant, do you?
Shutting down those who don’t share your views. Oldest trick in the book.