Quote of the Day: Ian Chubb

Unsceptical?

Professor Chubb is the Australian Chief Scientist, and has made a few appearances on ACM in his brief time in the job (see here, here and here). Given his comments today, it is apparent that there is little hope of any improvement in the level of debate on climate change in Australia.

Displaying an astonishing lack of proper scientific scepticism and a misplaced faith in the projections of computer models, Prof Chubb has completely bought into the warmist line at a Parliamentary inquiry, recycling the tired old “more respect for scientists” argument (somehow managing to ignore calls for sceptics to be gassed or tattooed, naturally) and raising yet again the non-existent death threats at ANU (FOI request still pending on that one).

So here’s the Quote of the Day:

Professor Chubb was dismissive of arguments that the changes can be attributed to natural events.

“For example, you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You can’t reproduce it through modelling if you just factor in natural events. But if you factor in human activity, then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction,” he said.

So let’s get this straight, because an incomplete and flaky climate model fails to predict the degree of arctic ice melt from natural causes, it has to be all man-made?

How about the alternative? The models suck. Geez.

Read it here.



Categories: Climate

Tags: ,

23 replies

  1. “The latest information that I’ve seen shows that the CO2 levels are high and that the rate of accumulation is accelerating,” he said.” clearly he knows nothing about historical levels of co2 and evidence that even though there are emissions trading scams around the world, emissions arent slowing, weather isnt getting worse and the planet is warming…what did you expect from the abc? still gotta stay maintain the story, the models are better than observations.

  2. So when the Earth came out of ice ages, it was always the fault of humans, right?

  3. “The latest information that I’ve seen shows that the CO2 levels are high and that the rate of accumulation is accelerating,” he said.” clearly he knows nothing about historical levels of co2 and evidence that even though there are emissio…ns trading scams around the world, emissions arent slowing, weather isnt getting worse and the planet isnt warming…what did you expect from the abc? still gotta stay maintain the story, the models are better than observations.

  4. I wonder how Mr Chubby reckons the Arctic sea ice melted in the 1930′s, well before the increase in man’s CO2 ?

  5. Is this the same Professor Chubb that when he was appointed chief scientist said he did not understand climate science all that well:-).

  6. A couple of hours browsing newspapers and historic photos at the National Library of Australia’s NLA Trove proves Professor Chubb wrong.
    Floods, bushfires and drought from the mid 1800′s in Australia.
    Also newspaper reports from Canada and the US of severe ice loss in the Arctic also proves the alarmists wrong – again.
    None of these articles include the magic words “carbon dioxide” or “carbon pollution”. Strange eh ?

  7. Damn! I should have placed “historic” in the sentence – Also historic newspaper reports from Canada and the US -

    Sorry for the inconvenience.

  8. What a NWO stooge. Whats the bet he gets a large “contribution” to his “research” from a Rothschild bank or another corporate interest with connections to Al Gore.

  9. “…you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You can’t reproduce it through modelling if you just factor in natural events. But if you factor in human activity, then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction,” – Professor Chubb quote
    ———————————–
    And he’s Australia’s Chief Scientist? Really?

    Does he not understand that the IPCC has only concentrated on man-made global warming? The IPCC has given no serious attention to natural causes of climate change.

    Now here is a most incredible fact… absolutely nobody knows what proportion of the 0.5 degree C increase in global average temperature since the late 1800s is due to natural variability and how much is due to human activity. No scientist has come up with an answer.

    So how the hell can the ‘chief scientist make such a statement?

    Professor Chubb is talking crap… he’s just another climate change charlatan riding the gravy train!

  10. “I wonder how Mr Chubby reckons the Arctic sea ice melted in the 1930′s” – Huh? There was no melt in the 1930s that would compare to the recent melting. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.updated.jpg
    Do you have a source for your claim of comparable melting?

  11. The Can’tbra club has clearly nobbled the last scientific neuron left in Chubby Chubb’s demented brain.

  12. Everything up until the sattelites were launched in the late 70s is hypothetical on artic sea ice levels. Studying sedimentary levels give indications of how the artic performs thousands of years ago but sea ice extent to the precision they have now is something you would be making up to say is accurate for pre-80s. News articles do exist from the 20s claiming unprecedented sea ice melts during this period which is not represented in that particular link you have Anthony. Of course we have no idea of the extent of those melts during that period but if they were going to fudge the data they should have done a better job of it.

  13. I am trying to find the transcript of Chubb’s comments. Anyone have a link?

  14. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/ that has the whole article from 1922. While http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html is a discussion based on current (as of 2008) melting and trying to get a comparisson to the 1918-1945 melts that are not really indicated by Cryosphere’s info. It talks of the many studies and papers on the subject from the 20s to 40s as well.

  15. Professor Chubb postulates:

    “For example, you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You can’t reproduce it through modelling if you just factor in natural events. But if you factor in human activity, then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction,”

    One can only wonder at the frenetic activity of the ancient humans that caused the ice cover in the Arctic ocean to be greatly reduced or even completely absent 6000 – 7000 years ago.
    For Australia’s Chief Scientist to make such an outlandish unsubstantiated claims is indeed a sad commentary on the state of science in this country. The model projections he relies for such a claim have been shown repeatedly to be little more than very highly priced fudge engines programed to produce virtual world scenarios tailored to suit the political narrative.

  16. So Australia’s Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb advocates better media coverage of the climate science debate. I could not agree more as long as he means that to date scaremongering by scientific and political vested interests has skewed the debate in largely one direction – man-made CO2 damaging the planet. Politicians claiming an all-encompassing new tax will lower the temperature of the earth is the latest disgraceful ploy in this regard.
    So let’s hear a lot more in the media from the many well-credentialed and serious scientists who have valid doubts about both the rationale for blaming perfectly natural climate change on humans and the exaggerated catastrophic predictions if the earth should warm by a few degrees over the next century.
    We may not all be scientifically literate but I’m sure good journalists without green global warming agendas of their own would be able report both sides of this debate equally and effectively so we could make our own minds up.

  17. Just what qualifications in climate related science has The Chubster got,anyway.. Why must we listen to him rather then Bob Carter for instance. What exactly is a Chief Scientist? Can someone enlighten me?

  18. During the past few millions of years, how many times have the ice shelves melted and then frozen again ? What was the earth’s temperature at the beginning, what was it a million years later, and so on ? How many hot then cold then hot again changes have there been , and what were the temperatures at their zeniths ? Back when the apes were starting to change to what we call “man” today, what was the earth’s temperature ? And by how much has it changed, up or down since then ?
    Come on Professor Chubb, surely you know all of this, to be able to so confidently tell us what has happened and what is to come ?

Trackbacks

  1. Niche Modeling » Shaviv and Pielke on Climate Science in 2011
  2. Climate Fool of the Week #13 | Climate Nonconformist
  3. Quote of the Day: Ian Chubb | Cranky Old Crow
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,573 other followers

%d bloggers like this: