Counting heads ISN'T SCIENCE
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.
Australian Climate Madness 
And in more breaking news the church and state have now been re-untied after their long separation. Both the church and state have had time to think about their differences and after some minor adjustments to church, who was far to demanding on state, they have decided to give it another go…
What a Chubby Chuck! Would make a great couple with Anna Maria [snip]!
I wonder from under what rocks and cesspits these Gillardites are emerging from. All getting their snouts in through to feed off the Australian Taxpayer.
Some one should ask some of these warmist scientists exactly what would it take for them change their minds on this BS. For example if we had a significant drop in mean temeratures around the world in the next 10 years depite a signicant rise in CO2, would that make them think twice? I suspect not. We woould probably need another ice age before they would budge , and then they would probably blame that on CO2.
NOTHING will change the mind of a religious zealot. All things are consistent with their doctrine.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Well Professor Chubb, I can assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions with regards to the climate change saga. The one thing that did interest me was the comment by Prof. Chubb that states : I’ve seen literature that suggests (more than) 90% of experts in climate science are all of one view. ie: that the planet is warming and humans have intervened. Good for him, now an expert, in my opinion, is a DRIP under PRESSURE, so am I be right in saying that the 90% of experts Prof. Chubb is referring to are nothing more than a bunch of DRIPS! Him included. If that be the case then I would say we are in deep S…t.
Mal
This whole “argument” takes me back to the days of Stalin’s Russia and Mao Tsetung’s China, when it was prohibited/punishable by death, to speak of anything in any way that was not clearly Government policy.
Now we also have OM Gilklard;s commandment to all her MP’s that they are not permitted to open their mouths/write anything whatsoever, until AFTER it has been approved by her office.
Just finished reading through Chubby Chick’s credentials. Another distinguished neuroscientist and long time on CSIRO and thus Labor (taxpayer’s) payrol! That must make him an unbiased expert on climate……………
No doubt one of the 200 Carbon Tax Lovers converging on Canberra for Mass Love In!
Professor Chubb,
Have a look at
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
and
http://www.nipccreport.org/
where you will find much of the contrary, peer-reviewed evidence which the IPCC ignored.
Three quotes I live by as a scientist:
“Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.” ~ Thomas Sowell
“Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid — and merits universal acceptance — only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It’s verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don’t.” ~ Michael Crichton
“A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.” ~ Carl Sagan
Unfortunately Professor Chubb was chosen on his political leanings rather than his scientific qualifications. As an administrator for a number of years he is obviously more involved now with administration than science and his job depends on his making noises which support the government, in other words maintains the line that global warming is man made.
The fact that solar physicists show that changes in the sun’s characteristics are responsible for the waring from 1979 to 1995 and the fact that the activity has subsided explains the fall in temperatures in the last 15 years since 1995. Chubb clings to the single claim from supporters of the IPCC which uses one and one only technique for determining the effects of carbon dioxide and global warming – the use of experimental climate models (AOGCM). A real scientist would be wanting to look at other scientific material which shows that carbon dioxide is not the principle driver of the global warming from 1979 to 1995.
Why are we required to put up with the posturing of these political and scientific light weights.
This man may have his opinions, as he is entitled. When he starts imposing these opinions upon others, because he believes the world is going to end, or whatever, things start to get dicey.