Quote of the Day
Ian Chubb is our Chief Scientist, and once again he indicates his belief that science is about counting heads, ignoring the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that challenge that consensus, ignoring the fact that the IPCC ignores those papers, and looking away when something doesn’t fit with your pre-conceived views:
“After the work of very many scientists over more than 50 years, the views on climate change have converged to the point where the evidence has moved from possible to beyond reasonable doubt. But do we do nothing because of the mockers or because some scientists disagree, or because some others sit on the side and shout but don’t put their ideas into the scientific literature?
The quintessence of the debate about climate science should be based on the scientific evidence at hand. Science is contestable; scientists are natural skeptics and highly trained critics. They constantly evaluate and revise. But sooner or later, prevailing views will converge after scrutiny and challenge. Some call that a consensus; not a contrived view but a majority view. After the work of scientists from multiple disciplinary backgrounds the lines of evidence on climate change have converged to support a high degree of confidence that climate is changing and that human activity is a primary cause.”
But there is no scrutiny or challenge to the cosy little coterie of warmist scientists – sceptics are silenced, excluded and ostracised, and their work (peer-reviewed or otherwise) totally overlooked. You can’t have it both ways. One failed prediction is enough to invalidate a model or a hypothesis, except in climate science, that is.
I repeat, it is not the realists that wish to turn our economy upside down to appease Gaia. For that to be justified, we need more than this.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
No Ian, we do nothing because all of the pre-selected ‘fixes’ are a gigantic waste of time, money and resources. Even if the science were 100% correct, piddling little carbon taxes, hybrid cars and solar panels will achieve nothing at all, not even a rounding error.
Time and time again we hear no action has been taken (which is a lie, anyway, even the productivity commission report said as much) – and always ‘denial’ is blamed. But the truth is, that even if it were true, the prescribed policies are worse than useless. They will just create misery and inefficiency without actually making any difference.
In other words, stop lecturing Australians. Fly your taxpayer funded rear over to Beijing and see if you get any traction with the ‘deniers’ over there.
Having a biological and psychological science and more recently mining engineering science background I would have to say that Ian’s summary is a reflection of the miserable truth about mainstream science as it has come to be practised in many disciplines. Difference of view and inspired inquiry are viewed as the province of overeager novices prior to them maturing into conforming professionals that have abandoned diligent self-reflection and scrunity in favour of membership of the elite club of likeminded white coated clones that focus on ever decreasing spheres of knowledge. It is a dismal state of affairs and a world apart from the idealistic image I had of science since I was a youngster and still hold and struggle to live by in the face of risking being labelled a dangerous mind.
But on a more optimistic note, and apologies for not trawling through the considerable archive here that no doubt would reveal something about what I want to ask: Where are the arguments and energetic efforts that would direct attention towards achieving universal clean water, clean air and clean soil that we all need? Surely if anything is consensual it would be that to grow healthy food, breathe easily and quench thirst safely, the preservation of the basics of air, water and soil must be primary goals of all societies. Curiously much of what is proposed in general clean air, water and soil campaigns such as reducing food miles and reduce, reuse, and recycle methods, are compatible with the mantra of reducing carbon, though the clean air,water, soil efforts go much further with a more direct human impact and appeal I would have thought.
Also apologies for my long sentences. Patience is a virtue.
Well it has not taken long for our new chief scientist to go from knowing little about climate science to a full card carrying member of the global warming club.
Guess he knows what side his bread is buttered.
People in Dr. Chubbs position probably think of themselves as sources of scientific enlightenment but the reality is the position of chief scientist in any country is going to be to support the politics of those that put them in that position. In other words he’s the lamp post those drunk with power rest upon to support their policies. I think the climate change debate, which seems to have more politics than science behind, has made that clear to the electorate. He will still be held in high esteem by the scientific establishment since he likely has a lot of influence on how research money is spent (everyone loves their generous rich uncle). But folks not on the gravy train will likely see technocrats for the politicians that they are and look for scientific enlightenment elsewhere unless they think the whole game is rigged and give up on science entirely.
Einstein is spinning in his grave.
“Sooner or later, prevailing views will converge after scrutiny and challenge. Some call that a consensus; not a contrived view but a majority view.”
This is Chubb’s theory. We can test this hypothesis. Can any of these
prevailing views point to a single paper that empirically determines we are in for disaster. No? Okay then, hypothesis falsified.
The Case For the Defence!
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11455
Just about to post on this, thanks!
[snip – come on Confusious – I can’t keep snipping out everything…]
The Chubster has obviously been given the assignment of “pontificating” on all things climate change.Does he reallly think the title chief scientist gives him any street cred in this red hot debate?The guy knows as much about climatology as Garnaut. Enough said.
Can anyone give me a clue why the previous Chief Scientist Penny Hackett resigned – or was replaced.
Did her scientific integrity get in the way >
Good quote!:)