Climate sense
Two in a week is pretty good going (see here for the first). As before, they will no doubt have lined up a bunch of hysterical alarmists to smear and rubbish Bob Carter, but at least they are letting their readers see the other side of the debate for once.
In this piece, Carter addresses points made recently by Chief Scientist Ian Chubb:
Sound science is based upon observation, experiment and the testing of hypotheses in the context of the principle of simplicity (often termed Occam’s Razor).
The unvalidated computer models that now dominate the public face of climate ”science” are a jungle of complexities, and represent speculative thought experiments not empirically tested science.
In support of these methods, the former director of the British Meteorological Office, Professor John Mitchell, has said that ”people underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful … Our approach is not entirely empirical”.
The last part of this statement is only too true, and leads to the discomfit expressed by those such as the British engineering professor John Brignell: ”The ease with which a glib algorithm can be implemented with a few lines of computer code, and the difficulty of understanding its implications, can pave the path to cloud-cuckoo land.”
Read it all here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Given the state of the global circulation models, particularly with regional predictions, it didn’t suprise me how poor seasonal predictions for the UK were. What surprised me was after several spectacular failures, they kept using them for several years for seasonal forecasts. Now that the most arrogant John Mitchell has expressed his confidence of modeling over observations I understand how the Met Office could be so spectacularly wrong without apologies. And what is it in the European psyche that allows them to shut down their airspace for a couple of weeks when the Icelandic volcano blew without bothering to sample the air, just rely on models and then they build aircraft where the final say in an emergency sometimes lies with software engineers rather than pilots.
After listening to Julia Gillard on this morning’s Insiders (ABC), I am 100% certain that this woman will not give any consideration to the real science… to the real world observational data… data that has been demonstrating that the ominous computer model-based predictions relied upon by the IPCC are simply way off target.
The carbon dioxide tax is now all about government policy… nothing to do with science. It’s about revenue raising for budgetary purposes.
Funny, I picked up, via Tom Nelson, the same article – un-bylined- in the Moree Champion http://tiny.cc/w2tp8
I thought it was strange that a rural Fairfax paper would have such an article.
That diabolical abuse of science is illustrated well by the following excerpt from alarmist Tim Lambert’s response (no link will be given here) to Professor Carter’s previous column in The Age.
To these charlatans, projected (modelled) climate change is indeed the science. No wonder physicist, Professor Harold Lewis, called it “pseudoscientific fraud”!
conceivably drawn from this grubby gaggle of gaggers.