Ian Chubb: "warmest decade we have ever had on this planet"

Politics, not science

Don’t forget, Ian Chubb is Australia’s Chief Scientist, but he appears to have obtained his understanding of climate from the back of a cornflake packet (or a WWF campaign leaflet, otherwise known as the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report), given some of his quotes in the Joint Select Committee hearing yesterday. It’s really quite embarrassing.

Here are a few examples:

  • “I think there does need to be a recognition that the evidence of science is suggesting that we will have changed weather patterns and extreme weather events with much greater frequency than we have at the moment.”
  • “I have read the literature that says that a lot of work is being done in a lot of countries to try and get stabilisation [at 550ppm CO2], yes, and that there are a lot of countries now taking action, on the basis of the scientific evidence, to reduce their emissions.”
  • “The argument at the moment is that there will be, for example, much more intense cyclones and whatever they are called in the Northern Hemisphere, and more intense rain and flooding.” 
  • “With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have seen is that the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet, so I do not know what this cooling stuff means.”
  • “So I think where the modelling is at the moment makes it is quite clear that, for example, you do not get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You cannot reproduce it through modelling if you just factor in natural events, but if you factor in human activity then you get what is happening and you get the reduction.
  • “The latest information I have seen shows that the CO2 levels are high and that the rate of accumulation is accelerating. The scientists who study this would argue that it is getting to the point where something has to be done quickly in order to cap them at least and start to have them decrease over a sensible period of time. You could easily argue that it is urgent and that something needs to be done because of the high level presently and the accelerating accumulation presently. We do need to do something.”

Extreme weather events? Warmest decade we have ever had on this planet? “Ever had”? We need to “do something”? Am I listening to a scientist or a spokesperson for Greenpeace? Sadly, Prof Chubb has fully bought into the alarmist line, and is now clearly on the bandwagon of advocating urgent action. This is politics, not science.

You can read the whole transcript in a PDF here.

UPDATE: The bizarre “warmest we have ever had on the planet” quote is going viral, with Tom Nelson and Steven Goddard reporting it so far…

UPDATE 2: The ABC swallows it all whole, and, as usual, plugging the alarmist line, and reporting these comments without an ounce of critical thought. Listen here (if you dare)


  1. I didn’t catch that the first time. He said the warmest decade EVER? And this is our chief scientist?

  2. I am embarrassed to say that I am an Australian.

  3. OH please give me a break. This P.O.S. has no concept of reality,I wonder how much he was paid?CO2 is Life.

  4. I’m curious about the Arctic ice melt modeling. How does one “factor in”, or “factor out” human activity? Surely to do that, then some estimate of human activity is required? How does one differentiate between “natural” and “human” activity anyway, as it isn’t like 2 sets of measurements can be taken in parallel, one with, and 1 without, people, unless you compare pre-human data with current data, and that has it’s own problems obviously.

    Even I, a humble geologist (with Big Oil funded bias, according to some), am not seeing the science here, just some hi-tech magic 8-ball stuff it seems. just which paper(s) is the Chief Scientist referring to?

  5. Gee I can see Australia leading the world in clean technology under this man’s tutelage.NOT.
    That is really embarrassing

  6. Is there no sanction available for people deliberately lying to a Select Committee ? Did he table any of the information or evidence he claims to have seen ?

  7. It was really strange reading that Joint Select Committee transcript. Not sure if Professor Chubb was interviewed after a few too many wines with lunch or if he is usually so blasé, but from somebody who is our Chief Scientist it is truly embarrassing.

    ” … cyclones and whatever they are called in the Northern Hemisphere …” Umm, how about typhoon or hurricane!!!!!

  8. It’s a political appointment, so don’t expect otherwise. Chubb is saying what he is paid to say. It is naive in these times to expect that such a position would be awarded to someone who would act independently of government agendas. Gillard and Brown are very Orwellian, indeed.

  9. Vince Schultz says:

    Is this guy for real?

  10. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    I am simply stunned that this man is Australia’s chief scientist. He must have learnt all about catastrophic man-mad global warming from non other than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri… Chairman of the IPCC … voodoo scientist extraordinaire!!

    It’s the only excuse I can offer for Professor Chubb’s ignorance!

  11. Such statements make the man look ridiculous. He doesn’t even check facts before going on record with such idiocy.

    One only has to do a quick internet search to find huge contradictions.
    For example from http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    “Earth’s climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.”

    How can anyone possibly miss this – “Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more cabon dioxide.”

    We should all email this to the ABC and every warmist pollie, though I doubt that their gray matter will be able to soak it up.

    • phill Parsons says:

      This is the first time over 6.7 billion people [and climbing] have been dependent in the earht’s natural systems for sustenance and non renewable resources for the complexities of human activity. It’s silly to divorce what we do and where we are from the climate without mentioning other factors also known to vary such as sea level or continental locations. You are over simplifying.

  12. Betty Whiffin says:

    How old is this fellow – 10! When he has lived 80 years he might talk sense. Needs to read more about ancient civilizations how they ADAPTED to global warming and global cooling. And he should look at the 1922 record which reports exactly what he has been saying and never happened. Even his own climate change scammers have said in 2000 that by 2010 there would be no ice falls and Australia would remain dry forever. Wrong, wrong.

    • phill Parsons says:

      There are also ”civilizations” that failed to adapt and we see their ruins. Those that did adapt didn’t do so in a world of 6.7billion people [and rising]. It’s nice to expect us to all knowing but we are not quite there yet. Whilst some may exagerate the immediate climate events the trend is clear, the temperature is increasing.

  13. It’s appears Juliar has sent in The Chubster to do some hard yards in the carbon tax campaign. Perhaps he is an inter change for Flannery who has taken a few hard hits latley.

  14. “and whatever they are called in the Northern Hemisphere”
    the constant mention of ” stuff ”

    i’m glad he’s on their side , lol

  15. As I posted on the other “Chubb” thread here on ACM-

    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.
    (Add heatwaves to the above. ) edited in.
    None of these articles include the magic words “carbon dioxide” or “carbon pollution”. Strange eh ?

  16. He is an embarrassment to scientists everywhere.
    Really cringeworthy!

  17. What Mr Chubby doesn’t mention is that according to historic weather records, there has actually been slightly less extreme weather events in the last decade than in previous ones. Funny how every time it’s too dry – its GW, too wet – it’s GW, too windy – its GW, no wind- its GW, too cold – its GW, too hot – its GW. Talk about the perfect “SCAM”!

  18. Personally, I’d trust the Chief Scientist over you. What are your scientific credentials?

    • Irrelevant – deal with the arguments, not the authority of the person making them.

      • Simon, find something very heavy and drop it on your foot, to wake up…!!! My original website was constantly sabotaged by a friendly green administrator. Now I have a new one. Proofs that phony GLOBAL warming is in Skeptic’s / Warmist heads, not in the atmosphere: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com O+N are 998999ppm, they are controlling the temperature, not CO2 or climatologist. Unless you get the facts correct – don’t blame the Warmist.

    • Apparently it is nearly 40 years since Ian Chubb received his Science Master. You can forget a lot of science in forty years, especially when you tread very warily to hold your position. Just what did anyone know about atmospherics that far back? Ian Chubb’s statements show us that his studies never looked at what has happened with this planet’s climate in any period of its long history.

      No, neither you Ryan, nor anybody who has looked at the above comments should trust the word of somebody who is merely kow-towing to the wishes of the government that employs him.

    • I don’t need Credentials,just a Highschool Education a PC and some common sense.I would rather be a skeptic than a gullible fool.This person is PAID by the government to promote RUBBISH for a POLITICAL agenda based on a pack of lies.

  19. This guy is so ignorant he is scary, where did he get his qualifications off a Corn Flakes box?Lock him in a “safe” and bury him in a land fill where he can’t do any harm to us OR HIMSELF,and to think the gov’t is actually paying him,it beggars belief.

  20. Sceptical Sam says:

    Re: the ABC.

    I’ve had two goes at getting a comment on the ignorance of our “Chief Scientist” into the discussion on the Drum Unleashed; one today and one yesterday. As you would expect, the ABC doesn’t want to hear anything that runs against its ideological line. Censored again by the Drum’s majorettes it would seem.

    It really is time for a Dix MkII enquiry into this government’s unbalanced propaganda arm.

  21. There was a paper only last week affirming earlier studies that show no connection between rising temperatures and extreme weather events. If I’ve done my homework why the f. hasn’t he? (I know why, I’m not being paid to ignore them).

  22. Cameron Hedges says:

    EVIDENCE? Of what? CO2 build up is a direct result of deforestatin! It is proven FACT, CO2 ppm in the northern hemisphere’s atmosphere is reduced markedly during that hemisphere’s growing season! LABOR NEEDS TO GROW A CONSCIENCE!

    • Cameron, there is no ”build up” of CO2. 150y ago, trees / crops were suffering for lack of CO2 – now is improving. Ask the trees; what’s the correct amount of CO2 best, not the climatologist. saying that is too much CO2, is dignifying the Warmist. CO2 is substituted for hammer and seackle, nothing to do with the climate. Would the climate stopped changing, if it wasn’t industrial revolution? Is this a perfect climate now – we need climate change for the better. More storm-water saved on land = climate improves. Stop demmonizing CO2

  23. This guy is an idiot. There is a huge mass sitting in the middle of our Solar System call “The SUN” this controls everything in the solar system, including the climate on Earth. The ego’s of these people that believe we are powerful enough to control mother nature is just beyond a joke. Mother Earth & Father Sun have been around a lot longer then us & will be around long after we are gone.

  24. Ian Chubb wouls seem to make no absolute assertions in these quotes above. They are filled with weasel worded qualifiers, designed to prevent later allegations of absolute fraud in these matters, in my opinion.

    For example he stated:
    “science is suggesting”
    Which “science” is that then?

    “the literature that says that a lot of work is being done”
    Which “literature” is that then? References please, and details about this so called “work” that ius “being done”.

    “the argument at the moment is”
    So there is an argument then, but I thought that you said it was “settled”.

    “I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have seen”
    Details of the “claim”, and the “evidence” that you have “seen”,
    or did you also see a claim about the evidence, and not any actual evidence itself?

    “I think where the modelling is at the moment”
    So YOU think? That in itself comes as a revelation to me !

    “the latest information I have seen”
    Again, what is this “information” that you have seen?

    “CO2 levels are high”
    Who says so, and on what criteria do they make this judgement?

    “rate of accumulation is accelerating”
    Again, where is the evidence for this?

    “the scientists who study this would argue”
    So how can they argue if this is a settled science?
    Again who are these “scientists whom you contantly quote? Name them, or we must assume that YOU are making all this up, based on pure supposition, tittle-tattle, old wives tales and downright chicanery.

    “something has to be done quickly”
    Yes it does, and I suggest that YOU must be removed from your position immediately, since you appear to have gained the appointment by bluffing your way, and in fact know nothing about the subjects which you are employed to oversee, and end up pontificating upon.

    “You could easily argue”
    I most certainly will argue with any further unsupported claims, and weasel words which are issued from you, or your office. It is indeed easy to do so, since everything you say seems to have no foundation.

  25. If he has a “degree”, did it come from from East Anglia University?

    “ooooh, aaaarr, bowldly-owdly-owdly, aaarrrrr !!!”, is what Bumbling Ian Chubb should say in reply to ALL questions from now on. That would certainly make more sense than any of his prior remarks. Maybe we can even encourage him to wear a smock & straw hat, and fall of some walls for the Tourists’ amusement.

  26. What a bloody moron, at least he could make himself sound intelligent and learn some facts, but what is is saying is just a lot of BS.
    How ashamed I feel to be an Australian and even more ashamed I am that I ever voted Labour – Never again for as long as I live.

    • I have never voted Labour or Labor, but I still keep my options open. If they were to ever come up with something that I could see would really benefit the country, and there was nothing else that could cause any harm whatsoever, then I would have to evaluate the situation before voting.

      The main problem is how could I be sure that it wasn’t just more lies? One way would be if Andrew Bolt or somebody like him were to lead the Labor Party.

  27. Why not do we have have done 11 times for bushfires in Victoria, use the system to establish the truth. A Royal Commission into Global Warming and get Chubby to testify and prove his statements, along with the scientists who disagree with him. Prove his case to the satisfaction of lawyers appointed by a Coalition government. There has never been any debate, really. Scientist vs Scientist. Why ask economists like Garnaut? Economists are a group who did not predict the recent massive melt down in derivatives in their own field and the destruction of many banks but claim to know about science. Embarass Julia. Ask real scientists the hard questions and ask to be convinced. Cross examine.

  28. Bob Brooks says:

    Obviously the ABC, Canberra generally and a few others have failed in their duty to look at the facts. One fact would have to be a chap named Piers Corbyn who sells forecasts in competition with the UK’s Met Bureau who give forecasts for “free”, that is paid for by taxpayers. How come?
    Because he is much more accurate and reliable which you need to run a farm etc. Why? because he has an understanding of astrophysics (a science which affects climate). Look him up via Google or whatever.

    • Betty Whiffin says:

      Piers Corbyn is on twitter and has very enlightending and factual “tweets”

    • Bob, astrophysics, galactic, solar influence on the climate should be left to horoscope people. water controls the climate. heat /radiation the sun deposits this year on the planet, was created million years ago, deep inside the sun. Doesn’t fluctuate. Sunspots are pure carbon, they don’t stay on the surface of the sun for 12 hours – when the sun is over Australia – then switches off, when it gets over Brazil. Anything but water – is for creation of ”back-door exit” for the Warmist. When warming doesn’t happen – Skeptics created exit for the Warmist.
      Same solar / galactic influence is on Australia / Brazil – Burma /Sahara… why is not same climate? Now you know why the Warmist delay in spiting the dummy – thanks to the Skeptics silly theories. Climate changes from Sydney to Geraldton 50 times… same astrologic influence. why, why, why???


  1. […] There are two reasons that a warmist would go with this argument. The first is that there is a deliberate and sinister attempt to delegitimise those they disagree with. The other is ignorance, that these crusaders for science are unaware of the serious doubt hanging over man-made global warming theory. I’m inclined to think Chubb falls into the second category, given his recent remarks that it has been the warmest decade ever. […]

  2. […] for example, is its Chief Scientist Ian Chubb in action: "With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have […]

  3. […] Como cuenta James Delingpole [–>], de donde saco la noticia, la campaña ha llegado a extremos tan ridículos como oir ¡al Jefe Científico de Australia!, Ian Chubb, cosas así: Respecto a ese asunto del enfriamiento, he oído la afirmación, pero la evidencia que he visto es que la última década ha sido la década más caliente que jamás hemos tenido en este planeta, así que no sé qué quiere decir ese asunto del enfriamiento. [–>] […]

  4. […] feebleness of the arguments the Coalition is using to justify it.Here, for example, is its Chief Scientist Ian Chubb in action:“With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I […]

%d bloggers like this: