Aussie Nobel laureate plugs alarmist line

Disappointing, yet again

I was very disappointed to read this article last night:

An Australian Nobel Laureate has urged climate-sceptic MPs to get a scientific opinion on global warming.

Astronomer Professor Brian Schmidt spoke during a visit to the Sydney Observatory on Wednesday. He was there with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to endorse a $2 million coalition pledge to restore a Howard government science in primary schools program which Labor axed.

The 2011 Nobel Prize winner for physics had words of advice for politicians who doubted the science of climate change.

“I would encourage anyone who has questions about climate change, especially in politics, to come and talk to the Australian Academy of Science,” the astronomer with the Australian National University told reporters.

“I accept that climate change is inevitable when you add Co2 to the atmosphere. I certainly believe it is something we have to worry about.” (source)

Apart from the fact that the Australian Academy of Science sold out to climate alarmism long ago, and that no-one disputes that adding CO2 will cause some warming, Schmidt seems to have little concern for the lack of integrity in the alarmist community, fails to appreciate the significance of Climategate, the corruption and political motivation of the IPCC, the conflicts of interest arising from massive government funding of alarmist research, or any of the myriad other serious concerns with the consensus science.

Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to hear someone like Schmidt uphold scientific integrity rather than plugging the usual politically correct alarmist line?

The irony of the story is that Schmidt’s fellow laureate in Chemistry, Dan Shechtman, challenged an established consensus, was mocked and ridiculed by his colleagues, but eventually proved correct.


  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    He’s a “Nobel” Laureate?
    HAHAHA….say no more…..

  2. [snip] REPLY: Don’t think we should speculate on the reasons – Simon

  3. “Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to hear someone like Schmidt uphold scientific integrity rather than plugging the usual politically correct alarmist line?”

    He belongs to the fraternity… What he really thinks he would never publicly admit. This is what science has become (“consensus”, “towing the line”, etc.) It’s not unique to climate science.

  4. It seems to me that scientists are now vulnerable to political pressure to an extent that has never been seen before in the West. It is not as severe as it was in the bad old days of the USSR but the mechanism is identical.

  5. Greg McBride via Facebook says:

    Should practice what he preaches

  6. It is interesting that the theories that he works on are more tenuous as greenhouse gas theory. They describe the big bang, black holes, neutrino stars, cosmic rays, solar winds etc as though the science is all settled. However, do you understand it as I don’t. Black holes are particularly odd. And I question that the sun as a big nuclear reactor that will eventually engulf all life on this planet. What the? It hasn’t for 4.5 billion years or so (or so it is thought). And the reaction mechanisms they propose are only theories. They haven’t been shown to work.

    The sun is an enigma, though I will be told that the scientists know everything about it. Unless you are a solar specialist, you know nothing. Then why do they continue to send spacecraft up to study it.

    A lot of the proposed origins of the universe are used to try and explain the unexplainable. His research is based on that.

    A lot of the greenhouse theory was used to explain why temperatures rose from the mid 70s. They do not explain why the temperatures did not continue to rise in the 2000s.

    • I couldn’t agree more – it seems that the practice of “science” is becomming increasingly speculative and less reliant on observation.

      At what point does it cease to be science?

  7. Ironically, if it were an Astronomer stating that AGW was pure bunk, he would be dismissed because he is not a “Climate Scientist”. Seems the rules are a LOT more relaxed if you tow the party line, than if you dare to oppose it.

  8. Climate Scientists didn’t even exist a few years ago.
    They are in actual fact Astrologists ie they are guessing what will happen
    to the climate in the future.
    They are using computer programs to do the guessing, and when the computer guesses don’t match actual data, they simply change the data!

    It is a scam. It’s all about money.
    And the fact that these climate scientists rely on government grants and research funding from warming alarmists, completely skews their research.

    Scientists who mock and condemn skeptics, by their very behaviour, lose their credibility as scientists.
    The most critical element of scientific theory is skepticism.

  9. Well, the first par doesn’t agree with the rest of the content.

    He said to talk to AAS (which is dubious), but the par says to “get a scientific opinion” which is sort-a commendable, as long as we understand that scientific opinions are only as good as any other opinions.

    If we want scientific data though, we might have to look more widely.

  10. Well I urge Professor Schmidt to listen to the thousands of real Climate Scientists who tell us the truth and not the lies generated by Al Gore and Julia Gillard.

  11. Simon Colwell says:

    Perhaps someone could ask the esteemed professor why, if global warming is real and ice caps are melting , the latest expedition to Antarctica has been called off due to “unusually dense ice flows”. In summer no less !

  12. scientific integrity… hummmm now listen to scientists he suggests, but ONLY the paid lackeys of the current government, not the independent (read not on the payroll) credentialed real scientists….. how damn sad!

  13. It is incredibly fickle how these people who are the recipients of high awards are then so hell bent on maintaining a softly softly approach to anything that may disadvantage their prospects of future recognition from governments. He is mostly likely less qualified to make the comments on climate change than some of the “sceptics” he is bagging!

  14. It is obviously a poor career move for any academic to quetion the doomsday scenario of the university warmist fraternity. Every head of department knows that sooner or later they will have to come hat in hand to the likes of Combet or his cronies for funding . The real worry for these guys is the distinct lack of warming in the last 10 years. How much longer can this warmist doomsday myth be sustained without real warming?

  15. The Nobel Prize lost all credibility when it appointed Al Gore and the IPCC the 2007 Peace Prize for “their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

    Their ‘efforts’ have already been widely discredited here and elsewhere so it would be pointless to go over old ground … suffice to say, other notable Nobel Prize nominees have included, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and even perhaps the worlds greatest murderer bar none, Joseph Stalin. The Nobel Peace Prize was also awarded to Nelson Mandela in 1993, the once leader of the terrorist and murderous organisation known as the ANC.

    If you think the Nobel Prize is an esteemed award given to deserving and honourable individuals and organisations, you’d be wrong!

    • Well said Baldrick!
      The prize doesn’t always go to the most deserving!
      Unfortunately it goes to those who want to push their agenda.
      Nonetheless there are still real winners out there!!
      Here is one ……..
      Irena Sendler
      There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the WarsawGhetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an ‘ ulterior motive ‘ … She KNEW what the Nazi’s plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids.) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises. During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi ‘ s broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most of course had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.
      Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize … She was not selected.
      * Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.
      IRENA SENDLER !!!!!!!!
      May she rest in Peace.

  16. I’ll put my trust in the authority of a Nobel Laureate (even if it is in astronomy) to inform me over the state of the climate over some lawyer/engineer/blogger any day.

    • Because actually addressing the arguments is just too hard, I guess?

    • But you won’t in various other credible scientists?

      • Just because someone is a Nobel Laureate doesn’t make then right or their cause more deserving:

        Cordell Hull received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1945 for his work in setting up the United Nations. However, six years earlier he was instrumental in denying entry of 950 Jewish refugees escaping Nazi Germany on the ship S.S. St. Louis, into the USA. The group was forced to return to Europe, where more than a quarter of its passengers were eventually killed in the Holocaust.

        Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his work on the Vietnam Peace Accords. Meanwhile, he had secretly instigated the 1969–1975 campaign of bombing the NVA in Cambodia, supported the USA’s involvement in Operation Condor and supported the invasion of Cyprus.

        Wangari Maathai was awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to empower rural women in Kenya. However, her award was overshadowed by a remark she allegedly made to a Kenyan newspaper wherein she claimed HIV/AIDS was originally developed by white scientists in order to depopulate black Africa.

        (If you’d like more examples I’d be only too happy to provide them.)

  17. Yes, if I don’t have a scientific background how else am I to approach the issue?

    • But this isn’t a scientific issue, as the original post points out. It’s about the integrity of the scientific process. You don’t need a scientific background to decide whether you think the consensus scientists have behaved ethically or not. If you think they have, that’s fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but argue your case.

    • So how do you know which group of scientists to believe?

      It’s a nice fantasy world to say, “I’ll just trust the scientists”, but when they disagree you have to be able to think for yourself.

      So how to choose who to believe, those who are willing to put their future careers in doubt by challenging the authorities, or the ones that appear to be peddling the company line in order to keep the flow of UN/government/environmental NPO cash coming?

      Remember, an engineer is in charge of the UN IPCC, not a climate scientist. A blogger who has been following this issue since at least 2008 has probably read as much about this issue, and probably has had some exposure to both sides of the argument, not merely the platitudes of a handful of yes-men intent on keeping the grants flowing.

    • Dicky P.

      I dispute your analogy on Engineers, being one, who has a Bachelor of Science and has taken a very strong interest in Climate for many years. Generalisations such as yours are why we have the totally denigration of all the so called “sceptics”, a title I hate. I agree with Simon you don’t need the scientific background to make informed judgements logically of whether the arguments have flaws in them. I would also ask you to answer why is debate stifled so much and “sceptics” (that word again) denigrated?

  18. [snip] REPLY: Again, let’s not speculate on motivations here – Simon

  19. cementafriend says:

    Some seem to think the Brian Schmidt was not worthy of a nobel prize see here & . I put a comment for the latter post.

  20. sillyfilly says:

    Hmm, very interesting that Simon attempts to take apart Schmidt with the usual disinformation and psuedo-scientific conspiracy theories, so enamoured of his ilk. .

    Perhaps Simon should look in his own backyard. Anybody notice Prof Ian Plimer’s glacial article in the Australian this week, an extract from his new fractured fairytail book, that supposed science?

    So what did we have there: The first seven paragraphs are akin to basic plagierism from a University of Copenhagen press release. He completely misrepresents findings from the Funder Arctic study and the Telata glacial study from which he quotes. And then makes two major factual errors when he quotes from the historical CO2 data to make his point. Now that’s a significant trimuph in accuracy for so short an article.

    Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to hear someone like Plimer uphold scientific integrity rather than plugging the usual scientifically incorrect alarmist line?

    • Cutting through all the usual, tired, repetitive, clichéd ad homs and insults in which you specialise, you bravely choose to ignore the points raised in the original post and hastily change the subject. Yawn.

      • Relevance dear boy: or have you forgotten this from your links:

        Two of the best known climate alarmist scientists – Karoly in particular makes regular appearances at ACM (see here). I wonder if they asked Bob Carter (also of James Cook Uni, probably just along the corridor from Bird) or Ian Plimer to contribute? Don’t make me laugh. They don’t want their precious warming faith attacked by free-thinking scepticism.

        A “free-thinking scepticism” that ignores the science and resolves nothing.

        Sorry, that you can only resort to ” the usual, tired, repetitive, clichéd ad homs and insults in which you specialise”

        For in the words of Martin Luther King:
        “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than [your].. sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

  21. The most successful long range weather forecaster of all, Piers Corbyn, uses sun and moon events for his predictions, yet the leftist warmist religion ignores the thing, and even passed a resolution at Copenhagen saying that it has [practically no] effect on Earth’s climate.

%d bloggers like this: