Sanity check: Chief Scientist’s prophecy worthy of Tim Flannery

And that’s not a compliment, by the way.

The IPA newsletter this afternoon dredged up this story which was reported early in ACM’s life:


Crystal ball cracked?

Well we are only five and a bit months away from December 2014 by which time it would be ‘too late’, but what has happened to global temperatures in the last five years? Pretty much nothing. Despite CO2 levels increasing significantly. Even if we had reduced our emissions to zero on 4 December 2009, the difference it would have made to global temperatures would have been too small to measure – by several orders of magnitude.

That she could have been Australia’s Chief Scientist is mind-blowing. Further from the cool level-headed academic dispassionately reviewing data she could hardly be.

There will be plenty more of these duff predictions proven woefully inaccurate, each one a nail in the coffin of climate change alarmism.


  1. Old Ranga says:

    So where does the current Chief Scientist (Prof Ian Chubb) stand? Try this media release:

  2. thingadonta says:

    Its projection. It should read ‘5 years to show our jobs as climate alarmists have meaning, otherwise how can we justify our salaries to our consciences?.’

    5 year timeframes or ‘plans’ come up often in bureaucracies, because that is about the length of time they are willing to endure nothing being achieved on their consciences before they attempt to do something else even more useless and inane, or because it is just long enough to try and do something useless without anybody remembering 5 years later what it was they were trying to do originally, and just short enough to make themselves look busy and urgent about going about something.

    If they said 10 years, they would probably put if off for the first 5 years before starting so that’s no good, if they said 2 years, it means they really have to get started straight away and they would also have to work on something else far too quickly for the average bureaucrat to be able to handle. 5 years is just right.

    The only way to become chief scientist is to pander to the warmist alarmists in the first place, so no surprises there. Ever seen a government official who doesn’t support the core opinions of the party? Would be the shortest career in history. Or how about the chief of the homeopathist council who doesn’t support homeopathy? Doesn’t exist

    Notice this has nothing to do with the climate, and everything to do with bureaucracies. Mixing ‘climate’ and ‘bureaucracies’ has the potential to create one of the stupidest social phenomenon known to humans, various rituals to try and change the weather such as rain dances, human sacrifices, or taxing a part of the periodic table that is essential for life to flourish. Stop the planet I want to get off.

  3. Old Sailor Man says:

    “how can we justify our salaries to our consciences?.’” Surely you are not suggesting these bottom feeders have consciences?

  4. I’m kind of an action guy and I work better under pressure so I’m waiting until there is only five minutes left to save the World, I’ll save it then. N

  5. Penny Sackett was either derelict in her duties or a liar. She attended a meeting between Penny Wong and then Senator Stephen Fielding where she was given the hefty NIPCC report which contained many anti-AGW hoax peer reviewed papers.

    Subsequently she went on radio and claimed that she knew of no such papers:

  6. Really pointless when the Chinese are bringing one coal fired power station online each and every month, just one of those power stations generates enough carbon over 2 months to completely knock off whatever carbon were saving. Unless its a world initiative (and it NEVER will be) then (according to Gore and his ilk) were doomed. But somehow I don’t think we are and I will be buying Xmas presents when this ‘Chief Scientist’ is back in her padded cell.

  7. Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia says:

    I wonder if Penny feels like a complete fool now.

  8. John in Oz says:

    According to the Ibuki satellite data for 2010 (the only full year of data apparently) Australia is a net absorber of CO2 with -0.228Gt/yr (see for analysis and data links).

    1. why does Australia need to have an ETS, affirmative action, taxes, etc when we are already reducing the World’s CO2 levels and
    2. how is Australia’s average temperature (whatever that means) getting higher when we are removing more CO2 than we are producing?

    For 2, perhaps the northern areas that are not a CO2 sink are exporting the excess, CO2-induced heat to southern states. If so, should we demand reparations for destroying our climate?

    It will be interesting to see what the other year’s data show.


  1. […] newsletter this afternoon dredged up this story which was reported early in ACM’s life: – Click here to read the full article […]

%d bloggers like this: