The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Professor Chubb responds to Maurice Newman > Comments

Professor Chubb responds to Maurice Newman : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 23/1/2014

No one much is talking about 'settled science' any more in this field. The climate models have simply failed to predict the lack of significant warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Quite right. Basically the argument has moved on from the science. Its not a matter of whether the science is right or not, but when or if the climate models constructed through the science are going to start giving useful results. Basically, temperatures have to start going up appreciably before we should start paying any attention, a point now being acknowledged by the scientists. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html#js-article-comments-box-pager
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 23 January 2014 9:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chubbs position does nothing to resurrect his reputation from his arrogant
comment on assuming his current position - when asked why he was
convinced of global warming he replied " because i can read"
He is paid to explain science. He couldnt do it then and stll cannot.
Just another mainchance operator.
Posted by asho, Thursday, 23 January 2014 9:33:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkin says:

"the reality of global warming is beginning to penetrate the editorial floors".

Indeed it is:

http://tinyurl.com/insiders-story

The Conversation
Posted by ozdoc, Thursday, 23 January 2014 10:49:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh I thought the 'science was settled'. The true believers will need a new scare.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 23 January 2014 11:43:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozdoc
pointless post. I also saw that story. It means nothing either way except, perhaps, that there are total loonies on the skeptical side as well as on the global warming side. Why they bothered with a court challenge is beyond me.. even if there was any funding behind them, which is extremely unlikely, there's no way a court action could change anything.. bizarre..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 23 January 2014 12:21:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am happy to agree with Don that “we know much less about all of this than was confidently set forth by some scientists and politicians five years and more ago” (though scientists should complain about being lumped in with politicians). Let’s just say that ‘some scientists’ were too sure about the future trajectory of the world’s climate. Equally, some scientists and their supporters were too confident in rejecting climate change due to CO2 emissions.

So, if by chance we could all agree on a surfeit of certainty in both directions, what’s the remedy? I can think of only one. Leave it to the scientists to sort out. Their natural enthusiasm to prove their peers wrong combined with the usual rigor of the scientific process will ultimately ensure that the truth will out. Yet whenever I suggest this I get howled down, especially by the conspiracy theorists.

The starting point for clear thinking is to distinguish between science and what to do about it. One is science, the other involves values, economics, politics and the like. Right from the start they got hopelessly confused. An important factor was the impetus climate science gave to the believers in an environmentally doomed planet. Many environmental scientists were in that camp because their values had drawn them into that field originally. So the fight began.

The debate can maintain intellectual integrity only when climate science and ‘climate action’ are kept separate. For example, accepting the scientific authority of the IPCC doesn’t automatically mean banning coal. Cost, futility and lack of genuine replacement energy sources are three arguable grounds. The current cost of climate action exceeds the benefits. It is scientifically incontrovertible that nothing Australia does to reduce its emissions can measurably affect our or anyone else’s climate. So all nations would need to act in concert. Can the whole world ever agree on cutting emissions, or on anything for that matter? Now, there’s a debate for everyone. But investment bankers telling scientists they are wrong is a nonsense.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 23 January 2014 12:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leave it to climate scientists fools like Chris Tunny, the incompetents at the BOM, the liars from Hadley and the IPCC and the pretenders like professor Tim Fannery.

Yeah sure they are guaranteed to get to the truth.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 23 January 2014 1:24:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not pointless at all Curmudgeon.

There are those that distort and misrepresent the science (e.g. Tony Abbott's 'advisor' Maurice Newman) just as there are those who distort and misrepresent scientists like Professor Chubb.

You seem to agree:

"there are total loonies on the skeptical side as well as on the global warming side."

Dare I "presume" you (and the author of this piece) know who the movers and shakers of the 'Climate Science Coalition' are - here, in New Zealand, or internationally?
Posted by ozdoc, Thursday, 23 January 2014 4:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear another day at OLO and Don pendling to the Rubes. eh I've got some great young earth creationist lines for you to Don.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 23 January 2014 8:15:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozdoc: "There are those that distort and misrepresent the science (e.g. Tony Abbott's 'advisor' Maurice Newman) just as there are those who distort and misrepresent scientists like Professor Chubb."

Indeed, Maurice Newman mischievously is 'distorting and misrepresenting the science'. He does this merely by pointing out that there is no empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Unlike the 'climate science' advice given to Tony Abbott by political colleagues, Greg Hunt, Malcolm Turnbull and Ian MacFarlane who unquestionably believe in AGW, Maurice Newman is acting in the national interest by advising that there is no scientific or economic justification for retaining the Renewable Energy Target nor for spending billions of dollars on supposedly controlling the climate.

Professor Chubb shows that he is better at being an academic than being an applier of the scientific method, as he mistakenly believes that the AGW hypothesis has been substantiated.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 23 January 2014 11:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee - Leave it to the scientists to sort it out? If you are happy to pay people for fluffing around fine but I am not! I fiercely resent my hard earned being used by people who are paid more than me to just have a good time.
Here is a thought start reducing education spending starting with University and research.In fact all that is needed is to not allow fringe benefits and have them pay tax. That would bring in a lot of money. I am sick of these bludgers, Barnaby was right pay em and they will research it!
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 24 January 2014 7:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did Professor Chubb post an article on Online opinion? Or somewhere?
I's be a lot more interested in what Australia's Chief Scientist has to say, than in either Don Aitken or Maurice Newman's opinion
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Friday, 24 January 2014 11:52:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Noel, that was my initial response as well.

This is the article Aitkin had in mind for his OLO missive.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/surely-co2-is-a-climate-culprit/story-e6frgd0x-1226803580620#

It should have been linked in Aitkin's piece - obviously an oversight by both he and OLO's editor.
Posted by ozdoc, Friday, 24 January 2014 2:06:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to Ozdoc
Thank you for supplying the link to Professor Chubb's article. I can't read it as I do not subscribe to The Australian THE AUSTRALIAN is a news source which employs no science journalist, and which has continually published anti science articles on climate change. So it's good to see them publishing a true science authority, in Professor Chubb.

Meanwhile, a fine article by Australia's previous Chief Scientist was available at http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/why-we-must-act-now-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

However = that article has mysteriously disappeared from the government website/
A summary of it can be read at http://antinuclear.net/2009/12/08/australias-chief-scientist-spells-it-out-on-global-warming/
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Friday, 24 January 2014 5:45:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozdoc links to the Salinger article about the NIWA case in NZ; for a more measured legal appraisal of this case see:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14122&page=0
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 25 January 2014 12:29:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Climate Science Coalition lost their case and bailed out broke.
Posted by ozdoc, Saturday, 25 January 2014 1:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A group of climate-change doubters (sic) has left the taxpayer at a substantial six-figure loss after its trust was liquidated following a failed High Court battle ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/9600410/Failed-doubters-trust-leaves-taxpayers-at-loss
Posted by ozdoc, Saturday, 25 January 2014 2:00:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And an even better appraisal of Anthony Cox's (aka cohenite) 'case' in the comments:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14122

AvagoodOzDay
Posted by ozdoc, Saturday, 25 January 2014 3:35:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go ahead ozdoc, tell us all about the case and the article.

The resident experts, Bugsy, Bonmot and Agro in the comments made much about the data being freely available at the NIWA site; no one disputed that.

What was NOT and still is NOT at the NIWA site is their methodology about how they homogenised the data. I gave up asking the resident experts where the methodology, as opposed to the data, was, but maybe you can show me; all the links are there for you.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 25 January 2014 5:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy