They say that 24 hours is a long time in politics, well 7 days has certainly been a long time for the dedicated members of the World Climate Change Club. There is a “change” in the air and it sure as heck isn’t the climate.
There they were — the WCCC members — sitting on fabulous, unassailable scientific arguments like disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas; the snow, melting ice-cream-like atop Mt Kilimanjaro; rain-forests shrivelling in the Amazon, visions of Venice, only viewable via an aqualung and goggles and the poor old Great Barrier Reef turning into a barbecue-burnt-chop when suddenly their cosy little world changed. It was one of those rare moments you remember — like the day man landed on the moon.
It was as though a sort of "we-are-on-to-you.com" email hit their modelling computers. Suddenly the world changed and “chief scientists” around the world began emerging from their hibernation and started to say very chief-scientisty, re-assuring things. In the UK last week, their Chief Scientist John Bennington suddenly announced that climate sceptics “should not been dismissed”. He was immediately followed by Australia’s chief scientist Penny D. Sackett, who with an absolute straight face came out of nowhere to call for, yep, “an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change.”
With the post-Copenhagen month of January to mull over things, and some well needed investigative journalism in the UK (but not here), there has been a climate change of sorts.
Well, even those of us with an un-sceptical bent could catch the whiff of a PR campaign getting under way. Why the sudden concern? Why the sudden change of heart? Is this a Toyota moment? Are the brakes faulty? Is this a climate-change-re-call?
Even in America where nearly all climate scientists are, well, chief scientists, Professor Michael Oppenheimer, a veteran warmist and lead author for the IPCC started to sing from the same song sheet. Oppenheimer, while conceding that “mistakes have been made” was obviously stung by what’s happening to the “settled science”. He is now calling for the IPCC to “be as transparent as possible”. It seem to be a bit late for that.
Oppenheimer’s mea culpa moment only lasted a few seconds though. On the 7.30 Report he claimed that the IPCC reports contain “hundreds of thousands of facts”. So here we go again. NO… Professor Oppenheimer, the Himalayas, Kilamanjaro, the Amazon, the Great Barrier Reef and sea-levels, and polar ice, are not just a few of the hundreds of thousands of facts— these are your so-called major “crucial evidence”.
So what is a “Chief Scientist”. In Australia the Chief Scientist’s job description seems to be to “provide high-level independent advice to the Prime Minister and the government on matters of science”. In the UK the position is listed as “personal advisor on science and technology to the Prime Minister and Cabinet”.
The position of Chief Scientist in the UK began to become political under the previous chief scientist Sir David King, and a good example of how this esteemed position has become corrupted by the politics of climate change, is King’s activities in Moscow in 2004. He was invited as a guest of Russia’s Academy of Science to an international conference on climate change. Russia had refused to sign Kyoto and King saw it as part of his job description to twist Putin’s arm and get him to sign.
First, King demanded that all “climate sceptic” scientists be thrown out of the conference but when the Russians refused King threatened to leave. He then declared that two thirds of the attending scientists were “undesirable” and should not be allowed to speak.
According to Christopher Booker in The Real Global Warming Disaster, King and his team continually disrupted the conference to the extent that on four occasions the conference “broke up in disorder”. What irked King was that the scientists attending the conference “dared to contradict the received IPCC line”. Incidentally, it was at this very conference that Russian scientists pointed out that the snows of Kilamanjaro were melting because of 19th Century land clearing on the slopes of the mountain and not because of global warming, and indeed had started as early as 1880. This fact continues to be ignored by IPCC climate-change scientists and their political supporters.
In his address to the Moscow conference the Russian Chief Economic Advisor to Putin, Alexander Illarionov, told the assembled scientists that “The British participants insisted on introducing censorship during the holding of this seminar.” The chief science advisor to the British government, Mr King, was accused by Illarionov of issuing ultimatums and trying to change the agenda of the seminar and to stop “undesirable participants” being part of the discussions. Illarionov went on to say “The reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title Sir has sustained heavy damage.”
The extraordinary thing was that Sir David King was successful in Moscow. He managed to get Putin to change Russia’s opposition to signing Kyoto by offering Russia, through Tony Blair, “developing country status” when gaining entry to the World Trade Organisation. Putin was also explained the financial benefits Russia would gain by selling carbon credits to other countries.
Australia’s Chief Scientist Penny D. Sackett has many questions to answer. Has she ever questioned any of the conclusions of the IPCC reports? Has she exercised due diligence? Has her advice to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, been sound?
Does our chief scientist agree with Kevin Rudd’s claims of a sun-burnt country of the future, of a destroyed Great Barrier Reef, of Australian cities covered with a 60 ft sea level. Has Professor Sackett ever advised the Australian Prime Minister that what he has been telling the Australian public, might be wrong, unscientific, fabricated or just plain silly?
If not, why not?
As the World’s Chief Scientist (climate), Mr Pachauri, famously said — it’s voodoo science!