Funny, but I didn't notice The Age
going to such extremes to pick apart the science in An Inconvenient Truth
, which is the climate science colander of our times: full of holes. But it shouldn't surprise us. The Fairfax editors made up their minds years ago on climate change, and now have their brains firmly locked down to anything that dissents.
Amusingly, The Age
also resents the fact that Ian Plimer has received "uncritical publicity", which is utter nonsense given every journo in the country has been trying to smack him down - think the ABC's Tony Jones, for example. If you want a real example of uncritical publicity, try Al Gore and AIT
As usual, The Age
focuses on one small fact, and ignores everything else, namely that temperatures have dropped since 1998. Take out the 1998 El Niño, and The Age
triumphantly announces that:
the line turns upward. Global warming before your eyes.
The fact is that since about 2001, temperatures have
declined. But also, since the earth is slowly recovering from the Little Ice Age, you would expect there to be "global warming" on a century scale. The argument is over whether it is human-induced.
Then, having "won" the argument on that, The Age
launches into the usual warmist tactic of the ad hominem
attack, describing Plimer as:
rambling and hard to pin down... his conversation is a grab-bag of arguments against human-induced climate change drawn from science and popular debate [nice touch - Ed]. It veers here and there...The Age
lines up some rent-a-quote warmists (e.g. David Karoly) to rubbish the claims in his book, backing the IPCC and telling some real porkies in the process. Matthew England from the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre defends the IPCC:
"That is an absolute no-brainer. He shouldn't be getting away with saying the IPCC ignores the past, it's absolutely untrue," he says. "The IPCC includes all relevant information from geology, geophysics, solar processes, oceanography, glaciology, right through to paleoclimate. Every area he claims he is bringing in for the first time is already there."
So why did the IPCC models fail to predict the cooling since 2001? Maybe it's because the effects of the sun are played down to almost nothing, and hardly figure in IPCC models, and neither does cloud cover. And also think Michael Mann and hockey sticks - erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in order to advance a political agenda - one of the
worst examples of scientific dishonesty in history. (And, of course, if you conceded that climate change was natural and there was nothing we could do about it except adapt, you'd be out of a job.)
As a final flourish, the article quotes David Easterling of the US National Climatic Data Centre at length, but in the last few lines concedes:
Easterling hasn't read Plimer's book, but his analysis published last weekend also challenges Heaven + Earth.
It's getting harder and harder for The Age
to defend it's blinkered, warmist agenda against the cool facts.
Read it here