Thanks for posting that Peter. Barry Brook's comments on GW/CC
denialism/scepticism, Andrew Bolt's latest fabrications in particular, are IMO
good advice.
As I pointed out (in Qld Greens forums & maybe here as well) the day following
Bolt's appearence on ABC1's Q&A
where he (Bolt) claimed "global warming stopped in 2001". His deception
conflicts with
the fact Europe had its hottest temps on record in 2003, North
America had its in 2007, and 2008 looks like being yet hotter again.


Warm to sceptical science:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24085879-5000117,00.html

YOU'VE no doubt
come across a few opinion columns over the past year which claim that
global warming has stopped. Or that we are heading into a new ice age.
Or indeed, that rising carbon dioxide levels have nothing to do with climate
change - it's all just natural causes.
Yet the great majority of news stories on the latest scientific findings say
that global warming is accelerating.
Or that its impacts are happening faster than earlier predicted.
Or that spiralling industrial carbon emissions are pushing us ever faster
towards climate disaster.
Pretty confusing, eh? Who, or what, to believe?
The key to navigating this minefield is to use a bit of sceptical thinking.
By this, I mean "sceptical" in the dictionary sense - doubt what's
told to you at face value, ask sensible questions, consider all
evidence, and most importantly, to demand a consistent argument.
Once you become a real sceptic - something scientists are trained to be - the
rest is fairly easy.
So just as a talking point, let's ask some sceptical questions about
a few of the graphs that the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt recently claimed should
end the warming hype and make the Rudd Government feel sick.
I don't have space to cover all seven graphs, but you'll get the gist.
Andrew impishly asks: "So, dude, where's my global warming?"
I might as easily respond with the question: "So, mate, what's propping
temperatures up?"
After all, to be consistent, if all those extra greenhouse gases
really don't cause global warming, and if the sun is now in a cool
phase, then why haven't the thermometers immediately dropped back to
the levels of the 19th century?
Why, in 2007, were global temperatures still an average 0.83C higher
than during the first year of modern temperature records, in 1880?
Alternatively, take the much talked about "cool" decade from 1999 to 2008.
If global warming has stopped, why was the most recent decade 0.86C
hotter than the same decade from 100 years before, 1899 to 1908?
Indeed, if 1998 really was the global warming high point, then why
was it an average of 0.33C cooler between 1989 and 1998, but a whopping
0.48C lower the decade before that?
The sun can't be the answer to this problem, since the prevailing
non-greenhouse viewpoint argues that the recent inactive sun (no
sunspots) threatens to take us into the next ice age.
So it must be other natural changes.
Yet they can't agree on what these may be - or find any way to measure their
effect.
The above numbers were taken from the NASA land-ocean surface temperature
record.
But you probably want more than NASA's word for it. No problem.
Last year the World Meteorological Organisation announced that the 11 hottest
years on record have all occurred in the past 13 years.
This finding was based on the UK's Hadley Centre temperature data.
Even Andrew's favoured satellite measurements of the lower
atmosphere show that the hottest decade was 1999 to 2008 and that the
decade before that was cooler, and the decade before cooler still.
Andrew also claims that the seas have stopped rising because of a dip in 2007.
But he left out the standard "inverse barometer" correction - with this the blip
then vanishes.
I could go on, but I've made my basic point.
You can "prove" just about anything by cherry-picking what statistics to show,
and what to leave undisclosed.
But the real issue actually boils down to this: climate scientists don't use
temperature charts to "prove" global warming.
They use the scientific principles of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and
so on, to form ideas and to make predictions.
Then they go out and test them.
And because scientists are inherently sceptical people, they do this repeatedly.
In as many ways as possible.
It's only those theories and models that have withstood repeated
scrutiny and evaluation against new data that end up making the cut.
It's these results that form the basis of the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. Hard won,
continually verified, science.
Professor Barry Brook heads Adelaide University's research institute
for climate change and sustainability. He is also a judge of the News.com.au
Green Awards for 2008







----- Original Message ----

From: Peter Bright <hobart_elf@...>
To: ClimateChangeAction@...
Sent: Wednesday, 20 August, 2008 4:04:26 AM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Brave New Climate - an Australian website


I draw Members' attention to the Brave New Climate website of
Australia's Professor Barry Brooks at

http://bravenewclim ate.com/

where this appears:

Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of
Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate
Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.

He has published two books and over 130 peer-reviewed scientific
papers, and regularly writes opinion pieces and popular articles for
the media. He has received a number of distinguished awards in
recognition of his research excellence, which addresses the topics of
climate change, computational and statistical modelling and the
synergies between human impacts on Earth systems.

Effective communication of the science of climate change is
fundamental to providing policy makers with the type of evidence
required to institute meaningful mitigation policy and to understand
available adaptation options. It is this imperative that has Barry to
take an active leadership role in the communication of the science of
global change to government, industry and the community (directly, via
public lectures and workshops and advisory committees, and indirectly
via the media - including television, radio, the print media and
popular science articles).

It is his belief that presenting hard-won technical scientific
evidence to a broad audience in an intelligible way is the surest path
to provoking meaningful societal change towards long-term sustainability.

For further details, see his University website:

http://www.adelaide .edu.au/director y/barry.brook




Win a MacBook Air or iPod touch with Yahoo!7.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]