The latest editorial from the Australian on the science of global warming cites a cardinal and a historian and no climate scientists:
We can trust that Catholic cardinal George Pell has not had to resort to inside knowledge to play the devil’s advocate on global warming. Like historian and political scientist Don Aitkin, Dr Pell has studied the data and rejected the claim that scientific consensus exists.
It’s like they are not even trying any more. Nexus 6 goes through the editorial and corrects the numerous errors it makes.
But that was this week. There was another war-on-science piece in the Australian the week before by Des Moore:
However, since the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, many qualified scientists have begun to question its basic science
Oh. Who are these “qualified scientists”
Account needs to be taken of the many expert analyses post-IPCC, including 400 who signed the minority US Senate report disputing the IPCC view.
The 400 scientists that Inhofe listed did not sign the report or agree to be listed. The list includes, for example, Christopher L. Castro, who agrees with the IPCC. And Louis Hissink, who came up the worst argument against AGW ever.
Since the last IPCC report, new authoritative research shows about half the temperature increase since 1980 reflects normal heating effects from urban areas.
Authoritative research shows the opposite — both satellite and surface records show similar trends.
Also, the absence of any increase since 2001, and the fall of 0.6C between January 2007 and January 2008, raises further doubts about the claimed correlation between increases in temperatures and CO2 emissions.
Here you see what happens when you don’t keep up to date on your talking points.
The Very Little Ice Age has ended and temperatures are back where they were in Jan 2007.
Indeed, scientific analysis acknowledged in successive IPCC reports shows that incremental warming effects from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere diminish progressively with concentration. So, why did the IPCC fail also to acknowledge that this analysis suggests even a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the 21st century would increase temperatures during the rest of the century by only 0.3C?
Because it doesn’t. See Chapter 10 of the IPCC report.
Scientific analysis of IPCC modelling used to project temperature increases is seriously deficient in taking proper account of the strong increase in surface evaporation occurring when surface temperatures rise. That surface evaporation includes an offsetting process that acts to limit such temperature rises. Why did the IPCC fail to recognise that larger CO2 concentrations will result in much smaller surface temperature rises than the models produce?
This is just confused. The only basis for saying that increased evaporation will cause negative feedback (instead of the obvious positive feedback because water vapour is a greenhouse gas) must be some other model than waht the IPCC uses. Is Moore’s preferred model better? It doesn’t seem to be..