Maurice Newman, former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has the necessary lack of scientific qualifications to write about climate science in The Australian (Google “Losing their religion as evidence cools off”):

So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000, he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling period.

Newman is just making things up here. Ehrlich did say that there was a 50% chance of England’s collapse by 2000, but not because of global cooling, but rather because of “plague, thermonuclear war, overwhelming pollution, [and] ecological catastrophe”. In his 1969 book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich said that “we cannot predict” global cooling.

As the greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide… [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants… At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump

Newman continues:

Unfortunately for him, England is still inhabited and his predictions are still remembered. Ehrlich is now a warmist. Like a good stock analyst, when the company doesn’t perform as you thought, better to change the recommendation from a sell to a buy, than admit you were wrong.

When will Newman admit that he was wrong about climate science?

However, the British arm of the climate establishment silently released an encyclical that revealed no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures from the beginning of 1997 until August this year.

This communique was unearthed by the heretic newspaper, the Daily Mail, which pointed out that this period was of about the same duration as when temperatures rose between 1980 to 1996.

Here, from woodfortrees.org, is a graph showing the temperature trend from 1980 to 1996 (the green line) and global temperatures since 1980. Is it “discernible” that since the beginning of 1997 temperatures have been mostly above the trend line? Who to believe, Maurice Newman or your lying eyes?

hadcrut41980-96trend

And “Daily Mail” in Newman’s piece refers to David Rose, central to the Rosegate scandal.  Tamino and Dana Nuccitelli have more on this episode of Rosegate.

Comments

  1. #1 john byatt
    November 6, 2012

    Maurice Lionel Newman AC (born 20 April 1938, Ilford, England)[1] until March 2012

    possibly explains why unleashed had weekly opinion pieces from the climate sceptics party and IPA up to March

    wondered what happened,

  2. #2 Acacia
    November 6, 2012

    The Australian has been on a bit of a roll and yesterday Graham Lloyd has yet another article on the health affects of wind turbines. Interestingly today there is a letter from a GP, Marjorie Cross, with a practice in an area with a large number of turbines. She has not seen any patients with wind turbine syndrome.

  3. #3 john byatt
    November 7, 2012

    Did you read the letter from jan ? inside her house she could not see it or hear it but could feel it’s sinister presence.

    followed up on her, she lives on the opposite side of the road to the farm and is 1KM away minimum from nearest windmill,

    at 500m, sound level drops below background noise .

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    November 8, 2012

    Maurice Lionel Newman AC

    Perhaps if they give you an AC, you’re entitled to your own facts.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    November 8, 2012

    John Byatt at the top of the comments…

    Indeed…

    Now, who was it who appointed Maurie…?

  6. #6 john byatt
    November 8, 2012

    As a personal friend of Howard you would think that climate change would have been one of their topics of discussion,
    I do not read anything into Howard electing Newman in regards to climate change, The sudden disappearance of the Climate Sceptics Party and IPA this year from unleashed , however was noticed.

  7. #7 john byatt
    November 8, 2012

    It could also explain why my official complaint to the ABC resulted in being told to go jum

    Steve Schneider was a highly regarded, highly respected seeker of the truth, for the ABC to allow Ted Lapkin to distort his legacy

    Lapkin had the final sentence removed version.
    ABC said that it was legit as Lapkin had quoted him and did not need to include last sentence, anyway you beat up on him in the comments which should suffice,

  8. #8 john byatt
    November 8, 2012

    Anthony Cox’s last climate change opinion piece at unleashed was in March
    Coincidence?

    Ted lapkin who was writing a weekly opinion piece has had nothing in since 9 sept and you have to go back many months to find a piece on climate change from him

    No one at the top to phone anymore ?

  9. #9 Ezzthetic
    November 8, 2012

    Given that The Age has a piece by Kininmonth and Carter, and it’s not the first time, it might be time to start a new series on Fairfax. I really have to ask what’s motivating this.

  10. #10 Chris O'Neill
    November 8, 2012

    The Age has had a war on windfarms for a long time. Can’t remember the journo whose pet project it was. But it might be getting worse.

  11. #11 Astrostevo
    November 11, 2012

    BTW. In his regular column in ‘The Advertiser’ Andrew Bolt has been again repeating the falsehood that global temperatures haven’t risen for 16 years.

    The letter I wrote to correct them wasn’t published.

    Mediawatch time? Any suggested action we can take?

  12. #12 StevoR
    November 11, 2012

    “astrostevo” = me, sorry.

  13. #13 StevoR
    November 11, 2012

    Comment awaiting moderation has just disappeared on Bolt repeating in The Advertiser – for the second or third week the falsehood that global temps haven’t risen for 16 years.

  14. #14 John
    November 11, 2012

    Andrew Bolt previously ridiculed the idea that global warming would increase storm severity:

    So much for the Government’s global warming guru, Professor Ross Garnaut, who crowed after Cyclone Yasi that warming was causing “an intensification of extreme weather events now” and “you ain’t seen nothing yet”.

    So it turned out Ross Garnaut was right and Andrew Bolt was wrong. My monocle just fell into my martini with surprise.

  15. #15 Heystoopid
    William Lambs Town Down Under
    November 12, 2012

    “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” Winston Churchill

    In other news, all the Murdoch ‘paid for comment’ climate denialati talking heads in the USA, all self imploded. This happened, when their candidate of choice, failed to win the world’s most expensive ‘cult of personality’ Presidential Race 2012.

    It was priceless to watch all of the US based Faux News staff, A through Z traverse the four out of five stages of denial, two hours after the polls closed PST on Super Tuesday, last.

    Sadly, the current batch of Republican Party members, do not appear to be not smart enough. to ascertain the importance of population demographics past, present and future!

    Andrew Dolt, the twice convicted serial liar, knows he is fighting a losing battle, when increasing ad revenue in Murdoch’s dying paper, comes from companies installing solar electric and hot water panels.

    Such is life.

  16. [...] 2012/11/06: Deltoid: The Australian’s War on Science 79: Maurice Newman versus your lying eyes [...]

  17. #17 lurker
    November 25, 2012

    “Newman is just making things up here. Ehrlich did say that there was a 50% chance of England’s collapse by 2000, but not because of global cooling, but rather because of “plague, thermonuclear war, overwhelming pollution, [and] ecological catastrophe”.

    I’m glad that’s clear.

  18. #18 GSW
    November 27, 2012

    @lurker
    ;)
    Indeed. Whereas Newman has misrepresented Ehrlich as being an opportunistic Doomsayer, happy to join any bandwagon promoting “End of the World” alarm, he as merely an opportunistic Doomsayer, happy to join any bandwagon promoting “End of the World” alarm, apart from global cooling. – eh, OK.

    Ehrlich has peddled some bizarre views over the years. He co authored, with John Holdren, an essay from 1971 entitled “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide” (Global Ecology), excerpt below,

    “If man survives the comparatively short-term threat of making the planet too cold, there is every indication he is quite capable of making it too warm not long thereafter. For the remaining major means of interference with the global heat balance is the release of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels.”

    eh? We’re all going to die because of residual heat from power plants? upsetting the delicate balance of the planet? Seriously? I think you’re on your own on that one Paul.

  19. #19 bill
    November 27, 2012

    Yawn.

  20. #20 Wow
    November 27, 2012

    It really isn’t very original, is it bill.

    There’s nothing going on in that guys head. Just a set of pavlovian responses and a whole lot of bile.

  21. #21 Lionel A
    November 27, 2012

    Just a set of pavlovian responses and a whole lot of bile.

    Worse than that, on the evidence of that last post of hisers alone, more stupid than a pigeon from not recognising a zombie when seen.

  22. #22 ianam
    December 1, 2012

    We’re all going to die because of residual heat from power plants?

    GSW’s powers of reading incomprehension are as great as ever.

  23. #23 shinsko
    December 18, 2012

    Here’s back Maurice strikes again

  24. #24 Olaus Petri
    December 24, 2012

    Australia might be on war against science, Austria on the other hand is fighting hard for science, climate science that is, and in this case climate musicology:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/

    As always the real climate scientist know what to do and that science is settled! And I didn’t know that Jeff was from Austria! ;-)

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    Thanks, Olaus, still linking to nutter crank blogs run by the likes of Jo Nova?

    Never mind, I’m sure the..er…”Banking families”…(wink, wink)…are still after you.