Dennis Jensen replied to OveHG
Sun 31 Jan 10 (12:50pm)
Ove, your comparison with flight is particularly apropo. Around the turn of the 20th century Samuel Langley, a scientist supported by the Smithsonian was seen to be the most likely to fly first. Unfortunately, the scientist did not apply scientific method and his “aerodrome” crashed unceremoniously into the Potomac. Then you had the Wright Brothers, non-scientists who you IPCC lot would say “not qualified” and attack for lack of credentials, who actually used scientific method, developed the wind tunnel, and actually took measurements and accepted the data, and did not reject data that was not convenient. Sounds awfully like the AGW argument today.
I remember your briefing to our environment committee where you went on about the Barrier Reef being in danger due to high CO2 levels. When I pointed out that corals lived in periods where the CO2 concentration was more than 10 times current levels, you then said the rate of temperature change was the issue of major concern. I recall stating that the rate was over 20 times more at the end of the Younger Dryas only 12 000 years ago, and that you had no answer for it. I was struck with both you and Will Steffen appearing to “situate the appreciation, rather than appreciate the situation”.
Doesn’t the avalanche of bad research referenced by the IPCC, lack of peer review and clear collusion and corruption in the process not concern you at all?
Dennis Jensen – you have a selective a curious recollection of the briefing. When you asked about corals living at CO2 concentration was more than 10 times current levels – we said two things. The first is that calcified reefs disappear from the fossil record when CO2 is high (See Veron 2008 and references therein – Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints on geological dilemmas. Coral Reefs 27:459-472. J E N Veron was the chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences). The second is that I indicated that the rate of change was a major issue – with CO2 as well as temperature. Current rates of change are 100 to 1,000 times higher than the average rate of the last 720,000 years. This leaves biology in the dust (ie evolution takes time and we are exceeding it).
My comments on the Younger Dryas Event were as follows: (1) the Paleoclimate people tell us that there was a sudden change in temperature of about 5°C (2) based on the evidence from today, it was properly a catastrophic yet short lived event from which ecosystems and early human societies probably bounced back from (after 100 years or so), and (3) the precision of the paleoecology record is too blunt to see any impact. That is, any ecological event (mass mortality etc) that lasts for a period shorter than 500 years generally cannot be seen within the fossil record. So we will never know what happened etc.
In response to your comment about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You have to ask yourself as a politician, do I trust the Australian scientific community or not. There is no alternative. If you take Ian Plimer’s unreviewed book, you will find huge errors … and Monckton, Carter, and Lehr are largely unpublished and have long track records of misinformation and deceit. Clearly, not sources of information that I would use to base policy on. On the other side, you have hundreds of Australian scientists with the best qualifications lined up along with our most prestigious scientific institution, the Australian Academy of Sciences. And thousands upon thousands of peer review papers in reputable Australian and international journals. The question I had to ask you as a budding politician is as follows. If you are not planning to take the advice of the hundreds of Australia’s scientists (and our Academy of Sciences and CSIRO), who will you be taking your advice from on matters of agriculture, health and engineering sciences? And how would you handle the universities, given you have implied that most of the people employed by them are corrupt and dishonest?
A government that rejects its entire scientific community (99%) would be a very poor government indeed!