Global Cooling Is Imminent, Thinks Australian PM Advisor

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Global Cooling Is Imminent, Thinks Australian PM Advisor

Australia's chief business advisor believes we're ill-prepared for global cooling thanks to widespread "warming propaganda".

Science has looked at climate change from just about every possible angle, and the overwhelming consensus is that it's getting pretty warm around here. According to Maurice Newman, the Australian government's chief business advisor, we're missing the bigger picture: Global cooling is the immediate threat. In an opinion piece critiquing the "warming propaganda" of climate scientists, Newman writes that warming trends are about to undergo a dramatic reversal, and implies Australia isn't prepared for the inevitable cold. Given Newman's position as advisor to Prime Minister Tony Abbott, this naturally sparked some controversy among Australia's scientific and political communities.

"Tony Abbott needs to repudiate these views and dump Mr Newman from his Business Advisory Council," said Adam Bandt, deputy leader of the Greens. "Someone with these flat-earth views has no place helping set policy for 21st century Australia."

In his article, Newman posits that the most significant factor contributing to climate change isn't CO2, but solar activity. Pointing to the sun's increased energy output from 1959 to 2009, Newman suggests we are undergoing a global warming pause that will shift to a potentially disastrous global cooling period. He then accuses climate change studies of spending money "to largely preordain scientific conclusions" which favor man-made warming theories.

"What if the warmth the world has enjoyed for the past 50 years is the result of solar activity, not man-made CO2?" Newman writes. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its acolytes pay scant attention to any science, however strong the empirical evidence, that may relegate human causes to a lesser status.

"But the political establishment is deaf to this," he continues. "Having put all our eggs in one basket and having made science a religion, it bravely persists with its global warming narrative, ignoring at its peril and ours, the clear warnings being given by mother nature. If the world does indeed move into a cooling period, its citizens are ill-prepared."

Of course, scientists have since responded noting that the recent pause is caused by Pacific winds forcing surface heat underwater. "The idea that solar cycles can override climate change driven by greenhouse gases is fanciful," said Professor Matthew England. "Saying we aren't prepared for global cooling is like saying we aren't prepared for an alien invasion. There is no credible scientist saying this is on the horizon. It's completely weird to be calling for investment into something that's completely unfounded and I think he's arrogant to think he knows the answer to climate physics when he hasn't studied it."

Source: The Guardian

Permalink

Global cooling?
Awesome, we need all the cold we can get if we want to build air-cooled fission reactors

P.S. I still think that political dick-waving of nuclear countries is bigger threat to humanity than climate change.

To be perfectly honest, in the most civil way I can, all things considered, this man sounds like a complete fuckin' imbecile. Does this idiot really think that none of the climate scientists have considered the solar activity? He's either a moron or a shill for some oil company. Either way, get him the fuck out of politics.

Listen, you don't have to be on board for man made climate change. I get that. I'm not entirely on board myself, to be completely honest (skeptical is what everyone should be). But this is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

That said, I don't know if he should be thrown out as an adviser. He is advising on things that are not his area of expertise. Adviser's do this all the time, they are advisers though, and not policy makers. The US President has a cabinet of advisers that give their opinions on things they are not experts in, but they give their opinions on subjects regardless of this. It will always fall on the President to make the decision, and no one is sitting there listening to a single adviser.

Guys, have you considered that the sun is actually Hitler, and before WW2 the sky was actually only lit by moonlight that shines because moon is powered by space-glow-rocks? When Hitler launched himself on a nuclear missle into space to evade the encroaching allies and the nuke caused the sun to appear, we all just forgot, right?

Of course Global Warming is caused by the sun; first he started with Europe, next... Europa.

Global fucking cooling.

Want to see how fast he can backpedal? Actually propose legislation to build infrastructure to withstand this coming ice age, with concomitant tax increases. Poof! Suddenly, climate change (of any sort) will be a myth again!

Ferisar:
Guys, have you considered that the sun is actually Hitler, and before WW2 the sky was actually only lit by moonlight that shines because moon is powered by space-glow-rocks? When Hitler launched himself on a nuclear missle into space to evade the encroaching allies and the nuke caused the sun to appear, we all just forgot, right?

Of course Global Warming is caused by the sun; first he started with Europe, next... Europa.

Global fucking cooling.

...and yet, somehow still more credible than this guy's global cooling.

While I'll hope not sink to the appeal to authority fallacy, when there is a tremendous consensus among scientists of many backgrounds all agreeing that the planet is warming up, you should probably take their word for it at least tentatively (for the record, I personally would say far more than "tentatively" in this matter).

There are some things I just do not understand how anyone still buys into them. Global warming denialism is one of them. And the fact this man was elected in a civilised country disturbs me greatly.

"chief business advisor"

Well he certainly sounds like someone I want to ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus to listen to. Just look at those CREDENTIALS. If I ever need a heart transplant I'm going to this guy, because I'd have to be an idiot to put my life in the hands of people who do heart transplants for a living.

No sir, I'll have a chief business advisor complete the op or die trying.

DEAR REST OF WORLD,

Please do not listen to anything our current government says.

They are idiots. We are very sorry.

Kind regards, your mostly friendly neighbourhood kangaroo wrangler.

Gearhead mk2:
There are some things I just do not understand how anyone still buys into them. Global warming denialism is one of them. And the fact this man was elected in a civilised country disturbs me greatly.

If he's just an adviser he likely wasn't elected, but he was still hired by and heavily influencing someone who was so... remain disturbed I guess.

On the topic of global warming though, it's a shame that denying climate change has paralyzed so much of the action against sources of pollution. Even if the pie-chart sliver of people who believe that it's false are right, things like coal and oil should still be phased out due to the myriad of other (entirely proven) environmental and health risks they pose (acid rain, spills, smog, etc.) and also the fact that these energy sources are going to become unfeasible as their price increases.

Global cooling is inevitable, but I wouldn't say imminent. It'll happen eventually, because global temperature fluctuates a lot over the course of thousands of years, but to call it imminent gives very much the wrong impression of the time scale for this.

Bring on the coal and the old cars with the 5 liter engines, people, we need to warm up this damn planet.

So according to this guy, CO2 isn't causing global warming, and something to do with solar activity is actually going to cause global cooling? How convenient, turns out pollution is okay guys!

Johnson McGee:

Gearhead mk2:
There are some things I just do not understand how anyone still buys into them. Global warming denialism is one of them. And the fact this man was elected in a civilised country disturbs me greatly.

If he's just an adviser he likely wasn't elected, but he was still hired by and heavily influencing someone who was so... remain disturbed I guess.

On the topic of global warming though, it's a shame that denying climate change has paralyzed so much of the action against sources of pollution. Even if the pie-chart sliver of people who believe that it's false are right, things like coal and oil should still be phased out due to the myriad of other (entirely proven) environmental and health risks they pose (acid rain, spills, smog, etc.) and also the fact that these energy sources are going to become unfeasible as their price increases.

I'll put it frank, the evidence supporting what people think when the term "global warming" is brought up is largely bullshit. These people are claiming that they can predict what the global climate is going to do hundreds of years in the future, but not a single model we've come up has been able to accurately predict even local climate for more than a few weeks in advance. And a lot of the evidence in support of it has numerous confounding variables that get ignored because it doesn't support the political cause that the people funding the research want. In short, when it comes right down to it, we genuinely have no good idea what the global climate is going to do and have no means to accurately guess at it.

That said, yes it is a terrible shame that the all the politicization has paralyzed the discussion on pollution. You don't need some kind of scary man-bear-pig like global warming as an excuse to improve on current technologies and work on reduction of pollution. Pollution is just plain unhealthy for human life. And while we may be better at it here in the US than in some countries (like, say, China), there's still room for improvement and we ought not be holding back on research into tech that could significantly improve the quality of life for many people.

But, unfortunately, politicians care more about having something they can scare people with than actually doing something about the problems.

I do find the idea of a business adviser ignoring what the stats are telling them and advocating preparations for the exact opposite of what is likely to happen hilarious. I can now imagine future Australians bankrupted by buying ski jackets and thermal underwear ready for the next ice age as water from the melted ice caps laps around their knees :P

Zhukov:
DEAR REST OF WORLD,

Please do not listen to anything our current government says.

They are idiots. We are very sorry.

Kind regards, your mostly friendly neighbourhood kangaroo wrangler.

If it makes you feel better, the rest of our Governments don't fare much better in the intelligence department.

After the "summer" I have been having I can believe it. It's bloody cold out there

Mr. Newman has no idea what he's talking about. The basic science around the warming that will be produced by the accumulation of greenhouse gases like CO2 is pretty much irrefutable.

That said, I do share his contempt for the IPCC: There's very little hard science supporting the AMOUNT of warming that they predict, leading to a whole bunch of pointless alarmism and misinformation, which the media (including this website) happily parrots.

There was a bit of a debate in the 70s on whether enough aerosols from exhaust from coal and wood burning would get stuck in the atmosphere and dim the light coming in to overcome the rising temperatures from the greenhouse effect (which, yeah, they knew about then, and well before). The scientific community came to the conclusion that, no, aerosol concentration would not get high enough to cause cooling, especially with modern exhaust filtering employed all over the world.

"Solar activity" has always been a canard, though, this guy is an idiot.

So what was it Yahtzee said in a game review about Murdock and the Australian election...

To the rest of the world. Ignore the current Australian govt. They have nothing constructive to say about anything. The current PM of Australia is about as anti-environmental as you can get and his 'science team' was handpicked (after they threw the old one out).

RJ Dalton:

I'll put it frank, the evidence supporting what people think when the term "global warming" is brought up is largely bullshit. These people are claiming that they can predict what the global climate is going to do hundreds of years in the future, but not a single model we've come up has been able to accurately predict even local climate for more than a few weeks in advance. And a lot of the evidence in support of it has numerous confounding variables that get ignored because it doesn't support the political cause that the people funding the research want. In short, when it comes right down to it, we genuinely have no good idea what the global climate is going to do and have no means to accurately guess at it.

That said, yes it is a terrible shame that the all the politicization has paralyzed the discussion on pollution. You don't need some kind of scary man-bear-pig like global warming as an excuse to improve on current technologies and work on reduction of pollution. Pollution is just plain unhealthy for human life. And while we may be better at it here in the US than in some countries (like, say, China), there's still room for improvement and we ought not be holding back on research into tech that could significantly improve the quality of life for many people.

But, unfortunately, politicians care more about having something they can scare people with than actually doing something about the problems.

Climate =/= Weather. Watch moar Cosmos.

TripleDaddy:

RJ Dalton:

I'll put it frank, the evidence supporting what people think when the term "global warming" is brought up is largely bullshit. These people are claiming that they can predict what the global climate is going to do hundreds of years in the future, but not a single model we've come up has been able to accurately predict even local climate for more than a few weeks in advance. And a lot of the evidence in support of it has numerous confounding variables that get ignored because it doesn't support the political cause that the people funding the research want. In short, when it comes right down to it, we genuinely have no good idea what the global climate is going to do and have no means to accurately guess at it.

That said, yes it is a terrible shame that the all the politicization has paralyzed the discussion on pollution. You don't need some kind of scary man-bear-pig like global warming as an excuse to improve on current technologies and work on reduction of pollution. Pollution is just plain unhealthy for human life. And while we may be better at it here in the US than in some countries (like, say, China), there's still room for improvement and we ought not be holding back on research into tech that could significantly improve the quality of life for many people.

But, unfortunately, politicians care more about having something they can scare people with than actually doing something about the problems.

Climate =/= Weather. Watch moar Cosmos.

You can start with this one, simply explaining the difference between climate and weather.


The rest of episode 12 also goes over how we know its not the sun.

um . . . does this guy not realize that the sun's output is actually lower than it should be right now? This is kinda pathetic and disturbing that someone would assert this is contradiction of all facts.

You know... I voted for that guy. It was a calculated risk between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, bit it's still one which I regret.

RJ Dalton:
I'll put it frank, the evidence supporting what people think when the term "global warming" is brought up is largely bullshit. These people are claiming that they can predict what the global climate is going to do hundreds of years in the future, but not a single model we've come up has been able to accurately predict even local climate for more than a few weeks in advance. And a lot of the evidence in support of it has numerous confounding variables that get ignored because it doesn't support the political cause that the people funding the research want. In short, when it comes right down to it, we genuinely have no good idea what the global climate is going to do and have no means to accurately guess at it.

*facepalm*
It is far far easier to predict long term changes to the global temperature than it is to predict short-term local weather.
The latter is a chaotic system where the slightest change can cascade and cause feedback loops that cause exponentially large results from very small input.
The former, on the other hand, is a simple system that only needs to consider how much heat comes in compared to how much goes out. There are certainly variations, but the key difference is that any variation has very little effect on future variation (cloud cover one day doesn't stop the sun producing heat today, nor in the future), which means it is immune to the cascade effect that results in unreliable weather predictions.

Dear America,

We are sorry for making fun of you for Bush.

Sincerely, Australia.

OT: This is stupidity of disastrous proportions. The world was gobsmacked by Sarah Palin, but while she held our attention, a sleeper cell of idiots took over the Australian government.

And so the line continues to blur between politics and trolling...thanks Newman! It's nice to not have America be the sad punchline of some joke at least once in a while.

Maze1125:

It is far far easier to predict long term changes to the global temperature than it is to predict short-term local weather.
The latter is a chaotic system where the slightest change can cascade and cause feedback loops that cause exponentially large results from very small input.
The former, on the other hand, is a simple system that only needs to consider how much heat comes in compared to how much goes out.

Eh...kind of. Short term forecasting, and especially Mesoscale phenomenon are very "in the moment" chaos, with many events occurring under our model's current resolution. But that doesn't really make climatology easier by comparison.

The problem is that evidence of how accurate our current climatological models are is weak simply because they haven't been running very long, relative to the time scale of the system we're measuring. If the model were an engine, it would be difficult to tell how smoothly it's running because we've scarcely heard it turn over...worse, it's possible the natural "engine" here is changing speeds even as we try to measure it.

(I actually attended a colloquial meeting at my university on this subject, and even the doctorate staff were dubious of some of the claims behind the proposed data assimilation methods to "accelerate" our verification process.)

Also, chaos in any system by nature makes anything harder to predict in the longer term because of the potential for propagation of errors. A lot of climatology is analog based as a result, which kind of sucks. (operational forecasting has analogs, and they tend to be very, very wrong)

All that said, this Newman fellow is still fucking bonkers, simply because his claim for GLOBAL cooling is predicated on trends with little to no real basis. Much of North America is experiencing a very cool summer right now, yet the last two summers years were among the hottest in recent memory.

You don't even need to cite the obvious effects of carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect to know that.
Besides, there's also...

-Re-radiation from impervious terrain (man-made surfacing, urban heat island; you can measure these easily with a car thermometer)

-Elimination and re-concentration of land vegetation for commercial usage (plants not only absorb direct sunlight, but most are comprised heavily of water, and thus are natural heat sinks. However, with dense agriculture comes potential front-loading of water and heat budgets inland. Trust me, being surrounded by corn, I am INTIMATELY acquainted with its ability to raise dew points)

-Garbage purging and its relationship to sea-surface algae (this stuff is bad new; it mucks with all sorts of things over time, but for this subject, it absorbs and traps more sunlight at the very surface of the ocean, which screws with the thermal gradient and thus the mixing)

..And all other manner of contributors that humanity has caused. We are changing the climate. It's to what extent that remains the tricky question.

Oh, if it weren't apparent, I'm a meteorologist with some experience and exposure to other earth sciences.

He was of course writing this in The Australian, the country's national Murdoch rag. They will happily give space to anyone who rails against the science of climate change, and when they get done for misrepresenting facts they bleat loudly about how 'Stalinist' organisations want them to adhere to the truth.

It's the kind of newspaper I wouldn't use to scoop up a dog turd.

Let's just agree to not pay attention to what Business Advisors have to say about climate. I think that seems like an idea.

Baresark:
Listen, you don't have to be on board for man made climate change. I get that. I'm not entirely on board myself, to be completely honest (skeptical is what everyone should be). But this is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

Absolute certainty isn't necessary for action. Ya, skepticism is healthy when there's a clear lack of evidence, but continuing to question an assumption long after the evidence has become overwhelming is just denialism.

Olas:
Let's just agree to not pay attention to what Business Advisors have to say about climate. I think that seems like an idea.

Baresark:
Listen, you don't have to be on board for man made climate change. I get that. I'm not entirely on board myself, to be completely honest (skeptical is what everyone should be). But this is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

Absolute certainty isn't necessary for action. Ya, skepticism is healthy when there's a clear lack of evidence, but continuing to question an assumption long after the evidence has become overwhelming is just denialism.

Honestly, what I or you think about it is completely inconsequential. Neither of us have any say what so ever in the direction any laws or regulations take in regards to it. And no matter what anyone says today, I or you cannot change the course it's going in, so it really doesn't matter if agree or not with you. For a lot of people it's just a matter of ego.

That said: I love the idea of alternate and clean energy sources, steadying any kind of climate change that is or is not man made, and just the world being an overall nicer place. I fully believe in pursuing the cleanest and best course possible and I fully believe that if we all have to make some sacrifices, it's OK and I'm all in.

The only thing you have wrong is that we all need to pissing our pants in fear to make anything happen. I, for one, am not for fear mongering. I don't believe in scaring the shit out of children by telling them the world is going to end, that isn't going to fix it. Action can happen without everyone being on board with what you think. Anyone with an ounce of reason doesn't need to be told the oceans are going to boil in order for there to be a change to a cleaner lifestyle and to have alternative and cleaner fuels and energy sources.

In short don't listen to people with political motivations...

My vague understanding of climate change (based on the 1990 novel, Jurassic Park) is that it's all about extremities rather than a static warming or cooling, so the world's weather becomes increasingly chaotic, hotter summers, colder winters, more frequent and destructive natural disasters.
Perhaps I should apply for a political role, they get some pretty sweet perks I hear.

Of course! *smacks head* The sun! Why didn't we ever consider that!

...I'm beginning to think pro wrestling's 7 year cycle works for politics, too.

CpT_x_Killsteal:
Dear America,

We are sorry for making fun of you for Bush.

Sincerely, Australia.

Nah, we totally had it coming. Doesn't mean I'm not snickering, but still.

Lilani:
So according to this guy, CO2 isn't causing global warming, and something to do with solar activity is actually going to cause global cooling? How convenient, turns out pollution is okay guys!

No , hes saying that the sun has been going through a hotter than normal period for the last 50 years, which to be fair it has and the cyclic nature of the suns output is pretty well documented, and hes saying that this completely overshadows the man made element. which to be fair hasn't been proved either way to my satisfaction. hes saying the cooling will happen as the sun cycles down. and well the sun getting cooler will have an affect, we do know this planet goes through regular and predictable ice ages.

is he an idiot and a schill? well hes a politician so.. ;) is he utterly wrong to think this way? maybe but right or wrong its still the wrong debate. at this point arguing if the sun or us is to blame is kind of like setting the table for dinner on the titanic.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here