Australian Academy of Science Reveals Its Ignorance

From The Australian August 18:

THE Australian Academy of Science has pitted its expertise against the greenhouse sceptics in a report stating that humans are changing our climate. ...

Kurt Lambeck, immediate past president of the academy and a professor at the Australian National University's research school of earth sciences, initiated work on the document to clear up common misconceptions. ...

He said the fundamental principles of climatology, such as the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, were beyond dispute. But scientists were still arguing about the complex Earth systems feedback mechanisms, such as the possible cooling effect of clouds.

"If temperatures go up, there is going to be more evaporation, and that will produce more clouds," Professor Lambeck said. "That could produce a negative feedback, but to quantify that is a very difficult thing.

"How do we put that cloud cover into the models? That's where uncertainty comes in, but that's not going to change the basic outcomes."

Really?

A change of just 1% in cloud cover would account for all of twentieth century warming (Plimer's Heaven and Earth p 112). (And that's the claimed warming, including the uncheckable 'adjustments' made by people who have now lost the raw data - but that's another question.)

1%.

All the warming.

And here's Professor Lambeck telling us they don't know how to 'do' clouds in their models, and they don't even know whether the effect amounts to positive or negative feedback.

But even if we 'buy' their so-called physics about how CO2 heats the atmosphere, even with zero or small positive feedback nothing disastrous happens, even in their own models!

And they don't know even if the feedback will be as large as zero! It could be negative, he tells us, which would wipe out all concern for dangerous global warming.

And then, (what happens in the heads of these people?) he goes on and repeats the tired old mantra that it's "not going to change the basic outcomes."

That's like saying maybe they'll shoot us with an exocet missile or maybe they'll use a kid's pop gun, but it won't change the basic outcome. Won't it?

To anyone still unsure about this question, this should show you all you need to know. A professor from a nation's premiere 'science' academy can't understand the difference between positive and negative feedback. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Good science is all but dead. The bodies that should be protecting society from shysters and dingbats have been taken over by adherents of a pseudo-religious cult, the cult of 'climate change'.

Among the authors of the academy's report are David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne; Matthew England, of the University of NSW; Michael Bird, of James Cook University; and the CSIRO's Mike Raupach.

"They have identified the questions," Professor Lambeck said. "They've debated the answers. Here is the best advice you can get from the scientific community by real experts in their fields in climate science."

In other words, and if this report in The Australian is to be believed, there's nothing but quackery in the climate science community. For real science go to blogs like climateaudit.org.