Download Fragment

Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Page: 11729

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (12:01): As a physicist by training, I am very proud of our physics laureate Professor Brian Schmidt. The winning of the Nobel Prize in Physics makes me think of the way that science operates, which will be part of my discussion today.

We have heard a lot about scientific consensus, meaning that the views of anthropogenic global warming sceptics should be discounted. But let us examine scientific consensus in light of this year's Nobel prizes in both physics and chemistry. Twenty years ago, the unanimous—not just the consensus but the unanimous—view of physicists, cosmologists, astrophysicists et cetera was that the expansion of the universe was slowing as gravity inexorably pulled galaxies towards each other. The question then asked was whether there was enough mass in the universe for the galaxies eventually to collapse towards each other—the so-called 'big crunch'. No-one questioned that view until Professor Brian Schmidt and two others smashed this consensus by discovering that the expansion of the universe was in fact accelerating. As a result, they were awarded this year's Nobel Prize in Physics.

Similarly, this year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to Dr Daniel Shechtman for work on quasicrystals. As a result of this work he was ridiculed by the establishment and was asked to leave his research group at the prestigious National Institute of Standards and Technology in the US. It took a full two years before a peer reviewed journal deigned to publish his work.

This year's Nobel prizes for both physics and chemistry have been awarded for smashing scientific consensus. As I said in a discussion with Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb, major advances are made breaking a consensus, while only incremental advance occurs within a consensus. We need to be careful of mindguards and groupthinkers who insist that simply because a certain view is a consensus view it is correct and must be defended at all costs. So to anthropogenic global warming, where consensus and support from scientific institutions are invoked in defence of this idea. This is despite the science of anthropogenic global warming being less 'settled or secure' than that of quasicrystals or of the universe's expansion decelerating prior to revolutionary thinkers and observers challenging the accepted view. The whole premise of mankind and, in particular, carbon dioxide emissions being responsible for climate change is not the result of fundamental physics but of computer model outputs.

Computer models must be judged in terms of their predictive capacity, and it is here that these models have proved to be lacking. It has been said of computer models it is garbage in, garbage out, except in the case of climate change computer models, where it is garbage in, gospel out. Problematically, the predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change using these much venerated models have not matched what has been observed. In terms of global average temperature, the models predicted an increase in the last decade, even for the case where carbon dioxide concentration is held constant. Observations using the IPCC's own Hadley Climate Research Unit dataset show no increase in global temperatures this century.

Ms Hall interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Is the member for Shortland seeking to ask a question?

Ms Hall: No, I am seeking to raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order being?

Ms Hall: The point of order is that the member for Tangney is not speaking to the motion and he is actually doing a disservice—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will resume her seat. The member for Tangney will continue with his speech. I am listening carefully, and he is within the parameters but skirting on the edges.

Dr JENSEN: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I was saying that observations show no increase in global temperatures this century and, for the benefit of the member for Isaacs, nor does the satellite record show this, as is evidenced by Remote Sensing Systems satellite data. Hence the wave of peer reviewed papers—and I stress 'peer reviewed'—from consensus scientists now being published in an attempt to justify, in hindsight, the lack of warming. The Prime Minister's climate science adviser, Professor Will Steffen—

Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion before the House is on Professor Brian Schmidt, whose work is on the accelerating universe.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I remind members that this is a statement on indulgence, which gives broad scope to what the speaker can speak on.

Ms Hall interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have made a ruling. It is a statement on indulgence and there is broad scope to what the speaker can speak on. The member for Tangney.

Dr JENSEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister's climate science adviser, Professor Will Steffen, says that warming has occurred in the oceans, which is why observed global air temperature increases have not been observed. Unfortunately, since the very accurate Argo Buoy network was launched in 2003 there has been no heating of the world's oceans. With this network there has been more data on the world's oceans collected than for the rest of human history combined. Similarly, we have heard the dire predictions on sea level rise; but, once again, sea level rise has been observed to be decelerating, not accelerating as predicted by the models. Funnily enough, this is in contrast to Professor Schmidt's work on the universe where the opposite has occurred. It has been found that the universe is accelerating its expansion rather than decelerating it.

In 2011 the term 'the science says' is being used in the same way as 'God says' was used in the past in an attempt to stop any debate or discussion. We need to ensure that the mind-guards of today are not allowed the same unfettered, unquestioned power as in times past. This year's physics and chemistry Nobel laureates demonstrate why the carbon tax has scientific bedrock that is very unstable. Thank you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that this is a statement by indulgence, which gives broad scope. Nevertheless, this statement is on Brian Schmidt but there is broad scope because it is a statement by indulgence.