Climate Spectator has an interesting article on how the recent Australian opinion piece by Maurice Newman came to be published.
Newman was calling because he felt he’d been mischaracterised in an article in Climate Spectator. Newman said he was genuinely “agnostic” about whether global warming was occurring back in 2010 when, as chair of the ABC, he accused the media of group-think on climate change.
This is blatantly untrue, but thankfully Newman has listed exactly what he believed since 2010 had so comprehensively shattered the AGW theory:
For Newman the clincher is that he looks at the temperature data of the last 15 years and sees temperature rise has stalled, while CO2 levels have continued to rise. Surely this means global warming is bunk.
Those with long memories will remember 2010 as the year of “Phil Jones declares no statistically significant warming in fifteen years!”. That’s right – deniers were running the exact same argument in 2010 that they are running now, but with a different cherrypicked start date – 1994 instead of 1997.
Of course, deniers have now dropped “no statistically significant warming since 1994” because that warming is now, with the addition of a proper time period to differentiate climate signal from noise, statistically significant.
Newman is deliberately choosing a short time period because he knows it is going to give him the result he wants. This isn’t very honest. Actually, this is acutely dishonest. Newman is pretending that the short term temperature record is the climate signal and ignoring all other empirical lines of evidence. This is disgraceful.
Moreover, Newman is basing his entire denigration of the science as a “scam” on this fictitious argument that has been proven wrong again and again. These are not the beliefs of a man with an open mind who deals only in the evidence. These are the beliefs of a zealot whose research stops when he has an answer that agrees with his ideology.
In addition he notes flaws in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. He cites the statement that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035; and dire claims about Brazil’s rainforests that were sourced from a publication produced by the green group WWF.
Firstly, the glacier error was found by an actual scientist, and not a sceptic. Secondly, Newman provides no evidence that the “claims about Brazil’s rainforests” are wrong, just that they are from the WWF and therefore must be suspect, although he refuses to tell us why, which clashes with his laughable claim that he deals only in evidence. Apparently he deals in evidence, as long as he likes the source. Thirdly, both of these pieces of information were known before Newman made his speech to the ABC, which puts lie to his claim that the science was somehow shattered after 2010.
Incredibly, Climate Spectator reveals that Newman is a yellow-bellied coward who is happy to dish it but not take it:
After seeing the incredible accusations contained within his article, and knowing that there were counter arguments backed by credible evidence, I felt it needed to be published with a counter perspective.
Unfortunately Newman was unwilling to accept this, and so his article ran in The Australian instead.
This is, frankly, shocking. When faced with a mere opinion piece that would counter his own, Newman chooses to run to the bosom of The Australian where he knows his conspiracy theories and junk science will be accepted with open arms. Again, this isn’t the behaviour of a man who believes the only way to come to a conclusion is to see if “the underlying data is true”. This is a man with his mind made up, too frightened to face criticism, who labels all his critics “abusive” and runs away from dissenting opinion.
Sadly, the Climate Spectator still fails to touch on Newman’s links to shadowy fringe anti-science groups, NIMBY activism or threats to sue farmers who install windfarms next to his own property (the “underlying evidence” that wind farms affect anybodies health, as he claims, being entirely non-existent)
The real questions here are – why is Maurice Newman scared of criticism? And why does he continue to lie?