This is of interest because they are an Australian journalist and University Professor at odds here. Professor Archer, apparently 5 years ago, has really put his foot in his mouth and Andrew Bolt would appear to be correct in publishing this article.
Professor Archer has an incredibly impressive CV and is surely in a position to understand climate science. Yet he has got it wrong. His only avenue of escape from serious embarassment might be his words “if we have climate change” and “My guess is“.
On the other hand he clearly states where he stands on the subject by saying “And it’s going to obliterate the world as we currently know it. It’s going to make change within one generation very, very visible and very uncomfortable. It is an apocalypse.”
It’s scientists like him that have swayed our government to believe in the need for a carbon tax. He is one of the claimed 97% experts who “cannot be wrong”.
By this same measure, all these “97%” scientists are wrong. By the same measure, our government is wrong!
So either global warming exists but doesn’t cause the anticipated ‘ill-effects’ or, there really is no global warming at all. In which case both he and the government are still wrong.
And now, the Australian government is apparently considering censoring material that disagrees with their climate change beliefs and actions and also their political agenda. (Ref: Aussie government proposes unlimited speech regulation, names climate skeptics and Labor critics as targets )
Related articles
- Climate Change Australia – Holding Alarmists To Account: Professor Mike Archer (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Andrew Bolt: One dry year is worth more than two wet (junkscience.com)
- Climate Change – More Ice Than In The Past Five Years (papundits.wordpress.com)
- GHCN goes Terminator with past climate data (rightwingliberal.wordpress.com)
- Climate Change Australia – Never Let A Good Flood Go To Waste (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Climate Change Australia – Shouldn’t Flannery Resign? (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Climate Change Australia – With A Record Like This, Why Is Flannery Climate Commissioner? (papundits.wordpress.com)
By Andrew Bolt ~
Five years on, let’s revisit one of the most outrageous scare claims made by our local alarmists – the University of New South Wales Professor Mike Archer, then dean of science:
If we have climate change, what we do know is southern Australia is going to go powder dry, northern Australia is going to be afflicted with violent weather patterns… My guess is mangrove forests are going to invade the beaches, Bondi Beach (where we’re standing now) is gone, so there are changes coming down the line…
We’ve got about 95, maybe 98 percent of our population living along the coastline. [With the ice sheets at the poles and Greenland melting] the sea levels will be 100 meters (330 feet) higher than they are today. Forget Venice. I mean we’re talking about sharks in the middle of (downtown) Sydney…
We think of an apocalypse…
View original post 347 more words
The GOLDEN RULE 
maybe Australia is not experiencing climate change but I can assure you that North America is.
All parts of the globe are experiencing “climate change” but one needs to define what part of the changes is related to atmospheric CO2 level increases. This explanation is far from complete and far from convincing to many competent academics.
Archer’s predictions – ” And it’s going to obliterate the world as we currently know it. It’s going to make change within one generation very, very visible and very uncomfortable. It is an apocalypse.” applied to the whole planet.
Current climate extremes, floods in Australia (which he claimed would be a thing of the past), are certainly not unprecedented, and heat waves in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, are balanced by extreme cold and snow in UK and Europe last winter and cannot logically be connected to what is claimed to be a short term fractional rise in the computed global average temperature. A rise which has levelled out in the last decade in any case.
Your comment is appreciated, as nothing about the highly complex global climate system(s) is straightforward and debate is healthy.
You are right Ken to dismiss Archer Ken. There are way too many alarmists sounding off in many disciplines. Weather patterns are always in flux and when I hear “the worst in a decade” means naught. Is human activity changing environmental balance? Somewhat undoubtedly. I would err on the side of caution
Great to have your balanced viewpoint.
Strangely enough, I have only just connected with the ‘Global Dimming’ aspect of global temperature. I was aware that pollution, not of green house gasses but of particulate matter and other gasses does counteract GHG warming, but not the possible extent of the effect.
A new area for me to delve into!
I cannot disagree with you about human activity, actually I would say contributing rather than changing, the environmental balance. But there are too many variables and too little is really known about this exceedingly complex science. The net degree of contribution is the important thing. Conclusions are difficult to be firmly made, probably either way.
Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that the evidence regarding the political influences strongly shows decision-making to be based not on science, but on a political agenda.