The scientific method (and other heresies) - Climate Change: The Facts - page 183

with it we saw flooding across eastern Australia, the likes of which we had not seen since
1974(alsoaLaNiñayear).Whilstthefloodsandcycloneweredevastating intheirimpact,
again there was nothing to suggest that their occurrence was anything but normal given the
known climatology of eastern Australia. But once again, the experts lined up to proclaim
that, no doubt, climate change was involved. It seems that any climate extreme represents
the impact of anthropogenic climate change.
DrKevinTrenberth,whoplaysaleadingroleindevelopingtheIPCCscience,provided
all the inspiration required in a recent paper entitled 'Framing the way to relate climate
extremes to climate change.' 10 His essential message was that to ask 'to what degree
climate change contributed to an event' was actually asking the wrong question. His way
of framing the climate debate is that every event is influenced by climate change.
Theimplicationofthisisthatbecausethesciencecannotanswerthequestion,itdoesn't
have to—scientists should just claim everything is a sign of climate change. None too
surprisingly, the Australian Climate Commission heeded this call which was most clearly
advocated in its recent 'Angry Summer' report. It concluded that everything that happened
that summer was due in part to climate change. This is the kind of science many might
prefer to the real thing—a science where one doesn't actually have to do anything to
justify one's claims. In reality, Trenberth's framing of the climate science debate has little
to do with science—it is merely advocacy for a catastrophic future outlook. Above all, it
represents an intellectually weak approach to science from those that lead it.
One very unfortunate event followed just a week after the widespread floods of
2010-11—a paper was published in the journal Nature which claimed to have linked
increases in rainfall to anthropogenic climate change. 11 This was heralded across the
Australian Broadcasting Commission as a significant result. Expert commentators were
sought to evaluate its meaning. To paraphrase, one climate scientist announced that 'it
was published in Nature , so it must be right'; another claimed that 'we already knew this,
so it only confirms what we already thought.' Such comments could have been as easily
madewithoutevenbotheringtoreadthepaper.Nocritical analysis waseverprovided.The
unfortunate timing, coming so soon after the floods, meant that inevitably many scientists
wereemboldenedinlinkingourfloodstoincreasedtemperatures andconsequentlyclimate
change.
The paper has gone on to enjoy great academic success, having been cited more than
three hundred times in its short period of existence. There is however one rather major
problem with the paper—the study never did compare the calculated rainfall probabilities
against the corresponding temperature. If it had, it would have noted that there was no
correlation at all between the two.
Figure 1 shows the five-year average one-day rainfall probabilities (black line) from
1951 onwards. There is a spike at the end, but no substantive evidence for a consistent