By Jennifer Marohasy, Politics and Environment Blog

Bill Kininmonth knows a lot about climate science, he is a meteorologist and he was the head of Australia’s National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998. He is also a well known global warming skeptic and is particularly critical of the idea that the principles for sustaining the greenhouse effect are well understood.  While this may seem like a ridiculous proposition, indeed the greenhouse effect is the underpinning science for the hypothesis of dangerous global warming from elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in a recent letter to the Federation of Australian Scientists and Technologists (FASTS) he explains how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are neither consistent in their explanation for the greenhouse effect nor provide a mechanism that accords with the global average earth energy budget.

Mr Kininmonth’s letter to FASTS follows their issuing of a media release on climate change including comment that:

“The scientific evidence is compelling that global policy objectives must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.”

The media release was accompanied by a statement that included comment:

“The physical principles of the greenhouse effect are well-understood. Without greenhouse gases, clouds or aerosols, the surface of the Earth would have a mean temperature of about 18oC below zero. While the natural atmospheric composition varies over time, the observed warming in the late 20th century can be attributed with a very high degree of confidence to additional human emissions of greenhouse gases.”

The statement was developed and published without input from rank and file member of FASTS and indeed not everyone agrees that the scientific evidence is compelling. Mr Kininmonth explains why in the following open letter.