"Poor information" hampers climate science

We need more climate scientists!! (click to enlarge)

It’s that old communication thing again. Nothing to do with the quality of the science, Climategate, wildly inflated scare stories, hysterical environmental groups desperate to cash in, the UN crusade for world government. No, people are too dumb to take any notice of that, it’s just that we can’t get the message across (despite the fact that two of the major news organisations in Australia, ABC and Fairfax, uncritically plug the alarmist line every hour of the day, every day of the week, every day of the year).

A LACK of “credible information” is one of the main reasons that 40 per cent of Australians do not believe that humans have a role in global warming, according to the head of the federal government’s Climate Commission, Tim Flannery.

And the fact that many Australians found the topic irritating [ha, I wonder why, with people like Flannery banging on about it every minute of the day – Ed], according to a CSIRO survey, was hampering efforts to communicate the science of climate change and to implement effective policy, he said.

“No enduring reforms will happen in this space until we get the weight of public opinion behind them,” Professor Flannery told The Australian [translation: “until we have successfully brainwashed the public into not thinking for themselves” – Ed].

“Climate scientists need to be more widely heard in the public debate.” [Please, no, anything but that – Ed]

He was commenting on the results of the most comprehensive study yet of Australians’ attitudes to climate change.

Most of the 5000 respondents to the survey thought Earth was warming. About half believed that humans were mainly to blame. But just over 40 per cent put the crisis down to natural causes, 5.6 per cent denied that the climate was changing at all and 3.8 per cent were unsure. (source)

I think that we should hear more from Tim Flannery. That will have the desired effect… In any case, CSIRO has ceased to be an impartial scientific organisation, and is itself plugging the alarmist line:

THE CSIRO will today launch a book highlighting the key economic, environmental and social concerns of climate change in Australia. [Note “economic” and “social” concerns. Gone are the days when CSIRO advised on science. Now it’s advising on policy as well – Ed]

The publication, Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia, will also provided up-to-date information on international climate change science and potential responses. [and responses – Ed]

CSIRO Chief Executive Megan Clark will launch the book at the Greenhouse 2011 climate change conference in Cairns.

She said the book draws on the latest literature from thousands of researchers in Australia and internationally.

“It seeks to provide a bridge from the peer-reviewed scientific literature to a broader audience of society, while providing the depth of science that this complex issue demands and deserves,” Dr Clark said. (source)

More of that communication thing again. A quick scan of the document reveals that it is heavily based on the IPCC 2007 AR4, of course, and the key section (on feedbacks) states the following:

The net effect of all these processes is a set of feedbacks that have an overall reinforcing effect. A doubling in CO2 from pre-industrial levels (280 ppm) to around 550 ppm without feedbacks would result in a global warming of about 1˚C. Factoring in the effects of water vapour and other ‘fast’ feedbacks, however, means that a CO2 doubling will amplify the long-term average warming to about 3˚C. This important number, called the ‘fast climate sensitivity’, is somewhat uncertain and could vary between 2˚ and 4.5˚C according to IPCC estimates based on a range of climate models. (source – 14MB PDF, page 21)

So basically, despite the fact that there is plenty of research questioning it, they have swallowed the IPCC’s conclusion of high climate sensitivity and everything else follows from that. And you don’t need to read the book to work out that it won’t contain any credible challenge to the consensus. If it mentions sceptical views at all, it will be in the form of straw men, set up to be blown over and then ignored. I will eventually get around to reading the rest, but really, that’s all that matters.


  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    A LACK of “credible information” is one of the main reasons that 40 per cent of Australians do not believe that humans have a role in global warming, according to the head of the federal government’s Climate Commission, Tim Flannery.


    “No enduring reforms will happen in this space until we get the weight of public opinion behind them,” Professor Flannery told The Australian.

    This is just Tim Foolery sending Gillard a coded message to the effect that Australians need to be subjected to more propaganda and programming.

    And more of our own cash needs to be siphoned his way for him to engage in that programming of course .

    Another prime example of why it’s so easy to despise the left.

    They can never accept that they may be wrong…no…it’s always their opponents need more “education”

    And they ALWAYS inform us of our need for “education” in such a patronising, pompous and sanctimonious tone.

  2. “A LACK of “credible information” is one of the main reasons that 40 per cent of Australians do not believe that humans have a role in global warming”

    Well, at least they recognise the main problem: they don’t have any, and the stuff they fabricate isn’t convincing enough. If only they could take the next logical step. Unfortunately, when you’re deluding yourself so much it is hard to recognise that you should stop doing it.

    Reminds me so much of a movie I watched (again) last night: Shutter Island.

  3. Baldrick says:

    What is missing in this ‘climate debate’ is impartial and informed facts.

    It’s no surprise the CSIRO will plug the Labor/Green line, after all, they’re being paid out of Government coffers. Tim Foolery and Ross Guano are another pair being paid from your taxes to support the warming alarmists.

    The Greenhouse 2011 climate change conference is full of pseudo scientists and commentators who all receive some form of kick back from the Government, for their ‘paid’ views on climate change.

    Don’t support climate change – sorry you’re not on the Government payroll.

  4. Gordon Alderson says:

    Last Tuesday President Nicolas Sarkozy scrapped France’s proposed carbon tax after a crushing electoral defeat of his Gaulliste UMP party. UMP lost every region except Alsace – its bastion and Reunion – an Indian Ocean island.

    The French government indefinitely postponed its energy tax to not “damage the competitiveness of French companies”, fearing it is too risky for France to go it alone because an EU-wide energy tax looks doomed.

    France’s main business lobby said this was a “relief”. The tax would have been 17 Euro a tonne, but feared that this “would creep up over time.”

    It’s time that Prime Minister Gillard followed President Sarkozy. She has no mandate for a carbon tax – not politicly – not economically – not scientifically and not morally.

    She needs to sack Flannery and his minions ASAP. He is proving to be an immense embarrassment for her. The longer he keeps spouting his off the cuff opinions the more he will reinforce the community’s view that this is a load of nonsense.

    She should call an election. The sooner the better for Australia and the Australian Labor Party. The longer she delays the deeper and longer will be “Carbon Tax” oblivion for the ALP and The Greens.

    • Do you think the Gillard_Brown Government are playing the “Just keep feeding them Bullsh!t card, that people will eventually shutoff and don’t care anymore; because they’re sick to death of hearing about it!”

      Come on Queensland, Make 2012 a year of “Wake up Labour” in our upcoming State Election. Lets just wipe the Labour and Greens completely. Even if they win one seat, that is definitely one too many. I am sure, we would have NSW’s Blessing in this.

  5. Given the profoundly debased standing and the brazen alarmist agenda of the CSIRO nowadays, one might have expected their report to go to great lengths to describe the methodolgy, in particular strategies to minimise bias. Instead, there is only vague reference thereto in the Introduction (pdf file).

    A survey of 5036 people from across Australia was undertaken in July and August of 2010…The survey was administered online using a representative group [?] of participants from a research-only panel [?].

    That’s it. Nothing in the text. Nothing in the only two (2) References.

    For my part, the results of this atrociously incompetent study, by the lickspittle institution that our CSIRO has become, are inevitably tendentious and not worth a pinch of.

    Besides, a lot has happened since, not least the infamous carbon tax lie.

%d bloggers like this: