CSIRO's Climate Change science kit


"Seriously real science"?

More indoctrination from our national scientific research organisation. Reader KA sent me a photo of the kit on sale, which sadly doesn’t provide many details of the materials inside. However, I thought we could have a pretty good guess, so here we go:

Contents:

  • 1 hockey stick (broken)
  • 1 climate change calculator (multiplies everything by a fudge factor automatically)
  • software for deleting emails (Windows and Mac)
  • phone numbers of editors of all sceptical climate journals with handy script for threatening voicemail message
  • model windmill (self-combusting)
  • Himalayan glacier ice cube kit
  • application form for government funding (pre-approved)
  • plastic polar bear to create your own Al Gore-style weepy animation
  • model pink batts insulation experiment, with fire extinguisher and pro-forma writ for negligence
  • fake carbon credit certificates (actually real ones, but hey, they’re the same!)
  • guide to Freedom of Information legislation in 50 major jurisdictions
  • application for IPCC lead author status (pre-approved)

Have I missed anything?

A bargain at just $29.99 (or $48.50 after the carbon tax).

CSIRO boss is director of carbon sequestration company


If there's a climate crisis, carbon may need to be sequestered…

But there isn’t any conflict of interest, they protest, despite the fact that CSIRO provides a never-ending flow of alarmist predictions about climate change which will force Australia (and the world) to consider mitigation measures which might include, er, carbon sequestration:

THE head of the CSIRO is at the centre of conflict of interest claims over her role as a director of a Tasmanian company that purchases land for carbon sequestration.

It was revealed in Senate estimates today that the peak science body’s chief executive Megan Clark is the director of Cradle Mountain Carbon Pty Ltd and is also on the board of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Cradle Mountain Carbon Pty Ltd is a private family company that sets aside land to store carbon as part of efforts to combat climate change.

Liberal senator David Bushby said at the very least the public perception of Dr Clark’s additional appointments “should raise conflict of interest concerns”.

CSIRO’s acting chief executive Mike Whelan said Dr Clark, who was absent from today’s hearing, was an officer of the highest integrity and the organisation’s board believed there was no conflict of interest issue.

“She is driven on the basis of values and integrity,” Mr Whelan said.

“I don’t see, on the face of it, any issues there and I have no doubt the board has assured itself of the fact there is no conflict of interest.”

Well that’s OK then. Silly of me to even think such a heresy! Move along, nothing to see here. Just like there’s nothing to see at the IPCC, packed to the rafters with environmental activists… But we’re really unbiased – honest! Just trust us! Nothing can go wrong!

And look at Whelan’s immediate reaction – to defend Clark, and dismiss criticism with an arrogant wave of the hand. Instead, perhaps he should think, yes, it doesn’t look good does it? Perhaps Clark should consider whether her directorship of this company really sends the right message, which may compromise the impartiality of the organisation, whether there is any real conflict of interest or not. Ha – fat chance of that.

Read it here.

CSIRO mustn't criticise government policy


CSIRO uncovered

On its website, the CSIRO proudly claims to be “Australia’s national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world.”

What it doesn’t tell you, however, is that the results of such research must not conflict with government policy, as Dr Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist at the organisation, revealed at the recent carbon tax rally:

The original Scientists of the CSIRO were the best of their day and the CSIRO was a non-Government organisation working with quality science and how useful it was to Australia. (research)

In the 80′s, I noticed we were under increasing pressure to become more “Business like” and the doors were opened to “Management Consultation.”

Layer upon layer of management was created, some intersecting others.

You think that your tax dollars went towards research but a lot of it was devoted to letting them play their management games…. the CSIRO was sent to fancy business schools in the US and Europe and they didn’t learn one thing… 

Management learned how to bring the most senior climate scientist under their control. It was OK to think independently…as long as Management approved of it.

We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.

We had now become a Government Enterprise. We were told by the Chairperson that we Scientists no longer worked for Australia, we had to learn that we worked for the CSIRO. (original YouTube video here)

We have always suspected that CSIRO was merely doing the government’s bidding with its endless stream of climate alarmism – and now we know. Science has nothing to do with government policy, it is independent of any extraneous influences, and its sole responsibility is the investigation of scientific phenomena, analysis of data, developing and testing hypotheses and advising governments – not meekly following them.

Therefore the inevitable conclusion is that CSIRO isn’t doing science. It’s doing politics. In which case, why does it still exist?

UPDATE: Readers have helpfully reminded me of the saga of Dr Clive Spash, back in late 2009, which gives weight to the claims of Dr Raiche. The CSIRO tried to block publication of a report critical of the then Emissions Trading Scheme. Spash eventually resigned. Read the stories on ACM here, here and here.

[Thanks to No Carbon Tax.]

CSIRO: climate change to cause "fewer cyclones and smaller waves"


Al Gore's view…

From The Science is Settled Department. Three strikes for CSIRO today, and this last one is a peach, flatly contradicting all the Labor hype about more cyclones:

CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government suggests climate change could dramatically reduce the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region and decrease wave heights on the nation’s east coast.

The surprise findings, which appear to contradict some common predictions about the impact of climate change, are contained in scientific papers on “Projecting Future Climate and its Extremes”, obtained under Freedom of Information laws by The Australian Online. [Why did it need an FOI request? Were the CSIRO hiding it under a filing cabinet somewhere? I wonder why… – Ed]

One paper, by CSIRO researcher Debbie Abbs, found rising temperatures could halve the frequency of tropical  cyclones.

“Climate change projections using this modelling system show a strong tendency for a decrease in TC numbers in the Australian region, especially in the region of current preferred occurrence,” Dr Abbs said.

“On average for the period 2051-2090 relative to 1971-2000, the simulations show an approximately 50 per cent decrease in occurrence for the Australian region, a small decrease (0.3 days) in the duration of a given TC and a southward movement of 100km in the genesis and decay regions.” (source)

So therefore, instead of imposing a carbon tax, perhaps the government should be paying us to burn coal and lessen the risk of damage from cyclones, right?

As usual, the science really doesn’t have the first clue about how the climate system works, and yet we are about to cripple our economy with a pointless carbon tax to “lessen the risks” from climate change? Facepalm.

Head of hopelessly politicised CSIRO "backs carbon price"


Scientist or politician? You decide.

CSIRO is no longer a respected, independent scientific advisory body, but a politicised mouthpiece for the Labor government and their efforts to “tackle climate change”:

The head of Australia’s leading science body says a carbon price should be a key part of the nation’s overall climate action.

CSIRO chief Dr Megan Clark will today join 600 of Australia’s top climate change scientists [environmental activists – Ed] at a meeting in Cairns to update the latest observations.

Dr Clark says global warming is one of the most challenging issues facing humanity and needs careful consideration.

“It’s an urgent issue, but it is also a very complex one and one that will affect us, not just in this country, in all aspects of society, but probably one of the most challenging issues we have ever faced as humanity.

“It does need careful consideration and it does need debate. [As long as the debate comes down in favour of a carbon price, right? – Ed]

“We need to debate the issue, come to grips with the issue, and it’s an important part of us coming to grips with it and stepping forward.”

Dr Clark has welcomed the pro- and anti-carbon tax rallies, saying she is not concerned the science may be overlooked as the political battle focused on the carbon tax.

Clearly we need a price on carbon and a policy response [do we? Please explain – Ed], but we also need sustainable technologies that will take us into a low-carbon future and also our change in behaviour,” she said. (source)

When even the WA Nationals are considering backing a carbon price (see here), there really is little hope that sanity will prevail.

"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.

Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO referred to National Audit Office


National Audit Office

I’m not sure how far this will get [probably not very far, given how every public body you care to mention seems to be infested with climate alarmists – Ed], but we can at least thank them for their efforts and wish them the best of luck – they’ll need it. From Jo Nova’s site:

A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.

Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decadesafter the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations? Who knows?)

The NZ equivalent to the Australian BOM is under an official review

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition found adjustments that were even more inexplicable (0.006 degrees was adjusted up to 0.9 degrees). They decided to push legally and the response was a litany of excuses — until finally The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was forced to disavow it’s own National Temperature Records, and belatedly pretend that it had never been intended for public consumption. But here’s the thing that bites: NZ signed the Kyoto protocol, arguably based very much on the NZ temperature record, and their nation owes somewhere from half a billion to several billion dollars worth of carbon credits (depending on the price of carbon in 2012). Hence there is quite a direct link from the damage caused by using one unsubstantiated data set based on a single student’s report that no one can find or replicate that will cost the nation a stack of money. NIWA is now potentially open to class actions. (Ironically, the Australian BOM has the job of “ratifying” the reviewed NZ temperature record.)

Thanks to work by Ken Stewart, Chris Gillham, Andrew Barnham, Tony Cox, James Doogue, David Stockwell, as well as Cory Bernardi, Federal Senator for South Australia.

%d bloggers like this: