State of the Climate

The BoM and CSIRO aren't independent at all, writes Andy Semple.

CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are not independent science agencies. They are government funded agencies that support government policy. Neither CSIRO nor BOM staff can publish information that is in conflict with government policy, nor can they engage in debate and take a position that challenges government policy. Let there be no mistake, the ‘State of the Climate’ (SOC) report is released with only one purpose – to bolster the prospects of the government’s ETS legislation.

There is no new science in the SOC; only additional obfuscation. Why are the temperature and rainfall trends only starting at 1960 when data go back to at least 1900? The rainfall data clearly show that for eastern Australia the first half of the 20th century was drier than the second half and the recent decadal drought was only a return to those drier conditions! Why do they refer to increased acidification of the oceans when the oceans are alkaline? And what is the evidence offered for the statement that most of the recent warming can only be explained by human activity? Do they not realise that the oceans are the inertial and thermal flywheels of the climate system (the energy of the atmosphere is contained in the equivalent of the top four metres of the ocean – the tail does not wag the dog!) and there is little known about the decadal to centennial scale fluctuations of the ocean circulation?
 
Sadly, these once great scientific organisations have been prostituted at the altar of government policy.

Andy is the founder and Managing Director of Stockbroking firm ANDIKA and the co-founder and Managing Director of boutique Funds Manager Xcelerator Capital Limited. He blogs regularly at www.andylsemple.com

Comments

[Sharynne]

1.

so much for speaking without fear.Just like our ABC, groupthink occurs at the BOM & CSIRO too.

[VinceOZ]

2.

I doubt if its Group Think in the case of CSIRO and BOM.

I suspect its job security, and superannuation.

[Jason]

3.

In order:

1) You choose graph scales to best present your information. Are you saying that there is something in the previous 60 years of temperature recording that would invalidate the choice of graphing over the last 50 years only? Or is it just that the first half of the 20th century was drier than the second, and that's your proof that everything they said was bollocks?
2) Acidification is where something becomes more acidic, or alternatively, less alkaline. So if the oceans are alkaline, but they are now slightly less alkaline than they once were, they have undergone acidification.
3) This was a 'State of the Climate' report, not a report detailing all the evidence for and/or against global-warming being man-made. Although I agree a report detailing this evidence would be a good idea (get it all out in the open and peer reviewed in the public eye), this was never going to be that report, but they will have seen or at least be familiar with significant amounts of the evidence you are asking for, so their statement would still be valid.
4) I am sure they are aware that the oceans make up a very important part of the global systems regulating heat. I am sure that they are aware that more studies on these issues are warranted. However, that does not necessarily mean any of the report is invalid.

How do any of these things mean that the scientists you are impugning are just government mouthpieces dressed in lab coats? Are you suggesting that if John Howard had won the last election that this report would have been significantly different because a conservative coalition would have been in power?

[Andy Semple]

4.

The GOV of the day are the BOM & CSIRO masters.
Re the Acidification, how come the inland lakes don't show any sign of it??
Could it be the volcanoes at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean??

[Ben]

5.

Amen. The CSIRO seems to attract a high number of overpaid strippers. I’ve never bought the argument that government institutions are completely independent, non-partisan saints. Remember Red Moscow?

[Ben]

6.

Jason if you’re looking for charts with comments, then visit Andrew Bolt’s site.

That said you’re missing the point. Andy is raising some valid questions “our” state-controlled media should be asking.
Even Channel Seven’s weatherman openly acknowledged that there were some very basic and therefore embarrassing errors within the said report.

Later, the CSIRO claimed they were typos. And how many more “typos” will emerge in the future is anyone’s guess.

Another point to think about: We don’t have data for thousands of years. So even if the CSIRO was looking correctly at our limited records, big chunks of evidence are being ignored.

For thousands of years, aboriginals lived with extreme climate changes – but alas middleclass leftists love to whine about the weather. That’s one thing I’ll concede.

[Lucy]

7.

These roosters at the BOM can’t even give us an accurate weather report so why should we really worry about their views on Global Warming.
How does anyone expect to take the alarmists’ seriously in their 25, 50 & 100 year predictions when they can’t even get tomorrow’s weather right?

[Lynda]

8.

Global mean temperatures have been increasing since 1600, or 1910 or since 1978 or since the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Scientist have been able to id some of the temperature cycles in nature, but historic data is sparse and inconsistent, depending on conflicting proxies for temperature measurements. Our best global temperature measures are from satellites and weather balloons, covering only the last few decades. It seems the standard definition of the climate has been the last 30 years which is completely useless.

[Jeremy]

9.

“Climate Science” is the oxymoron of the century. There wasn’t a city or town in North America that had its weather conditions correctly forecast, over periods as short as 12 hours during December and January. This is the “exceptionally mild winter” that the climate change alarmists buffoons warned would occur. Their credibility is 30 degrees below ZERO.

[Andy Semple]

10.

FYI
Andrew Bolt also talks about the “CSIRO Shame” at his blog today.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_csiro_shames_itself/

[Georgina]

11.

I have looked up Andrew Bolt's article and I totally agree with it. I have commented on it as follows:
"Has anyone seen lakes which were once washsed in and out by the sea nad have now been isolated? As a child 75 years ago, we spent holidays at my grandmother's home on a lake and the family went boating and fishing. The fish came in with the tide to the lake and we did not dare take the boat out to the end of the lake for fear of being swamped by the tital surge. Now the lake is isolated from the sea by about half a mile, and there are no fish in the lake - a natural event and not a manmade sandbar. So much for the seas rising. AGain, we had a boatshed on one of Sydney's rivers with a walkway to our boat. During king tides the walkway was under water and the boathouse was awash to the ceiling. Then the tide retruened to normal. Hasn't anyone heard of king tides, which have occurred over 75 years to my knowledge? This report (CSIRO)is another farce and the CSIRO has succumbed to pressure by the government to try to support its ETS which will cost business enormously and drive them offshore. There will be loss of jobs, loss of trade and cost the taxpayer up to the hilt, all this damage when the sunspots tell us that a cooling period is on the horizon. This is just bluffing the people and alarming them with such propaganda when there is nothing extraordinary regarding climate change. It is about time the truth was told that the climate has changed during history. I have known much warmer days than we have had in the last few years and the Northern Hemisphere has had the coldest weather, in some places, for 100 years. Tell the truth and shame the devil" I would suggest that people, instead of acting like sheep and believing the hysterical outbursts by those making a lot of money out of scaring people, read the many books that are available which have a different view and listen to other scientists, physicists and meteorologists etc. who have studied climate change and have come to a totally different conclusion to that promoted by the scaremongers who, as I said, have made a great deal of money out of something which hss been proven to be a "con". Australians will rue the day if this ETS is adopted.

[Ben]

12.

Looks like Andy Semple one this argument. Nice try. Better luck next time Jason.