THE CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] are the peak Australian scientific institutions. Various governments in Australia rely on the scientific conclusions from these government-funded scientific institutions. The assumption is that the scientific advice from the CSIRO and BOM is not only reliable but reasonable. But is it?
A regular contributor to this blog, Anthony Cox, also known as Cohenite, examines the scientific evidence presented in the two most recent reports from the CSIRO and BOM: the BOM Annual Climate Summary 2011 and State of the Climate Report – 2012.
Cohenite is not a scientist, but he is interested in the evidence.
Download Cohenite's note as a pdf here: https://climatelab.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BOM-CSIRO-article.pdf
ROFL!!!
You have once again made my day Luke.
Using your own logic....you therefore think that current policy IS achieving worthwhile results and IS creating good vibes for genuine scientists and WILL manage future climate?
Because that was actually my point.
ROFL!!!! 🙂 🙂
Debs best analysis. What a denier. Polly wanna cracker. Ark ! Ark !
Nah Luke,
those 2 links are just more of the increasingly belligerent and emotional shrieking of 'he said, I said'.
It has been a long time since it was about the science.
The science is not settled. . .not even close. . . and the genuine scientists know it isn't.
We see the trends and not one sane person would argue that we are not vulnerable to either climate changes or extreme weather events.
We do not know enough about the way all the variables interact and current policy is not achieving any good results for the integrity of climate research or indeed any control over climate. All we have are ever increasing numbers of contradictory reports.
After the latest results in QLD it appears that much of the electorate knows that trying to implement policy by linking it to inexact science is a bad idea too.
It is just wasting a lot of money for no measureable or worthwhile result.
This glossy production of ominous rhetoric is the latest in a string.
It’s a propaganda blitz to sell the ‘party line’,
to an uninformed public through misinformation.
Yes, CO2 is increasing. But global temperature is not. This was pointed out
in the Wall Street Journal by Lindzen and a wide cross section of
internationally recognized scientists. They contrast with local puppets,
whose actions, through glossy CSIRO reports and rhetoric like this, are self serving.
Global temperature has not increased for over a decade, despite the fact that
CO2 has continued to increase. The inconsistent behavior of CO2 and temperature
has demolished the IPCC mantra for why temperature changes.
And there’s now reason to question even why CO2 changes.
As is evident from Salby’s slides at the Sydney Institute, total CO2 emission
has continued to follow its contribution from natural emission.
It did so even during the last decade when global temperature
deviated from CO2 and climate model predictions fell apart.
The inconsistent behavior of temperature and CO2 is now incontrovertible.
So is its implication. Whatever causes the minor changes of global temperature,
it’s clearly not CO2.
Of course it's about the science which seems to escape our favourite sceptics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/mathturbation-king/
ROFL
"It is about the science."
An appropriately ironic end to this thread. Well done bazza!
If it was about the science Bazza, I would be a happy camper.
I am a friend and supporter of genuine climate research.
This is NOT about the science and has not been so for quite some time.
It is most definitely about the politics and political PR spin.
No one is arguing with the trends Bazza. The correlation with C02 however seems to be getting weaker and weaker.
That was why I giggled at the graph. I'm sorry if my sense of humour is offensive to you.
It's not changing anytime soon.