Daily Telegraph, 15th March 2010

AUSTRALIA’S leading scientists have hit back at climate change sceptics, accusing them of creating a “smokescreen of denial”.

The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will today release a State of the Climate document, a snapshot of Australia’s climate data and trend predictions.

The apolitical science organisations have weighed into the debate as they believe Australians are not being told the correct information about temperatures, rainfall, ocean levels and changes to atmospheric conditions.

The State of the Climate report offers Australians an easy-to-understand snapshot of data.

“Modelling results show that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming is due to natural causes alone,” it states.

“Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.”

CSIRO chief executive Dr Megan Clark said both organisations felt it was time “to give Australians the facts and information they are looking for and to do so in a way that is very transparent and available”.

“We are seeing a real thirst for knowledge from many Australians and we are responding to that huge public demand. There is a lot of noise out there and a lot of reference to other countries and people want to know what’s happening in this country.”

Dr Clark said the CSIRO had been observing the impacts of human-induced climate change for many years and had moved on from debate about it happening to planning for the changes to come.

 

14 Responses to State of the climate (Part 2): CSIRO and BOM accuse climate change sceptics of 'smokescreen of denial'

  1. Neil says:

    Thanks for publicising the news release. Just a minor typo in the title of the post: CSRIO should be CSIRO.

  2. David Horton says:

    Ove, speaking of “smokescreen of denial” you might like to add to climate shifts or link to this http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/270971/Our_Gang.html, my latest on climate change.

  3. Regarding the climate deniers such as Andrew Bolt who parrot the same spiel:
    “Hoegh-Guldberg is on a winner here – ignore the facts, preach doom and get lots of money to continue you dodgy research.”

    it can clearly be said of them and Andrew Bolt in particular:
    “Bolt is on a winner here – ignore the facts, preach ignorance and get lots of money to continue his dodgy column.”

    Truth is the first casualty of any war. In a sense this is a war against those who would allow our planet’s ecosystems to be become stressed and perhaps cause them to breakdown. A lot is due to ignorance (hopefully not deliberate) and thinking that is far too simplistic and linear.

    Climate is an inherently nonlinear and coupled phenomenon at various spatial and temporal scales. The climate change, that is happening (just look at the wealth of evidence) is not just a linear effect, not just a temperature rise. Changing even one component (CO2 and other gases) in a complex coupled reaction-diffusion system (Earth’s climate system) is going to lead to a number of predictable and unpredictable changes.

    As this is the only accessible planet that we know about that supports our species – we have more than a vested interest in being concerned.

  4. Phil M says:

    Ove I see you are climing up the ranks of people Bolt wishes to attack:

    “Fifth, what’s most at issue (other than man’s contribution to any warming) is whether any warming will in fact be disastrous, and something we must spend billions to help avert. The record so far of alarmists such as Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the IPCC and even the CSIRO itself is that the catastrophism is wildly exaggerated and we might often do better to keep our money in our pockets for the day that we’re called on to cope with whatever happens in the far-off future. But on this, again, this document adds zero to our understanding. ”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

    Bolt hates it when his misinformation is exposed, so you must have been doing a good job. I imagine his legions of zombies will be filling your inbox with complaints by now. :)

  5. OveHG says:

    A strange form of recognition. What is really amazing is that Bolt’s spin and BS are so far off, yet his readers don’t seem to care the toss. The more you correct the record and point Bolt and his followers in the direction of the facts, the more abusive and irrate they have become. This is not helped by a number of coalition leaders who appear to lie and cheat their way through the information, thereby giving some sort of legitimacy to the spin and BS. Look at how these miscreants responded to yesterday’s climate change report from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. It was if these agencies were somehow tin-pot experts operating out of a demountable shack rather than Australia’s lead scientific agencies.

  6. David Horton says:

    Response to a Damien Murphy blog on the SMH web site today “I know that when a government’s reputation and possibly its electoral survival depends on a CSIRO report, then we can confidently expect that report to endorse the government position. So nothing has changed here”. There really is no hope when fools like this, and Andrew Bolt, are influencing government action.

    And when am I going to get on Andrew Bolt’s black list? What do I have to do? I know, here goes – “Andrew Bolt has less intelligence than an earthworm”. You listening Andrew? Ear to the ground?

  7. OveHG says:

    That is a little mean to earthworms that you think? We can only aspire to such great heights of beyond-bonehead Bolt’s blog … his attention to the actual facts rather than spin and selling newspapers shows that Andrew is only interested in one thing and that is Andrew and furthering Andrew’s career!

  8. Phil M says:

    I like this comment from that esteemed Bolt blog from one of the zombies.

    F*** the Met and F*** the CSIRO – we don’t deny the climate is changing, you stupid idiots; we deny that anthropogenic CO2 release is the major or only driver thereof. Stop being so disingenuous; we know what you’re trying to do and we don’t approve.

    My advice to school-leavers is to train as a meteorologist, because the new government is going to gut the bureau in its fury when it gets in, and rightly so. Never mind that they’re acting under orders – they can’t be trusted any more. perturbed of NSW

    Ahhh science, who needs it , when you have opinion?

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

    I dont think Bolts followers really care about the truth, I think they are mostly like our mate Klem in here who famously said that it doesnt matter about whether science is right, it matters about perception & the Boltites are only interested in political positioning & misinformation. Whatever it takes to defeat science & their perceived political opponents.

  9. OveHG says:

    Very true Phil. Of course, Andrew didn’t criticise Klem when he said this did he?

  10. David Horton says:

    Senator McGauran has now got into the shoot the messenger act – “Minister Carr without doubt has wandered through the CSIRO offices, intimidating the scientists and the executive to do as they’re told” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/16/2847627.htm?section=justin. The old adage “Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are stupid than open it and remove all doubt” could now be called “Doing a McGauran”.

  11. Phil M says:

    Fortunately for the residents of Nth Queensland, they can rest easy that Andrew Bolt has decided the BOM has joined the ranks of corrupt institutions that are in it for the grants & use models that are totally innacurate. Bear this in mind as the guys at BOM invent a cyclone off the coast of Nth QLD to ensure they get a continuation of funding.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDQ20065.txt

    You will notice that they dont say they are 100% certain of where it will go, they can only tell us where it has been & guess! at where it will go & what will happen!

    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ65002.shtml

    Also realise, that we are at their (BOM) mercy & have to actually trust them that they are using the correct satelites, the models are correct & they are not just simply lying to get more funding. I bet if you used another satelite, it wouldnt show ANY cyclone!

    I think Bolt fans who live in Nth QLD should make a stand against these maniac scientists at the BOM & stand firm if they predict it will hit the coast. Check out this supposed radar:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/national_radar_sat.loop.shtml

    It is most likely made by some nerd gamer at the BOM with a few special effects, designed to alarm us for no good reason & to extract more & more money & de-industrialize the west. Just because the guys at BOM do weather for a living & keep records of weather doesnt mean their opinion on climate should hold any more weight that Andrew Bolt. After all, its a democratic society & everyone deserves their say.

    Hopefully the Australian newspaper can find another Lee Bowman up in Nth QLD for us, to tell us the truth of the matter. Science cant trump the opinion of the man on the ground.

  12. Phil M says:

    Senator McGauran has now got into the shoot the messenger act

    Unbelievable David, wtf! This is almost a return to medieval religious suspicion of science & its threat to their power base & authority.

    Its just incredible to think that institutions like CSIRO & BOM here in Australia & others like MET, CRU, in the UK & AMS, NOAA, NAS & NASA in the USA are under such attack by political forces. These institutions have been around for decades & served us well unquestioningly & through the governance of various political ideologies & never had to withstand this suspicion that they are colluding to conduct scientific research that benefits one particular political party or ideology, its just crazy, but many fall for it.

    So when John Howard commissioned them to do studies on climate change when he was in government ,it was all in the aid of helping the Labor party? When he appointed David Karoly & others to the IPCC, was it to benefit Labor? I gather George Bush did the same when he was the incumbant & appointed scientists to the IPCC. I suppose when he appointed an oil sympathiser rajendra pachauri, that he was doing so for the benefit of the Democrats?

    What is the Conservatives plans for these institutions if they win government in the coming federal election? John Howard famously sacked all the public servants to the federal ministers & had them replaced with conservative sympathetics because he was paranoid they were all lefties, so what will they do if they win government in regards to BOM & the CSIRO? Replace them with conservative sympathetic scientists…….that will somehow all have more of a Bob Carter & Ian Plimer view on science? Hmmm, I always wondered what it was like to go back in time.

  13. Phil M says:

    Ok, now I was actually being facetious in my comments about BOM & their models & satelites.

    I didnt think people would actually believe it. Yes, people this dumb actually exist:


    Des of Gold Coast Posted at 5:56 PM Today
    I think it is about time BOM invested in an ant farm. My young fulla has one and all of the ants have disappeared. Ants know more than BOM does and they do not get paid to work. LOL

    Comment 112 of 112

    And this:


    Rob Beckett of bracken ridge Posted at 6:42 AM March 16, 2010
    Here we go again another MODEL glitch pity the forecasters wouldn’t keep there opinions to themselves and wait until they actually know!

    Comment 13 of 114

    wayne of queensland Posted at 9:02 AM March 16, 2010
    so it’s common for there models to disagree (i.e to be wrong) thats interesting. i presume they apply the same logic to their modelling which proves their theory of global warming?

    Comment 21 of 114

    phill Posted at 10:19 AM March 16, 2010
    what is common is that the bom is as about as good as getting the weather right as as a farmer has actually the farmer has a better chance the bom is usless they get the weather right on about 40% not good enough bom smarten up

    Comment 26 of 114

    And this guy who thinks because BOM & the US Naval Oceanography portal has 2 different predicted paths, that naturally the BOM is wrong.


    Tezza of The Dumbest State Posted at 11:58 AM March 16, 2010
    What the BOM says is completely different to what the US Navy’s Typhoon Warning says. MMMmmmm, who to believe?

    Comment 27 of 114

    They might have slightly different paths, but the main thing is……….they both predict a cyclone!! hellooo.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/features/cyclone-ului-tracks-parallel-with-queensland-coast/comments-e6freorf-1225841111650

  14. OveHG says:

    Thanks Phil. Quite amazing – I guess we have to remember that many of these people probably don’t know what BOM is. They probably think that it is a room with a few TV weathermen in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.