You know you must be having an impact when protesters show up and counter meetings are being scheduled. I use the word “denialism” because the flyer I was shown from CSIRO contained that word several times, but does not appear in their official PR.
Steve Mosher had some commentary on it a few days ago here
From The Age and ABC via Australian Climate Madness I find that while I’m doing my tour in Australia, CSIRO organized a meeting that is designed to combat the sort of inconvenient discussions I’m having. Fortunately, I’ve been given the whole slide show and can share it here. For example, see how CSIRO views “sceptics”:
Here’s the view of “engaged” people:
Simon of ACM writes:
Note that they’re not meeting to hang their heads in shame and discuss the shonky science, fudged data, blocking of FOI requests or intimidation of sceptical climate journals, which is all par for the course. No, this is all about communication – it’s just that they’re not getting their message across properly, obviously. The science is just fine, the public are just too stupid to understand:
REPRESENTATIVES of scientific organisations including the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology will meet today to discuss better communication of the science behind man-made climate change, in the wake of crumbling political and public consensus on global warming.
The conference in Sydney, organised by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), is part of a long-term bid to develop a ”national communication charter” for major scientific organisations and universities to better spruik the evidence of climate change.
The conference will hear an address from Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett Representatives of the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Academy of Science and Department of Climate Change, among others, will attend.
More here at ACM.
Here’s the slides shows in two parts:
DSE Analysis of the climate change debate Melbourne June 2010 (Part 1)
DSE Analysis of the climate change debate Melbourne June 2010 (Part 2)
And I thought that the CSIRO (a respected organization when I lived in Oz in the 60’s and 70’s) had gone to the dogs. They are spot on in that the so called skeptics are knowledgable and engaged while the warmests spout dogma. When I first opened the power point my first impression was “Don’t come the raw prawn with me, mate”. On reading furthur I discovered that they are aware of the very serious benefits to human kind from global warming aka CC. Unless of course they are just “having us on”.
Then again, someone may have improved the message in the slides.
Back to the rough red!!
I’ve spoken directly to the CSIRO about Climategate. THey hadn’t even read teh emails. They just took on face value the whitewash and pretend nothing has happened. THey are like the proverbial ostrich with it’s head in the sand. My new nickname for them and all other global warming alarmists is ‘Sandie’. Make sure you refer to any one that talks AGW BS as a sandie.
>> Lea says:
>>June 19, 2010 at 5:44 pm
>>I’m puzzled as to why you bothered.
I realize that it may be hard for you to believe a chief beaurcrat quoting Mr Gore’s movie as a reference but if you do some googling you will see it elsewhere as a quote.
The reason I “bothered” is that it is disturbing that a chief scientist has failed to investigate for herself the utter nonsense of man caused global warming, particularly as depicted in the movie she references.
The photo is too small to tell, but the Doom of Fire in the PP show looks like the routine burning off of trash on sugar cane to make harvesting easier. Such fires are lit intentionally. But, I could be wrong.
So could CSIRO/BOM. It’s a pity that the PP presenter, Paul Holper, has no authority to enforce some of the recommendations he presents. For example, communication with the public is extremely difficult and comes at off-putting cost. It dwindles to a nothingness once it is realised that a member of the public might be building a counter assertion. There is little room for the truly independent, neutral scientist whi just might be able to contribite. David Stockwell will back this up.
I’m left wondering if Paul Holper has borrowed logos and brands like IPCC and done a private, maverick, one-man show.
all the csiro works for is the next grant. thay all should go out and get a real job
I noticed on page 6 of part 1 the chart CO2 greatest concentration in 650,000 years with a plot of CO2 vs time, but the chart only goes back a few hundred years with a big tech spike at the end. So what happened to the last 650,000 on the time scale?
Ocean basin warming chart over 60 years, wow how did they calculate a 0.2 degree increase in temperature, they must have really really accurate thermometers?
Why was it that in 2001 the IPCC had a 60% confidence in global warming being man made, then in 2007 this increased to 90%?
Did the thermometers get more accurate?
I’m an Aussie and under normal circumstances I’d be embarrassed by the modern version of the CSIRO if not for the modern versions of NASA and the Royal Society.
I was no fan of Dubya either, but you must admit, the appointment of Rajendra K Pachauri was a stroke of genius by Dubya. This one far sighted act was the single most affective way to discredit the IPCC. It worked like a charm. We are indebted to Dubya for this. Thank you Dubya :0)
Inflation
I got as far as the third slide, peer review. Someone should send this moron a link to the Citizens Audit at noconsensus.org so as he can REALLY inform himself about peer review.
from the CSIRO side (sic) show.
Climate change benefits: Increased port capacity due to sea level rise. (no really)
The coal fields of Emerald Queensland are about 300km inland. At say 3mm sea level rise per year, those coal tankers should be able to sail right up to Emerald in about…ummmm…100 million years. I can’t wait to see that.
I get the impression that their opinion of the intellect of the public is low. They, as public servants are unelectable but the people they advise are, and will take a dim view in the future of any erroneous advice.
Meanwhile two curious gems are found in 11/20 in Part 2.
Among the Advantages of CC.
. Increased Port capacity due to increased sea level
. Tourism opportunities
Must have been an exhaustive brainstorming session to produce any positives.
An interesting report on this behind closed doors meeting – and it’s protection – can be found here:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2010/06/sceptic-evicted-from-vic-public.html
from the slides, part 1, page 3:
“Information about climate change comes from a variety of sources, including scientific journals, technical reports, books, media articles and blogs”
And mountain guides in climber magazines.
But do the sceptics ever ask to make a presentation to CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. Nope – the rule is never engage where serious questions will be asked.
It’s just sideline sniping guys and avoids any serious review of your position. Audiences of retirees are much easier aren’t they?
This sort of comment “Note that they’re not meeting to hang their heads in shame and discuss the shonky science, fudged data, blocking of FOI requests or intimidation of sceptical climate journals, which is all par for the course.” is simply wild unsubstantiated generalisation. So much for “objectivity”
“Scientific journals have rigorous peer review”
They don’t know what rigorous is until they’ve been through WattsUpWithThat, ClimateAudit, Lucia’s Blackboard, Lucy Skywalker’s, JeffID’s, Musings from the Chiefio, SPPI, etc., etc., etc.
Note that they’re not meeting to hang their heads in shame and discuss the shonky science, fudged data, blocking of FOI requests or intimidation of sceptical climate journals, which is all par for the course.
Some of them feel all of that is justified for some nebulous cause:
High on both end of the spectrum, the “engaged” only do what is convenient?
So where on the graph would climate scientists be?
Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:51 pm
“Why was it that in 2001 the IPCC had a 60% confidence in global warming being man made, then in 2007 this increased to 90%?”
“Did the thermometers get more accurate?”
RESPONSE:
The IPCC has always been known as an ultra conservative organization among AGWs with a flair for understatement. As an AGW I would trash their report and look elsewhere.
Luke
June 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Now that that you’ve said that will you sleep better tonight Luke?
“More heat trapping gases means more heat is trapped”. Mmnn. Venus’ atmosphere is 90%+ CO2 and it’s very hot. Mars’ atmosphere is 90% plus CO2 and it’s very cold.
Clearly it’s not as black and white as it appears at first sight and T is more sensitive to P than it is to the presence of GHGs.
Baa Humbug says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:32 pm
“The coal fields of Emerald Queensland are about 300km inland. At say 3mm sea level rise per year, those coal tankers should be able to sail right up to Emerald in about…ummmm…100 million years. I can’t wait to see that.”
RESPONSE:
The rate of increase is not linear. It was 2mm per year just a couple years ago and increase to 4mm shortly. Example, according to GRACE satellites Greenland was losing 137 billion metric tons of ice per year in 2002. In 2009, just 7 years later it went up to 286 billion metric tons per year.
At this rate, which doubles every 7 years, the loss will EXPONENTIATE to over a 1,000 fold in 70 years. It’s not the initial rise that’s important but the upward rise that appears like a curve sharply rising on a graph.
Dr A.Burns. Re:Gore/Sackett
I have indeed done some ‘googling’ and in none of the Australian Chief Scientists press releases,or live media work do I find any mention of use of Al Gore’s work as a reference.
The Chief Scientist takes her advice on climate change from the CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Why would she need to use Gore as a source?
There is of course ample evidence of deliberate conflation and association of her views with Al’s by others….
Luke says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm
But do the sceptics ever ask to make a presentation to CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. Nope – the rule is never engage where serious questions will be asked.
‘Skeptics’ are nearly begging to have a serious debate. Be real kid.