Tim Flannery, whose spectacularly wrong advice once helped panic Aussie politicians into wasting billions of dollars on useless desalination plants, now thinks firing CSIRO climate scientists will cause Australia to breach the Paris Climate Agreement.
Cuts to the CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring research will breach Australia’s obligations under the recent Paris agreement and will result in huge costs to the economy, a report by Australia’s Climate Council has found.
The report adds to a chorus of eminent bodies and individuals criticising the move, which the CSIRO made after almost no consultation with its own scientists or other research institutions.
Earlier in the month it was revealed CSIRO would be cutting up to 350 staff from climate research programs over two years. Over the following weeks, the organisation’s chief executive Larry Marshall explained that would result in a loss of about 50% of the staff working in climate modelling and measuring.
In a report titled “Flying Blind: Navigating Climate Change without the CSIRO,” the Climate Council said governments and businesses relied on the CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring work to make billion-dollar decisions and if the cuts went ahead, would be relying on “guesswork”.
In these days of automated weather stations and satellite temperature monitoring, its a little difficult to understand why you need hundreds of scientists to produce a few climate graphs – especially since parallel efforts are in progress in a number of other countries. Perhaps all the scientists are required, to help think up plausible sounding reasons why the historic rate of warming in Australia should be adjusted upwards.
It really takes a blast from Tim Flannery to point out to one the full extent of the wastage that had been going on in CSIRO for years. That the firing of 350 staff from climate research programs from CSIRO affronts the Paris Agreement is just icing on the cake.
What is odd is that he totally fails to say HOW firing all these people has any bearing on the Paris agreement. Paris was about cutting CO2 emissions. We do not need climate scientists to cut emissions.
Clearly they are all consuming resources: office heating , computers , trans-global flights to climate meetings. Kulling a few posts will obvious help Australia meet its obligations.
Obviously, if we want to emit less GHG, we need low CO2 (and low methane emissions, and low everything) technology.
We need technology not climate science.
That’s the thing; they’re cutting about 350 positions, but only 40-50 members of staff – the scientists are being moved from ‘research’ to ‘mitigation’. Presumably all of the kerfuffle is because they’ve realised they may have to start working for a living, or produce something grounded in reality for once!
If you hove to the leftist consensus (any leftist consensus), being “right”, as in “correct”, is irrelevant. It’s having the proper opinion that counts. Whether that opinion it true or defensible – that’s completely irrelevant. All that matters is whether it’s politically correct.
My favorite part of the 4 paragraph statement
“In a report titled “Flying Blind: Navigating Climate Change without the CSIRO,” the Climate Council said governments and businesses relied on the CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring work to make billion-dollar decisions and if the cuts went ahead, would be relying on “guesswork”.
It seems to me that there is so many If’s and Maybe’s in Climate Science Releases that the whole thing already is (rather than Would Be) “Guesswork”
CSIRO is a government bureaucracy, which believed its only purpose was to grow and grow.
Someone eventually said it had to stop, so there was the inevitable gnashing of teeth and bitter outbursts.
Will these 350 bureaucrats be missed? Answer: No, but those remaining may have to do 40% of a non-job, as opposed to 20%. My heart bleeds.
Will these 350 bureaucrats be missed? They could set up their own website “350.org”
Oh, it’s been done already.
If they get another 50 scientists, maybe they could stand in a gap somewhere and keep the Greeks from invading.
This illustrates the fact that firing all those ‘climate people’ (it’s a misnomer to call them scientists) is a violation of the First Law of Bureaucracy. That Law states that the prime function of a bureaucracy is to always increase it’s size. Oz has violated this Law to its peril. Many angry bureaucrats can do a lot of damage.
And now we see the real reason for the “dangerous manmade global warming” scare: it employs thousands of scientists in ‘make-work’ projects, and it funnels a mountain of taxpayer loot into their various universities.
Now these scientists are squealing because their ‘dangerous manmade global warming’ hoax is threatened.
If that happens, maybe they can get the government to pay them to dig 10’X10’X10′ holes in the ground, and then move those holes fifty feet farther north every six months.
That would be just as productive. But… Nah. That’s too much like real work.
Hi from Oz. My reading of the local news reports of the CSIRO ‘climate researchers’ to be sacked included a number who were researching stuff like ‘attitudes to climate change’ or the like – hardly likely to be of any use (or damage) to real ‘climate research’ I would think!
I saw it in the grunion..and it didnt have flimflam quoted but the other annoying media muppet..rrgh forgotten his name
an auntyabc fave to trot out regulalrly as well
it sucks whoevers name is used
I dont hear anyone in the real world giving a flying rats a** about the news of cuts
farmers and others do NOT rely on it… or the Bom …well, the smart ones dont. The others are busy going broke.
I’ve heard that Indigenous Australians are considered by some to have less than the sharpest tools in the old toolbox. But somehow they were smart enough to live for some 40,000 to 100,000 years on the continent with depending on either the weather or the climate for their survival. We could all learn a lesson here.
Jacob Bronowski said it best: “Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which make him unique among the animals. So that unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape, he is the shaper of the landscape. Every landscape in the world is full of exact and beautiful adaptations by which an animal fits into its environment like one cogwheel into another. But nature that is evolution has not fitted man to any specific environment. On the contrary, he has a rather crude survival kit. And yet this is the paradox of the human condition, one that fits him to all environments.”
“But somehow they were smart enough to live for some 40,000………….” Your point is we should learn a lesson from them right?
Australian Aboriginals lived a life of absolute poverty. No clothes, no housing but a hole in the ground, no written language, no agriculture, etc. In short the most primitive people on Earth.
Some research indicates they were responsible for killing off the Australian Mega fauna of the time and also by regular burning of the bush, changing Australia from a relatively forested land to one of grass and desert.
The only lesson we can learn from them is humans are incredibly hard to kill. I’ll take my lessons from Newton and Watts and a few hundred other brilliant minds thanks.
although fascinated by that “songlines” book I don’t have much sympathy for the Aboriginals if they did eat some things to extinction.
Australia natives were not the only humans to eat something to extinction. New Zealand Maori ate the Moa to extinction too.
Someone folks can learn things from almost anyone. It just requires having an open mind.
Most of the early arctic explorers thought they had nothing to learn from the Eskimos and they spent a lot of time dying in misery. People called them heros. I call them stupid. The exception was Roald Amundsen. He listened and learned and became the greatest polar explorer.
We often have disputes between the Eskimos and government scientists. In my experience, the Eskimos have been right more often.
For thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans, northern Sydney was occupied by different Aboriginal clans. Living primarily along the foreshores of the harbour, they fished and hunted in the waters and hinterlands of the area, and harvested food from the surrounding bush. Self-sufficient and harmonious, they had no need to travel far from their lands, since the resources about them were so abundant, and trade with other tribal groups was well established. Moving throughout their country in accordance with the seasons, people only needed to spend about 4-5 hours per day working to ensure their survival. With such a large amount of leisure time available, they developed a rich and complex ritual life – language, customs, spirituality and the law – the heart of which was connection to the land.
[That script should, perhaps, begin with “Once upon a time … .mod]
Reality is messy and it seldom matches people’s preconceived notions.
People tell us that North American Indians were wonderful environmental stewards. Chief Seattle’s speech is a prime example. The speech attributed to him was not the speech he actually gave.
People do what they need to do in the most energetically efficient manner. Why waste the effort carefully culling single buffalo from a herd when you can drive the whole herd over a cliff? Head-Smashed-in-Buffalo-Jump
Reality is messy. Lots of people can’t cope with that.
burning off made grasslands that attracted roos and enabled a clear spear or boomerang throw or chase on foot.
smart enough if youve ever seen aussie bushland
run through that and get lost or staked on branches..many hunting dogs die a nasty death as do horses due to just that.
theyve been bitchin re us whiteys clearing land…when whitefella got here there were already huge open areas they grabbed to run cattle n sheep on.
same as has happened in many lands round the globe.
weve spent billions over decades providing housing education health care
theyre still wailing its not enough
mining cos paid em obscene amounts for land use
still not enough
frankly a whole lot of us are pretty fedup hearing how 40k yrs ago someones distant rellie roamed free wherever and we now need to grovel apologise daily n hand over whatever to appease them
I wonder how I’d go if I lobbed into UK and said my 4x removed were from there and I claim heritage and landrights etc?
I bin so hard done by etc
Dryness? Did the aboriginals cause the dryness?
Does lightning not start most fires in Australia as it does in N America?
Blaming Humanity first is rooted in the very misanthropy that inspires much of the alarm-ism.
Leave the Aussie (and American) aboriginals alone, lest you have evidence.
I contend that for ancient mankind, the Aussie aboriginals were wealthy, not poverty stricken.
For their times, they had it all.
The exception was Roald Amundsen.
============
The race to the south pole made this abundantly clear and it parallels the “politically correct” problems we have today.
Scott took ponies towing sleds of hay to the south pole. A low energy fuel. Amundsen took dogs pulling sleds of meat. A high energy fuel.
When the hay ran out, Scott had only men to pull the sleds. Eventually all the ponies and all the men died. When the meat ran out, Amundsen still had the dogs as a source of meat. Men and dogs ate the weakest dogs as fuel along the way and made it to the pole and back.
Amundsen would have faced howls of protest today, for eating the dogs. Yet his solution worked, he won the race to the pole. Scott would have been hailed a noble hero for using ponies. Yet all the ponies and all the men died in their quest.
“Australian Aboriginals lived a life of absolute poverty. No clothes, no housing but a hole in the ground, no written language, no agriculture, etc. In short the most primitive people on Earth. Some research indicates they were responsible for killing off the Australian Mega fauna of the time and also by regular burning of the bush, changing Australia from a relatively forested land to one of grass and desert.”
Amazing. You are totally wrong on everything you wrote.
Clothing was worn as required. Housing moved as required to ensure that the area wasn’t over-hunted. Pictograms were the common language for over 200 indigenous tribes; and facilitated trade, warnings, instructions etc. As Aboriginal settlements can be dated over 75,000 years ago (ie. before the first Great Migration out of Africa), it’s almost inevitable that the climate changed over time. Sure the megafauna died out… as the land changed, the animals that could thrive there also changed. Aboriginal land management is something that is being studies and applied now, especially in light of the disastrous Green policies that have plagued Australia for years.
Newton, Watt etc. have their place in history. I wouldn’t think of asking a native Australian from years ago about planetary motion. But neither would I consult Newton or Watts about forest management.
GRP, one of the laws of nature, is that a group will continue to grow until they reach the limits of their resources. If life for the aboriginals was as idyllic as you wish to believe, then their populations would have expanded to the point where they were on the brink of starvation.
“Some research indicates they were responsible for killing off the Australian Mega fauna”
So why is it that there is so much ‘Mega fauna’ in Africa?
That’s not always true for humans. Two examples:
1 – The people of the Marshall islands had a variety of practices for limiting the population.
2 – The Western European Marriage Pattern massively restricted fertility.
Most societies had methods of restricting fertility even before the advent of the pill or condoms etc. This is not to say that people never over-breed. The Black Death was almost certainly the result of overpopulation. What I am saying is that human populations do not suffer from the boom-bust cycles that govern other species. We are capable of learning from our mistakes.
Hole in the ground!
We were evicted from our hole in the ground. 🙂
“Some research indicates they were responsible for killing off the Australian Mega fauna of the time and also by regular burning of the bush, changing Australia from a relatively forested land to one of grass and desert.”
That was Tim Flannery’s research. Enough said.
Robert, Tim Flannery,a paleontologist, wrote a book called “The Future Eaters” in which he showed that the aborigines burned almost the entire central Australia which was forrests,,,lakes and streams in their hunting of the Mega Fauna. What they did not catch died of starvatin, all their food was burned. It was known as fire stick farming. All this massive bare area heats up dramatically in summer and the hot air moves down and across the coastal area causing much higher than normal temperatures. Man made warming without the benefits the evil capitalists get from carbon dioxide Clive Bond
The reason we don’t fit is that we’re not from here. Very few humans would/could adapt to living totally outside. Shelter is common even in the best possible places to live.
if 10,000 years ago, you found yourself in a land with no animals you could domesticate or native grasses which could be cultivated for grains, you would also struggle to develop a civilisation. Throw in an extremely erratic climate, plus having to deal with a plethora of the world’s most poisonous snakes and insects and it is perhaps amazing to think that the aborigines were able to survive at all.
I heard some paleobotanist explaining that the fire resistant species that remain in Oz are here not because they evolved that way, but because all other species were burned out and they are the only ones capable of surviving the persistent burning. This statement was viewed as offensive to our indigenous folk, which is deemed instigating racial tension and thus – illegal. Irrespective of the species now gone, we have left largely extremely toxic flora. Similarly the megafauna may have been wiped out but what remains is a plethora of poisonous snakes..
To my thinking this is a strange way of ‘managing’ the environment.. eliminate the safe species with fire and leave behind only dangerous things. I can’t imagine the British killing everything except dire wolves and bears..
Karl I live on forty acre in Victoria Australia the southern part. When the first explorers came through Vic they said it was open land like a park and a wagon could be driven all over.
Gum trees are insidious breeding like rabbits, large trees survive a bush fire all the babies die, once opened up a grass fire will leave the trees alone and kill the babies. It was the aboriginals that used fire to keep the countryside open free range. I fight the infestation of baby gum trees continually. Strange statistic at the moment there are twice as many kangaroos in OZ than people, around 50 million.
Humans abstract thinking ability?
“So that unlike them [animals], he [man] is not a figure in the landscape, he is the shaper of the landscape.”
Let’s not forget the ever-beavering animal, the beaver.
Insects also create their own environments. Bees, ants, termites.
Didn’t intend to poke the hornets nest down under. My ignorance of the local paleohistory is duly noted.
The point I was attempting to make, perhaps poorly, is that climate change is no match for the human imaginination and its ability to respond and adapt to nearly anything. If the aboriginal peoples of Australia with very limited technical resources were able to survive, certainly modern man can adapt to anything the natural world can throw at us.
Flim-Flam-Flannery’s Fantastical Flummox flares unabated. The man is an unapologetic thug manipulator.
Is a thug manipulator a “thug who also manipulates”, or a “manipulator of thugs”? Either interpretation would appear to apply….
Strange they always wail about waste the need for a sustainable future …. except when it concerns their lives. Since most of the garbage studies attempt to link everything that ever changes anywhere in the world to atm CO2 concentrations, I’d say it’s fair indication that there’s plenty of dead wood to be pruned back.
As the minister pointed out : since the science is settled we hardly need so many working on the problem. Hopefully they will be selecting “scientists” who make unscientific statements like that as the first ones to leave.
As the minister pointed out : since the science is settled we hardly need so many working on the problem. Hopefully they will be selecting “scientists” who make unscientific statements like that as the first ones to leave.
Nope – The ones first to go will be those working quietly in the background attempting to gain a genuine understanding of some aspect of ‘the climate’. All that will be left are those that promote FUD…
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3762
Flannery here is taken seriously by the climate carpetbaggers. when debating them, they use terms like idiot, stupid etc to avoid the point.
Flannery used to have people escorted from the room when warmism was challenged in his government funded tour of Australia.
So that is about Flannery’s level.
Jokingly now, when it rains, it is said that it flannered down. A flannery is also a level of a dam that filled magically by rain thaat was supposed to disappear. Our universities are full of these bearded drongos.
Oh Flim Flam, you’ve dunnit again.
You are just so cute, little fellow. /sarc
This is the Mobius Minded Moron who thought Lindy Chamberlain MUST have murdered her baby Azaria cos’, like, (sniff) if a dingo had dunnit well that would be roolly, roolly bad for dingoes (sniffle), .. so the bitch must have dunnit.
That said, he is useful. Every time Flim Flam opens his gob about AGW and in Oz that is projected as endless drought, well… IT RAINS and RAINS and RAINS. Its raining now where I am. Thankyou Flim Flam.
Spooky, it just started raining when I read your comment 🙂
‘Tis the power of Flim Flam!
Believe it brother!!
Halleluja!
🙂
Flim Flam flooding and the Al Gore effect. I think I’m starting to see a trend.
New fossil discovered in Australia: Flim Flam Man. Existence certified.
“certified.”
If not now… very shortly !!
I’d suggest a frontal lobotomy… but they would hit open air !!
Sorry, it’s already a movie (and a pretty good one).
Britain leaving the EU would be just as catastrophic, according to the Met! read all:
11 Feb: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Pashley: Met Office fears Brexit would damage its climate models
UK weather agency’s chief scientist warns funding cuts on leaving EU would affect the quality of its
long-term forecasts
Brexit would deprive one of the world’s leading forecasters of important research grants and undermine
collaboration with the continent, Dame Julia Slingo said on Thursday.
“We… benefit enormously from being in the EU in terms of research funding that we can bring in to
actually accelerate the quality of the models and quality of advice that we give,” she told an event at
the UK’s national academy of science in London…
The UK’s top climate change envoy Sir David King described the Met Office as the country’s “jewel in the crown”, and whose modelling of future climate impacts was “the best in the world”…
British science was “extraordinarily strong” in part due to the money it received from EU grants and
attracted “top rate research academics” due to free mobility through the 28-member bloc. “If we lose out on that’s a real disbenefit,” he said…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/11/met-office-fears-brexit-would-hit-world-best-climate-models/
Allow me to rephrase pat…..
David King, its subtext – give us the money we can fix it for you and as a bonus we have a very creative graphics team, money certainly buys the best propaganda ‘tools’ – in more senses than one, the Wet Office is full of them.
And talking of climate advocates and its remarkable propensity to employ eejits, Flannery and his outpourings, just where do they dig them up from?
“…money certainly buys the best propaganda ‘tools’…”
In a world newly-awash (for, say, 15 years or so, due to widespread adoption of the internet) in massively increased communications, PR manipulation and propaganda become even more common because almost everything can be boiled down to the “he said-she said” level of discourse in the public forum. It’s all about perception and the “news cycle” as everyone has become a politician taking advantage of supposed collective short term memories and supposed inabilities to focus or concentrate due to a constant, rapidly changing information environment.
“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
– Alberto Brandolini (supposedly)
We can expect much much much more of this kind of FUD-mongering by “disinterested” establishment types (speaking more in sorrow than in anger, obviously) as we approach the Brexit referendum.
It is also a further indicator of Julia Slingo’s integrity: as the UK is a net contributor of funds to the EU, why should there be less money around after Brexit for scientific research? Might she be worried that without the support of the Brussels-centred Blob, the value of the Met Office’s work might be less clear?
Julia Slongo, and “integrity” do not go.
Because if they don’t get grants climate models will become anorexic.
That just insures they’ll stay as models. Until they turn 30 or so.
The trouble with the UK at the moment is that is home to too many Remainians.
Ouch.
UK weather agency’s chief scientist warns funding cuts on leaving EU would affect the quality of its long-term forecasts
=================
flip a coin and you will get a more accurate forecast than the Met. it doesn’t take a lot of funding to pay for the coin.
Dig up a two headed penny from somewhere…*flip* Heads it rains tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that…
From The Guardian [presumably a hand out from CSIRO..]
“Brisbane Airport’s third runway is currently being built, at a cost of $1.3bn. It is expected to eventually generate $5bn for the economy each year. But since it is located on a low-lying flood-prone area, a comprehensive climate-change risk assessment was carried out, which relied on work by the CSIRO. As a result of that assessment, the runway was built 4.1m above current sea level, to account for sea level rise and increasing storm surges”
Brisbane’s airport is built on mudflats at the mouth of the Brisbane River and you need a major study to show that it’s flood prone and it might be a good idea to build it up a bit !!!!!!
Well yes of course, no one could ever imagine not building an airport at sea level or below.
My goodness without CSIRO how woud Aussies know which side of the toast to butter.
Unless you’re in the Maldives of course where at the same time as pleading that they will be washed away by future man made sea level rise, they are building a $5bn airport about 50cm above mean sea level.
No doubt they are hoping to claim damages from the West when they get flooded. Presumably with loss of earning from tourism added to the bill.
But they are used to functioning under water. Even their parliament meets under water in SCUBA gear. Very odd place.
As a kid in the ’50s I used to go mud-crabbing in the mangroves where the new airport is going in.
I certainly hope they’re building up the ground level a few metres – an A380 would sink down deeper than the mudcrabs in their holes.
I could have provided this advice to the Airport Authority much cheaper than the CSIRO, I reckon.
If the had built it the normal way it would have cost 1/10 if that of course. In most countries $1.3bn gets you the WHOLE airport!
FWIW, 4.1m above sea level would be about the same as many current airports around the world. e.g JFK in New York, Lindberg field in San Diego, Logan airport in Boston. Do they need to be that high? Well, the runways at La Guardia airport in NYC flooded from the storm surge from Tropical Storm Sandy in 2012. The internet assures me that the elevation of LGA is 6.0 meters
Don K,
I’m not sure where you got your information from, but according to the 2013 USGS topographic maps, the elevation of most of LGA, including the runways, is less than 10 feet (3 meters).
Phil, I got it by searching for LGA elevation and picking the most common value. ISTR that there’s some issue with what’s used as a reference for sea level — the geoid vs mean lower low water vs half way between low water and high water.
La Guardia would have been CLOSED when Sandy was in the vicinity of New York, so your comment is pointless.
yeah..like some poor buggers on an island in the pacific we “helped”
we built them a jetty
nice huh?
oh
except its some 10 or so foot ABOVE the waterline
so they cant load/unload people OR stores without a LOT of extra hassle
just doing our future sealevel planning..
by the time IF ever…the sea rises that high the rest of the island would be done for anyway
“…you need a major study…”
Much of this is because of the ongoing replacement of brains with bytes (i.e., software and automation where there is effectively centralized control over how things are done) and parcelling out of goodies to those who can be counted on to provide correct evidence on demand. Because questioning the output of computers is difficult to do.
Remember that computers make smart people smarter and dumb people dumber (and oftentimes, much dumber as well as absolutely certain of their correctitude).
I could have done that study for the cost of a beer using an insurance flood plain map. Still, a runway 4m above sea level? That’s just stupid. The next typhoon that hits Brisbane is going to ruin every plane on the tarmac.
4m above sea level? That’s just stupid.
=======================
Agreed. Storm surge from typhoons is a much greater risk in Brisbane than Climate Change. Just look back at the history of the area.
There’s a much simpler point – Brisbane airport’s 3rd runway was built at 4m above sea level because their #1 and #2 runways were ALREADY at 4m above sea level. That’s the elevation of the airport recorded since 1988. Airports don’t generally build runways at different elevations because it’s stupid to do that. The CSIRO had nothing to do with that decision at all.
Airports don’t generally build runways at different elevations because it’s stupid to do that
=================
hell of a speed bump if they were a different elevations.
” . . . relying on CSIRO’s climate modelling and measuring to make billion-dollar decisions . . . ?”
Gotta be an oxymoron in there somewhere. Showing 50% of these loonies the door? Why not do society a favor and make it 100%? Then London. Then the U.S. We’re dealing with fraud and theft here folks.
Wivenhoe Dam flood that devastated Brisbane was caused by Climate Change policy. Just google it. Climate Change scientists and policy makers have blood on their hands.
And also poor local council planning such as a drainage engineer specifying 18″ drains and council going for 6″.
but, but, but … they’s cheaper!
Wow, 28″^2 installed vs. 254″^2 recommended. Drains are almost one order of magnitude too small. Who’s to blame here? It certainly can’t be the politicians, right?
The Paris deal is based on a voluntary basis which allows nations to set their own voluntary CO2 targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight. The Paris deal removes all legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions. The voluntary agreement also removes the rush into unrealistic decarbonisation policies that are both economically and politically unsustainable.
Any country may withdraw arbitrarily from the Paris agreement by giving one years’ notice that they intend to do so.
…. after the initial 3 year period.
If there is no warming in that time , more like cooling from the current high, there are likely to be quite a few taking advantage of that let out clause.
Why would any country withdraw from a treaty that doesn’t actually require them to do anything besides file a report 5 years from now with a nondescript UN bureaucracy and update said report thereafter?
There are a number of things about the Guardian report that should be pointed out. (The quotes are from their article).
1. “The Climate Council, which produced the new report, is a crowd-funded body that seeks to provide authoritative information on climate change to the community.”
— so it is a lobby group and its focus is just on AGW, not a balanced scientific point of view.
2. “The organisation’s (CSIRO) chief executive Larry Marshall explained that would result in a loss of about 50% of the staff working in climate modelling and measuring.”
— that means that there will still be about 350 staff working in climate modelling and measuring, which is more than adequate for a country the size of Australia, when, there are lot more pressing science issues to be investigated (including long term energy supply!!).
3. “Paul Durack from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, who oraganised the open letter, told Guardian Australia the response was an “unfortunate dismissal of some legitimate concerns raised by the international climate community.”
– Why does Australia continue accepting being beaten up be righteous by foreigners. And worst of all by a Left Wing Foreign newspaper.
The CSIRO is a formidable research organisation in all fields of science. They have contributed to great wealth development in Australia over the years. Obviously Climate Research is not longer adding to wealth development but rather adding costs that are not necessary. I am sure that the CSIRO will continue to improve excellent “Weather forecasting” for famers and businesses.
It is also a pity that there are so many “Reporters” on newspapers such as the Guardian, and not any good Journalists who seek out the full picture and publish that. Oh — for some good investigative journalism again.
Turkeys vote against Christmas! Who’d a thunk it?
Come on guys, leave Flim Flam Flannery alone. After all he is sacrificing himself to protect us. You know he has purchased a house on the Hawkesbury river, absolute river front ! Obviously he wants to slow the flood when the Poles melt, thus protecting those of us who don’t believe. What a man. What a Hero. What a Wanker !!!!
“if these cuts go ahead we will be relying on guesswork”. Please call a doctor, i think i’m going to die laughing.
His first degree level qualification is English literature. I guess he needs that to “communicate the science”!
Is he not also the Australian representative for the worldwide SWAG organization?
“if the cuts went ahead, would be relying on “guesswork”.”
Guesswork isn’t that just climate “science”?
+1 I too thought, how would that be any different then.
If “the science is settled”, why do we need more research?
Flannery thinks CO2 acidifies the oceans with Carbolic Acid.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/01/fishy-science-ocean-acidification/
“Tim Flannery, head of Australia’s Climate Council, is of the view that CO2 falling into the ocean produces “carbolic acid” or phenol, that useful disinfectant which can still be bought on eBay in the form of soap bars. Flannery is, as always, correct in terms of the prevailing hysteria, if not real-world facts. His prophecy is affirmed by Ocean Acidification International Coordination Centre (OAICA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which agree that
Too much carbon is flooding the ocean with carbolic acid, with devestating (sic) effects on life in the sea.”
Can someone explain the chemistry behind this assertion. Or did he just confuse carbonic acid with carbolic acid?
confuse carbonic acid with carbolic acid
============
probably doesn’t know the difference. Tim says turn left, best to turn right. Tim say look up, you are likely stepping into a ditch.
The chemistry didn’t matter to him or the offshoot websites, it’s the scaremongering that is important. CO2 produces a very weak carbonic acid, found in rainwater, which doesn’t mean “acid rain” in the nasty sense, but technically it is acidic. Carbolic acid is phenol, a disinfectant, he got confused, demonstrating his lack of scientific understanding. It wasn’t just a typo, because it is repeated in several places, including one of his books.
Check http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-carbonic-acid.htm, and http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-carbolic-acid.htm
And atomic energy has exactly what to do with oceans? Other than the gathering of funds from governments.
In the 1950s C Northcote Parkinson wrote an entertaining book called “Parkinson’s Law”. He described how bureaucracies grow each year by a fixed amount regardless of the amount (or even the existence) of work to be done. Dr. Parkinson’s book, while funny, provides some serious insights into organizational mentality.
“For every new foreman or electrical engineer at Portsmouth there had to be two more clerks at Charing Cross. From this we might be tempted to conclude, provisionally, that the rate of increase in administrative staff is likely to be double that of the technical staff at a time when the actually useful strength (in this case, of seamen) is being reduced by 31.5 per cent. It has been proved, however, statistically, that this last percentage is irrelevant. The officials would have multiplied at the same rate had there been no actual seamen at all.” C Northcote Parkinson on the British Admiralty in “Parkinson’s Law”. http://www.economist.com/node/14116121
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A
This.
“Work expands top fill time available for its completion.” – another Parkinson “law”
Didn’t he write several books? I recall reading about dismissing the tealadies, dockworkers walking one direction in the morning and the opposite in the afternoon, etc. Valuable insights.
Ian M
Do we really need any more climate science. Do we need yet another climate model.
Basically, climate science has told us that anything can happen and infinite number of climate models is not going to give us anything new. The whole range is completely covered already, all bad.
What we do need is someone to actually measure what is really happening and back it up with solid facts. But climate science is apparently incapable of doing that as even their facts are nothing more than made-up models and adjusted measurements. So, they have made themselves no longer needed and put themselves out of business.
David Suzuki ; sites and destroy hunting and fishing areas. Opponents include environmentalist David Suzuki, who said the project conflicts with climate targets set in Paris.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/hydro+court+seeking+remove+site+protesters/11736294/story.html#ixzz40zDv0dLn
My boomerang won’t come back, it must be global warming blue.
The main reason that your Boomerang won’t come back is that it is a Hockey Stick
Although they are very similar in appearance, the one with a slightly longer side is really just a tree
If your boomerang won’t come back, it must be a hockey stick which is really a tree
“Bryan A says: February 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm”
A boomerang that won’t come back is called a kylie (Not of the Minogue kind).