Tim Flannery: Firing Climate Scientists Breaches the Paris Agreement

Flannery_scr

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”.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/22/csiro-climate-cuts-will-breach-paris-agreement-and-cost-economy-report

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
135 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 22, 2016 10:50 pm

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.

Mike
Reply to  ntesdorf
February 22, 2016 11:26 pm

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.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Mike
February 23, 2016 12:27 am

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.

dickon66
Reply to  Mike
February 23, 2016 2:42 am

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!

Anto
Reply to  Mike
February 23, 2016 3:24 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mike
February 23, 2016 10:15 am

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”

Peter Miller
Reply to  ntesdorf
February 23, 2016 1:12 am

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.

dennisambler
Reply to  Peter Miller
February 23, 2016 1:58 am

Will these 350 bureaucrats be missed? They could set up their own website “350.org”
Oh, it’s been done already.

MarkW
Reply to  Peter Miller
February 23, 2016 6:07 am

If they get another 50 scientists, maybe they could stand in a gap somewhere and keep the Greeks from invading.

NW sage
Reply to  Peter Miller
February 23, 2016 6:03 pm

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.

Reply to  ntesdorf
February 23, 2016 10:05 am

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.

BoyfromTottenham
February 22, 2016 10:53 pm

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!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 23, 2016 4:46 am

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.

Robert
February 22, 2016 10:57 pm

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.”

expat
Reply to  Robert
February 23, 2016 12:38 am

“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.

zemlik
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 1:26 am

although fascinated by that “songlines” book I don’t have much sympathy for the Aboriginals if they did eat some things to extinction.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 1:38 am

Australia natives were not the only humans to eat something to extinction. New Zealand Maori ate the Moa to extinction too.

commieBob
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 1:56 am

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.

GRP
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 2:49 am

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]

commieBob
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 4:37 am

Patrick MJD says:
February 23, 2016 at 1:38 am
Australia natives were not the only humans to eat something to extinction. New Zealand Maori ate the Moa to extinction too.

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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 4:54 am

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

RobRoy
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 5:50 am

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.

ferdberple
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 6:47 am

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.

Neil
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 8:20 am

“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.

MarkW
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 9:39 am

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.

Bob Burban
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 10:09 am

“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?

commieBob
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 12:43 pm

MarkW says:
February 23, 2016 at 9:39 am
GRP, one of the laws of nature, is that a group will continue to grow until they reach the limits of their resources.

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.

MichaelB
Reply to  expat
February 23, 2016 1:52 pm

Hole in the ground!
We were evicted from our hole in the ground. 🙂

TedM
Reply to  expat
February 24, 2016 1:31 am

“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.

Clive Bond
Reply to  expat
February 24, 2016 3:51 am

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

Reply to  Robert
February 23, 2016 1:05 am

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.

Peter Miller
Reply to  Robert
February 23, 2016 1:06 am

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.

Reply to  Peter Miller
February 23, 2016 3:33 am

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..

Reply to  Peter Miller
February 24, 2016 2:08 am

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.

Reply to  Robert
February 23, 2016 4:18 am

Humans abstract thinking ability?

PiperPaul
Reply to  Robert
February 23, 2016 5:44 am

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.

RobRoy
Reply to  PiperPaul
February 23, 2016 7:37 am

Insects also create their own environments. Bees, ants, termites.

Robert
Reply to  Robert
February 24, 2016 4:31 am

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.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
February 22, 2016 11:16 pm

Flim-Flam-Flannery’s Fantastical Flummox flares unabated. The man is an unapologetic thug manipulator.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
February 23, 2016 7:58 am

Is a thug manipulator a “thug who also manipulates”, or a “manipulator of thugs”? Either interpretation would appear to apply….

Mike
February 22, 2016 11:20 pm

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.

3x2
Reply to  Mike
February 23, 2016 9:23 am

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

Jack
February 22, 2016 11:23 pm

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.

M Seward
February 22, 2016 11:24 pm

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.

M Seward
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 23, 2016 3:50 am

‘Tis the power of Flim Flam!
Believe it brother!!
Halleluja!
🙂

Phil R
Reply to  M Seward
February 23, 2016 7:55 am

Flim Flam flooding and the Al Gore effect. I think I’m starting to see a trend.

February 22, 2016 11:30 pm

New fossil discovered in Australia: Flim Flam Man. Existence certified.

AndyG55
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
February 23, 2016 2:58 am

“certified.”
If not now… very shortly !!
I’d suggest a frontal lobotomy… but they would hit open air !!

Phil R
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
February 23, 2016 8:21 am

Sorry, it’s already a movie (and a pretty good one).

pat
February 22, 2016 11:33 pm

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/

Athelstan.
Reply to  pat
February 23, 2016 12:43 am

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 andattracted “top rate research academics” due to free mobility through the 28-member bloc. “If we lose out on that’s a real disbenefit

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?

PiperPaul
Reply to  Athelstan.
February 23, 2016 6:16 am

…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)

Fen Tiger
Reply to  pat
February 23, 2016 12:45 am

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?

Athelstan.
Reply to  Fen Tiger
February 23, 2016 6:04 am

Julia Slongo, and “integrity” do not go.

lee
Reply to  pat
February 23, 2016 1:38 am

Because if they don’t get grants climate models will become anorexic.

Tom Judd
Reply to  lee
February 23, 2016 9:04 am

That just insures they’ll stay as models. Until they turn 30 or so.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  pat
February 23, 2016 2:47 am

The trouble with the UK at the moment is that is home to too many Remainians.

Athelstan.
Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 23, 2016 6:03 am

Ouch.

ferdberple
Reply to  pat
February 23, 2016 6:53 am

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.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  ferdberple
February 23, 2016 6:42 pm

Dig up a two headed penny from somewhere…*flip* Heads it rains tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that…

GregK
February 22, 2016 11:49 pm

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 !!!!!!

Alx
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 12:15 am

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.

Mike
Reply to  Alx
February 23, 2016 12:47 am

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.

Mick In The Hills
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 12:53 am

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.

Andrew
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 3:40 am

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!

Don K
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 4:44 am

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

Phil R
Reply to  Don K
February 23, 2016 8:18 am

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).

Don K
Reply to  Don K
February 23, 2016 9:28 am

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.

Ray Boorman
Reply to  Don K
February 23, 2016 7:04 pm

La Guardia would have been CLOSED when Sandy was in the vicinity of New York, so your comment is pointless.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 5:06 am

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

PiperPaul
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 6:26 am

…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).

benofhouston
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 6:23 pm

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.

ferdberple
Reply to  benofhouston
February 24, 2016 6:53 am

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.

Arris
Reply to  GregK
February 23, 2016 6:57 pm

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.

ferdberple
Reply to  Arris
February 24, 2016 6:55 am

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.

Wrusssr
February 22, 2016 11:58 pm

” . . . 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.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 23, 2016 12:18 am

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.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 23, 2016 1:44 am

And also poor local council planning such as a drainage engineer specifying 18″ drains and council going for 6″.

M Seward
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2016 3:52 am

but, but, but … they’s cheaper!

PiperPaul
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2016 6:39 am

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?

Sasha
February 23, 2016 12:30 am

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.

Mike
Reply to  Sasha
February 23, 2016 12:49 am

…. 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.

DC Cowboy
Editor
Reply to  Sasha
February 23, 2016 3:27 am

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?

Bob S
February 23, 2016 12:58 am

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.

Telboy
February 23, 2016 1:01 am

Turkeys vote against Christmas! Who’d a thunk it?

Agent
February 23, 2016 1:24 am

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 !!!!

Aussiepete
February 23, 2016 1:25 am

“if these cuts go ahead we will be relying on guesswork”. Please call a doctor, i think i’m going to die laughing.

Patrick MJD
February 23, 2016 1:46 am

His first degree level qualification is English literature. I guess he needs that to “communicate the science”!

Aussiepete
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2016 2:42 am

Is he not also the Australian representative for the worldwide SWAG organization?

confusedphoton
February 23, 2016 1:56 am

“if the cuts went ahead, would be relying on “guesswork”.”
Guesswork isn’t that just climate “science”?

Gerry, England
Reply to  confusedphoton
February 23, 2016 5:49 am

+1 I too thought, how would that be any different then.

February 23, 2016 2:10 am

If “the science is settled”, why do we need more research?

dennisambler
February 23, 2016 2:16 am

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.”

Walt D.
Reply to  dennisambler
February 23, 2016 5:19 am

Can someone explain the chemistry behind this assertion. Or did he just confuse carbonic acid with carbolic acid?

ferdberple
Reply to  Walt D.
February 23, 2016 6:58 am

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.

dennisambler
Reply to  Walt D.
February 24, 2016 7:23 am

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

Mjw
Reply to  dennisambler
February 24, 2016 9:13 am

And atomic energy has exactly what to do with oceans? Other than the gathering of funds from governments.

AllanJ
February 23, 2016 2:31 am

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.

Don K
Reply to  AllanJ
February 23, 2016 7:52 am

“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

Mjw
Reply to  Don K
February 24, 2016 9:24 am
Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  AllanJ
February 23, 2016 8:54 am

“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

February 23, 2016 2:40 am

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.

Russell
February 23, 2016 2:40 am

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

Steve.
February 23, 2016 2:44 am

My boomerang won’t come back, it must be global warming blue.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Steve.
February 23, 2016 4:51 am

Bryan A
Reply to  1saveenergy
February 23, 2016 12:22 pm

The main reason that your Boomerang won’t come back is that it is a Hockey Stickcomment imagecomment image
Although they are very similar in appearance, the one with a slightly longer side is really just a tree

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve.
February 23, 2016 12:24 pm

If your boomerang won’t come back, it must be a hockey stick which is really a tree

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bryan A
February 24, 2016 8:35 pm

“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).

AndyG55
February 23, 2016 3:03 am

Poor little Timmy.. one of the sceptic’s greatest weapons.
We thank you, Sir Tim ! 🙂

Analitik
February 23, 2016 3:07 am

I hope he’s correct. Violating the Paris Agreement would be the first worthwhile achievement under Malcolm Turnbull’s governance

Russell
February 23, 2016 3:12 am

Powerful vested interests in the food and drug industries that oppose low-carb, high-fat (LCHF, also known as Banting).
These interests make billions from sales of high-carb, low-fat (HCLF) foods, as well as drugs to treat illnesses linked to diets based on these foods. Blockbuster cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins are an egregious example. Noakes was dismissive of doctors and dietitians who refused to read the vaulable science in these books because they are not peer-reviewed. In a devastating critique of peer-review, he said it had become “a way to maintain the status quo”. Noakes presented significant scientific evidence for issues central to this case, that aim straight at the heart of conventional medical and dietary “wisdom” and the status quo, and threaten careers, reputations, livelihoods and funding. (It is, after all, “difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”, as US author Uptom Sinclair once said.) It sounds like Climate Change. The trial continues http://www.biznews.com/low-carb-healthy-fat-science/2016/02/23/tim-noakes-seeing-into-future-food-medicine-banting-lchf/

February 23, 2016 3:55 am

“will breach Australia’s obligations under the recent Paris agreement” – The Paris agreement does not oblige anyone to do anything.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/cop21-doing-the-the-climate-can-can-in-paris/
Pointman

Russell
Reply to  Pointman
February 23, 2016 4:20 am

Pointman tell that to this guy : David Suzuki

Bruce Cobb
February 23, 2016 5:30 am

Let’s look at the examples given of “important work” CSIRO has done;

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.

Common sense would have said the same thing. If you are going to build in a flood-prone area, you’d better build accordingly.

CSIRO’s research has been used to issue weather warnings and to train fire-fighters to predicting fire behaviour.

A.That is what weathermen are for, and B. Nonsense. Firefighters know how to train for fighting fires, and already know that weather can be fickle and unpredictable.

CSIRO’s research has assisted farmers with technologies and tools to manage drought.

Again, farmers already know this, and better than some “scientist” whose only interest is in staying on the climate gravy train, and not rocking the boat.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 23, 2016 6:10 am

Thanks, at least I will not be shocked when climate impact studies are required for all projects like environmental impact studies today. It’s another layer of contrivance.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Resourceguy
February 23, 2016 6:42 am

Hey, let’s build a model and start a consulting firm. We might as well get our cut, and the crappy advice we provide will at least be less crappy than 99.9% of the charlatans out there.

jclarke341
February 23, 2016 6:30 am

“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 is interesting here that the author attempts to make a distinction between ‘climate modeling’ and ‘guess work’, as if they were two different things! Perhaps they are. Guess work would not have any inherent bias like the climate modeling. Therefore, the simple guess that ‘what has happened before will happen again’ has a far higher probability of being correct than the predictions of the climate modelers.
There you go, all you government and business interests making billion dollar decisions. I just gave you more accurate information and it didn’t cost anyone anything.
I hope the 350 find gainful employment that is beneficial to themselves AND society.

Sweet Old Bob
February 23, 2016 7:16 am

Flan needs to crawl under his flannel blankie and suck his thumb ….like Linus ….

tadchem
February 23, 2016 8:10 am

If Australia thinks they are bound to the statements in the ‘recent Paris agreement’, they are far less independent or autonomous (‘sovereign’) that I had thought.
They should start cutting costs by eliminating salaries for the charlatains-in-chief.
That way more people get to keep their jobs even if they get new assignments.

February 23, 2016 8:33 am

Flim Flam would have to say that.
Ask any Tick and I am sure if it could talk you would get a long justification for its right to suck your blood.
Cultured,entitled parasites are run rampant in our culture.
They have their own branch of government,Academia.
Did you host type citizens not realize your place in the food change?
Kinda wish I could claim sarcasm.

RockyRoad
February 23, 2016 9:01 am

So let these pink-slipped “climate scientists” go work for the Paris Climate Agreement!
Oh wait, I don’t think they have any funds.
Oh well.
(I want to know what “Billion Dollar Decisions” have been based on the GIGO from the CSIRO. So far they’ve been wrong about everything, so those billions of dollars could have been SAVED. Time to issue those pink slips, and do it NOW!)

ShrNfr
Reply to  RockyRoad
February 23, 2016 9:38 am

Anyway, no research is needed, right? It is all “settled seance” now.

Tom Judd
February 23, 2016 9:14 am

‘In a report … Climate Council said governments and businesses relied on the CSIRO’s climate … work to make billion-dollar decisions and if the cuts went ahead, would be relying on “guesswork”.’
Huh? Guesswork?! What? CSIRO’s not relying on guesswork? And, not relying on the CSIRO would be relying on guesswork? What arrogance!

February 23, 2016 9:22 am

But since the ‘Science is settled’ why do we need so many climate activists? Some might say it’s past time for a little downsizing of people like Flannery. He’s served his purpose. Who else could we do without? Suzuki, Klein, Monbiot? Suggestions for redundancies welcomed.
/schadenfruede

Resourceguy
February 23, 2016 10:08 am

It’s settled, you’re fired.

Ed Grimley (No, not that Ed Grimley, a different one.)
February 23, 2016 1:13 pm

Flannery’s words are proof positive that in a sane world, he would be the very first to get the ax.

Robert

So I’m told Flannery has bought sea front property and nobody thinks this is strange .
How dare anyone say the first Australians were not happy because of the life they led !
What possible use could a light globe and laptop computer be to a hunter gatherer ,and there is no evidence I’ve seen they were responsible for mega fauna extinctions although there is some that changing climate was responsible for most of the extinctions .
Do yourself a favour and take the time to talk to an older aboriginal about climate change and his/her opinion and you will find they have learned how to live with changing climates and what’s happening now has happened before and will happen again .
They really couldn’t care much for the science hype .

Mjw
Reply to  Robert
February 24, 2016 1:53 pm

William Dampier said it.
‘the miserablest … in the world’ unlike ‘the great variety of savages’ he had encountered, the Australian Aborigines had ‘no Houses and skin Garments, Sheep, Poultry and Fruits of the Earth’

Greg Cavanagh
February 23, 2016 6:48 pm

It demonstrates that they, and people like them, can’t see past their nose and frankly refuse to see the bleedin’ obvious. How these people get a job in the first place has me stumped.

eyesonu
February 23, 2016 9:34 pm

“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”.”
======
Just what do these clowns think they have being relying on. It was guesswork and based on an academic scam to draw millions in grants. Someone please bury these c***s*****s.

February 24, 2016 10:54 am

Government hired so many scientists to make it look like there was some purpose for a university education in Australia .

Jeff Alberts
February 24, 2016 6:32 pm

Why are the desal plants useless? Can’t they be used to send fresh water to places that need it?

Mjw
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 24, 2016 9:53 pm

Here is your answer, $25,000,000,000 as a base unused price over 20 years, $42,000,000,000 if you turn the tap on once. Do you want to pay the difference? By the way $1,000,000,000 would have built a dam that would have supplied 10 times the water each year forever.

ghl
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 26, 2016 9:50 pm

Also Lockheed Martin have applied for a patent on a desal process that uses 90% less power. Obsolete white elephants.

%d bloggers like this: