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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Poor little Timmy.. one of the sceptic’s greatest weapons.
We thank you, Sir Tim ! 🙂
I hope he’s correct. Violating the Paris Agreement would be the first worthwhile achievement under Malcolm Turnbull’s governance
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was dismissive of doctors and dietitians who refused to read the vaulable science in these books because they are not peer-reviewed.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/
“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
Pointman tell that to this guy : David Suzuki
Let’s look at the examples given of “important work” CSIRO has done;
Common sense would have said the same thing. If you are going to build in a flood-prone area, you’d better build accordingly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Flan needs to crawl under his flannel blankie and suck his thumb ….like Linus ….
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.
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.
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!)
Anyway, no research is needed, right? It is all “settled seance” now.
‘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!
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
It’s settled, you’re fired.
Flannery’s words are proof positive that in a sane world, he would be the very first to get the ax.
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 .
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’
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.
“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.
Government hired so many scientists to make it look like there was some purpose for a university education in Australia .
Why are the desal plants useless? Can’t they be used to send fresh water to places that need it?
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.
Also Lockheed Martin have applied for a patent on a desal process that uses 90% less power. Obsolete white elephants.