The CSIRO 2007 Climate Report: an assertion-laden sales brochure by John McLean, October 2007
The report, “Climate change in Australia”, by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology was released on 2
October 2007 and predicted a dire climatic future. The contents of the report have been widely accepted by politicians, the media and the public with hardly a murmur.
That’s a rather disturbing acceptance of a document that is loaded with vested interests, ignores various
temperature factors, unjustifiably minimises influence of a major climate force and lacks substantiation for
its most important claims.
In short it is little more than a sales brochure for the unproven claim that man-made emissions of carbon
dioxide are the cause of climate changes.
1. It contains a prior assumption that carbon dioxide has caused warming
From the very start of chapter one the report makes it clear that greenhouse gases will be the key focus, and
of course prime suspect, if such can be said of kangaroo courts.
In that chapter we are being softened up for a barrage of assertions and sure enough chapter 3 presents those
assertions by claiming that almost every climate variation in Australia over the last 50 years was caused by
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
The CSIRO presents no evidence for this claim and the weight of its argument is based only on the repetition
of words. Readers are clearly expected to accept this at face value but a wide reading of relevant literature
shows plenty of reason to question it.
Delve a little deeper and the CSIRO report is largely based on the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Explore the IPCC’s claims and the evidence there is also remarkably weak. First
we have an assumption that temperature data is accurate and that a loose but delayed correlation between the
increases in temperature and carbon dioxide is somehow evidence that carbon dioxide drives temperature.
Second is the assumption that climate models are accurate, which is difficult to believe when even the IPCC
admits that many climate factors are poorly understood.
In other words this CSIRO climate report is focused exclusively on an already-questionable premise and
provides no justification for doing so or evidence to support the premise.
Conclusion
If the 2007 CSIRO climate report makes any claims to be an impartial, thorough and accurate assessment of
the recent and future Australian climate then it does so under false pretences.
It is overwhelmingly biased towards greenhouse gases being the major cause of climate change since 1950
and yet produces absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Some natural forces are ignored and another that
is first highlighted as being linked to historical climate variations is subsequently dismissed as being minor
or irrelevant.
There is only one notion that matters to this report – that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have a
major impact on climate. Come hell or high water, this report tries to ram that unproven notion into its
readers at every turn. Create climate models based on that assumption, never verify their accuracy and then
wave a consensus of results as if it was proof, that’s the process behind this report.
The report is, by and large, nothing more than a marketing document, one written by people with vested
interests, never subjected to any independent review and gravely biased towards a particular claim.
We would never accept without independent and impartial review an evaluation of a drug written by it’s own
researchers or an invitation to invest in shares that was written only by a company’s sales department so why
should we accept this CSIRO report without similar review?
It is an exceptionally sad reflection on Australian politicians, news media and the public that the report has
been so readily accepted as credible and the predictions treated as near-certainties
Read the full critique here.
The CSIRO report can be downloaded from here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Disclaimer: No responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology for the accuracy of the projections in or inferred from this report, or for any person’s reliance on, or interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on, this report or any information contained in it.
October 2007”.
So there you have it.
Malcolm,
I’ve heard you profess a knowledge of business on this blog before.
In your apparently expert knowledge of business, is the disclaimer simple a tool to limit liability, a rubber stamp typically required by the legal eagles in one’s organisation?
Or are CSIRO scientists themselves including the disclaimer as an indirect way of indicating they have low confidence in their own research?
HAve you ever seen the disclaimer at the bottom of emails that says ‘the contents of this email are priviledged etc’. From my knowledge such disclaimers are 99.9999% of the time ignored, and of doubtful use in the event of legal trouble in any case. Yet many firms still require them. Why is that?
I dont disagree.
It just grates that these people can make all these assertions that will involve the expenditure of trillions of our money in order to reduce the level of c02 by a few ppm, and further they elaborate upon the dire conseqences if we dont, and yet no one will actually stand behind it.
No one is putting their personal assets on the line in any way, and it doesnt affect the status of their employment on jot if they are in the tiniest bit wrong. They still collect their pay cheques.
Do they peddle this disclaimer or anything even remotely like it when they are briefing the press?
Do the fully explain the difference between projection and prediction.?…and go out of their way to have it corrected when the media gets it wrong.?
Is the same style of disclaimer attached to peer reviewed papers.?
What utter rot.
CSIRO – trillions – oh come now.
No job impacts – gee tell that to all the temporary staff.
And tell that to those who used to work on cloud seeding.
Drug companies says the lead post – OK let’s look at Bayer’s site…. gee maybe drugs are unsafe from leading companies. Better not buy shares – there may be “forwarding looking statements”.
Limited liability
BAYER has compiled the detailed information provided on this website from internal and external sources to the best of its knowledge and belief, using professional diligence. We endeavor to expand and update this range of information on an ongoing basis. The information on this website is purely for the purpose of presenting BAYER and its products and services. However, no representation is made or warranty given, either expressly or tacitly, for the completeness or correctness of the information on this website. In particular, we must ask you to be aware that this information may no longer be up to date. We therefore recommend that you check any information you obtain from this website prior to using it in whatever form. Advice given on this website does not exempt you from conducting your own checks on our latest advice – particularly our safety datasheets and technical specifications – and on our products, with a view to their suitability for the intended processes and purposes. Should you require any advice or instructions concerning our products or services, please contact us directly. Users of this website declare that they agree to access the website and its content at their own risk. Neither BAYER nor third parties involved in the writing, production or transmission of this website can be held liable for damage or injury resulting from access or the impossibility of access or from the use or impossibility of use of this website or from the fact that you have relied on information given on this website.
Forward-looking statements
This Internet site contains forward-looking statements. These statements use words like “believes,” “assumes,” “expects” or similar formulations. Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to material differences between the actual future results, financial situation, development or performance of our company and those either expressed or implied by these statements. These factors include, among other things:
downturns in the business cycle of the industries in which we compete;
new regulations, or changes to existing regulations, that increase our operating costs or otherwise reduce our profitability;
increases in the prices of our raw materials, especially if we are unable to pass these costs along to customers;
loss or reduction of patent protection for our products;
liabilities, especially those incurred as a result of environmental laws or product liability litigation;
fluctuation in international currency exchange rates as well as changes in the general economic climate; and
other factors identified in this Internet site.
These factors include those discussed in our public reports filed with the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (including our Form 20-F). In view of these uncertainties, we caution readers not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We assume no liability whatsoever to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments.
How about Pfizer ?
1. Content. Pfizer will use reasonable efforts to include accurate and up-to-date information on this Web site but makes no warranties or representations of any kind as to its accuracy, currency or completeness. You agree that access to and use of this Web site and the content thereof is at your own risk. Pfizer disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Neither Pfizer nor any party involved in creating, producing or delivering this Web site shall be liable for any damages, including without limitation, direct, incidental, consequential, indirect or punitive damages, arising out of access to, use of or inability to use this Web site, or any errors or omissions in the content thereof. This limitation includes damages to, or for any viruses that infect, your computer equipment.
2. Indemnification. You agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, its officers, directors, employees, agents, suppliers and third party partners from and against all losses, expenses, damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting from any violation by you of these Terms of Use.
3. Privacy. Pfizer respects the privacy of its Web site users. Please refer to Pfizer’s Privacy Policy that explains users’ rights and responsibilities with respect to information that is disclosed on this Web site.
4. Third Party Web sites and Links. This Web site may contain links or references to other Web sites maintained by third parties over whom Pfizer has no control. Such links are provided merely as a convenience. Similarly, this Web site may be accessed from third party links over whom Pfizer has no control. Pfizer makes no warranties or representations of any kind as to the accuracy, currency, or completeness of any information contained in such Web sites and shall have no liability for any damages or injuries of any kind arising from such content or information. Inclusion of any third party link does not imply an endorsement or recommendation by Pfizer.
5. Medical Information. This Web site may contain general information relating to various medical conditions and their treatment. Such information is provided for informational purposes only and is not meant to be a substitute for advice provided by a doctor or other qualified health care professional. Patients should not use the information contained herein for diagnosing a health or fitness problem or disease. Patients should always consult with a doctor or other health care professional for medical advice or information about diagnosis and treatment.
6. Forward Looking Statements. This Web site contains forward-looking statements about Pfizer’s financial and operating performance, business plans and prospects, in-line products and products in development that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from the expectations and projections set forth in those statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among other things, the uncertainties inherent in pharmaceutical research and development; decisions by regulatory authorities regarding whether and when to approve drug applications and supplemental drug applications as well as their decisions regarding labeling and other matters that could affect the availability or commercial potential of Pfizer products; competitive developments; the ability to successfully market both new and existing products; challenges to the validity and enforcement of Pfizer’s patents; trends toward managed care and health care cost containment; governmental laws and regulations affecting health care, including without limitation regarding pharmaceutical product access, pricing and reimbursement; and general economic conditions, such as interest rate and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. A further list and description of these and other risks, uncertainties and other matters can be found in Pfizer’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent Reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K, all of which are available on this Web site and at http://www.sec.gov Pfizer assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events or developments.
John – by all means have a go – but golly gee don’t hit them with a wet mullet.
(1) “We would never accept without independent and impartial review an evaluation of a drug written by it’s own
researchers or an invitation to invest in shares that was written only by a company’s sales department so why
should we accept this CSIRO report without similar review?” – WTF is this nonsense ? They are paid by the government to do science – presumably we want them to tell us what they found? Or perhaps you’d rather they do no science or simply not tell us.
(2) Delve a little deeper and the CSIRO report is largely based on the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). WTF II – well duh – it’s only a few inches thick of serious review – I assume they would use it. Would you like them to not use it?
(3) “In that chapter we are being softened up for a barrage of assertions and sure enough chapter 3 presents those
assertions by claiming that almost every climate variation in Australia over the last 50 years was caused by
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.”
It does !!! – so I wonder why they spend so much time worrying about natural variability and attribution?
(4) “Explore the IPCC’s claims and the evidence there is also remarkably weak.” John – all this is just bolshy rhetorical assertion on your part – so spare us the bullshit.
(5)”First
we have an assumption that temperature data is accurate and that a loose but delayed correlation between the
increases in temperature and carbon dioxide is somehow evidence that carbon dioxide drives temperature.” OK – can’t have it both ways – do you want to argue that we know nothing or what. OK assuming the temperature data has some basis of reality why would you expect a good correlation between CO2 and temperature over the century. Theshold test for any level of comprehension. Duh – maybe because der is more than one thing happening at once! Like duh. Come on John – don’t resort to old try-ons.
(6) So you could have done an incisive review but all we have is a temper tantrum. The sort of stuff that gets published in pseudo journals like E & E.
(7) No discussion from you on SAM, warming Indian Oceans, warming Tasmans and all manner of other interesting things.
(8) Humourous really as another paper pops out of Nature (above) confirming another enhanced greenhouse behaviour.
Not happy John !
As usual the vexatious bloggerant has got it wrong.
The trillions is obviously the consequential cost to the community of the advice being given, not the expenditure by the organisation itself.
Turnover of staff occurs in all organisations for variety for reasons, and rarely in government funded bodies for getting something wrong, that has serious consequences for others,and the community at large
Of course there are absolutely no examples of where private sector organisations and people have been sued for negligence or incompetence,or being completely wrong and causing harm etc, oh no, that never happens- despite the disclaimers.
Of course there are no instances where product liability cannot be disclaimed out.
Forget to take your Prozac did we.?
Mal – you have no idea how CSIRO works. Do you? It’s all your very biased opinion.
Strange how a denialist Howard government has been powerless to shut them down if they’re such bad scientists involving the expenditure of trillions isn’t it? Gee they must be powerful.
And CSIRO wouldn’t have been seen as an easy mark by Hong Kong law firms seeing a naive research organisation would they. CSIRO wouldn’t be in court over IT and genetic patents would they? It’s all changed in the last decade. Litigation is a constant risk whether deserved or not.
So I guess you’re happy to see your government research agency be ripped off, be arbitrarily and vexatiously litigated against, and have it’s intellectual property knicked. Good use of tax dollars.
There are some people in both the CSIRO and the BoM who are very worried by the bias and lack of truth and cherry picking being promoted by those promoting the “global warming” push in those two institutions. Indeed a state of fear exists where some officers are afraid to speak out, for fear of their careers.
I saw a photograph recently, on this blog, (can anyone tell me where to access it?), of Drs. David Jones, Sally Wheeton and Barrie Pittock, (may have mis-spelt their names!), viewing Al Gore’s AIT. They were gazing with adoration at the screen like three pre-pubicent girls gazing at Dorothy in ‘The Wizard of Oz’.
That photo said it all.
Walker,
There is vast difference between legal contests over IP rights etc where there is something of real commercial value involved, and the puff pieces of opinion and supposition derived from computer models that induce governments and tax payers to spend trillions fixing up a dubious problem, of uncertain consequences.
As for biased opinions, well your list of achievements in this respect, and on this blog, has absolutely no equal.
If you are so enamoured of the everything these people do, and so ably distort everything that anyone dare say about them, why dont you set up your own blog.
I am sure one or other would give you a grant, or a stipend.
Sid you of all people don’t want to talk about cherry picking.
So Dill Hill out of puff goes for the big ad hom. You’re a loser Hill in the argument and you know it. Full of it. Mainly bile.
Mate legal departments are not going to allow their organisations to be picked off by mercenary legal eagles. Get real.
We know your game matey – silence the resesarch. What a nazi.
Implementation of any policy options involving trillions of dollars is the job of elected representatives. So don’t vote for it and enjoy the warmth.
“Implementation of any policy options involving trillions of dollars is the job of elected representatives.”
…and that you wanker walker is precisely the point.It would be nicer if it was more soundly based than currently is the case,and demononstrated by the document presented,which was hardly science anyway.
Now dont forget to take your pill.
Well that’s in your fanciful bigotted opinion isn’t it which is worth two knobs of goat poop.
How easy would it be for CSIRO to pull out the simulations that don’t suit them. They could narrow down what they wanted and you wouldn’t know.
There is nothing these scientists could put up as you’ve got a bad case of the old fashioned anti-science religion.
You see the topic of this thread – you could make some good criticisms of their work and reasonable points, but being flakes you guys aren’t even close to the mark, trawling around on the periphery.
Now now phlukey lukey.
I did suggest that you should be good boy and take your pills, you know that you need them.
zzzzzzzzzzzz