Malcolm Roberts, Tim Ball and Tony Heller held a press conference to release Roberts 42-page reply to the CSIRO. [OR download the PDF here]. Essentially, despite us spending billions of dollars to reduce CO2 in the hope we change the weather, the CSIRO can only provide irrelevant and weak evidence, and nothing that demonstrates consistent cause and effect. CSIRO can provide nothing to show that they are not just exploiting natural climate cycles for political purposes. (See here, models based on solar factors predict temperature changes very well and most turning points. Solar models explains the missing hot spot, solves many other problems, something that none of the major GCM’s can do.)
“The onus is on CSIRO to prove its climate advice and claim.”
A new graph of Law Dome temperatures in the last 2000 years shows there is nothing unusual about current climate changes (just like almost every other long proxy also does which we’ve all seen 20 times before).
No need to panic about the penguins.
Law Dome Antarctica compared to Hadley Met centre (Click to enlarge with sources)
One Nation call for audit over CSIRO climate claims
An independent inquiry should be held into the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, which have been unable to provide empirical evidence linking human activity to climate change, One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts says.
Senator Roberts has rejected CSIRO assurances on climate science and called for a due diligence audit of the organisation’s research and methods. — Graham Lloyd
Jo would add that the independent inquiry must be staffed with scientists from other fields of science — ones which have a record of making predictions which are useful. Let’s get some brains who know physics, maths and engineering. Unlike climate models that don’t work, real scientists and engineers research and design bridges that stand up, planes that fly, and mobile phones that let two people talk on opposite sides of the world. If these people aren’t convinced by the CSIRO explanations (and they aren’t) it’s not because they are dumb, but because CSIRO is hasn’t got the goods.
..
Other newspaper journalists struggled to remember what the topic was
Strangely, despite the evidence being “so overwhelming”, not one newspaper even tries to discuss it. The best Sydney Morning Herald science reporting by Amy Remeikis includes the bizarre climate-science terms: “conspiracy”, “Jew”, and “birther”. Do Jew’s change the weather, or is Remekis just trying a pathetic attempt at character assassination?
Roberts knows that “conspiracy theorist” is the wordsmith-weapon used by those without any evidence. Science-by-denigration won’t save the climate.
Malcolm summarizes the flaws:
PROBLEMS WITH CSIRO’S METHODOLOGY page 30
[The CSIRO]:
- Relied on varied, arbitrary and inconsistent time periods and scales;
- Used periods of varied duration yet ignored earth’s history;
- Showed poor understanding of variation, especially cyclical variation and inexplicably it assumed linear trends for part of data sets;
- Used assumptions based on a presumption that we will see significant impact within a lifetime;
- Grossly misled in not showing the entire temperature data set from 1860;
- Excluded reliable data showing Australia was warmer in the 1880’s and 1890’s and excluded periods that were wetter and with more floods and excluded Australia’s most severe drought.
When questioned about using land-based temperatures from before 1910 despite admitting they were from just a few ships. When questioned about using land-based temperatures only from 1910 onwards CSIRO said that it
omits land-based temperatures before 1910 because they are unreliable, yet CSIRO uses sea-surface.
CSIRO’s graph presented mean temperatures. That shows warming. Yet temperature maximums are
generally considered a better measure of regional temperature variability and shows much less
warming. That reduces the trend to 0.4ºC per century. Further, CSIRO did not mention the included
urban heat island effect.