CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology were set up to apply the best science to their research areas. I am sure that many readers will get lost in the subtle reasoning of Dr Ian Castles that the climate models don't have 100% confidence levels but the REPORT FINDINGS ARE PROBABLY CORRECT.

Billie “REPORT FINDINGS ARE PROBABLY CORRECT”

Not if the modeling is faulty.

I have been developing commercial computer models for over 25 years.

I know how faulty they can be but I also know how they can beguile an uninvolved observers.

The history of climate modeling is relatively short yet littered with the skeletons of failed models.

The history of economics is far longer, centuries compared to decades and we still lack a reliable “model of a national economy”, let alone a “global model”.

I could explain the reason for this but will not bore you

Wilson, one time prime minister of UK and economics lecturer used to use coloured water to ‘model’ the outcomes of monetary policy, great, he would have also benefited from being a plumber.

“Report findings” can only be based on the data collected and if that data has been processed through a climate model, the findings are probably as correct as the model

And that means they are likely to be crap.

One thing certainly a lot worse than making no decision is to make a decision based on faulty reports reliant on faulty or poorly processed data.

Like the article says “It is truly unfortunate that the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology did not undertake a prior evaluation of the models used in the first study of its kind in Australia in order to ensure that those models were able to reproduce the past situations that were relevant to the study.”

= CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology Sloppy amateur modeling the output of which is not worth a rats.

R. Castles: "The report’s findings were accepted without question by the government and by most commentators"

This throw-away comment is rubbish.

R. Castles: "However, Dr David Stockwell, author of Niche Modeling and host of the Niche Modeling website," ...

Pretty website, but ... but let's see his publications in peer-reviewed climate science journals where they can be debated/debunked by real climate scientists. Am I right that he is a biologist, not a climate scientist. Does he have any publications in peer-reviewed climate science journals? I don't think so.

Its one thing to launch attacks from a nice little blog that seems to exist purely to carry on climate change denial lobbing, its another to take on qualified climate scientists in peer-reviewed journals. Since Dr. Stockwell has chosen to former over the latter, one wonders at the veracity of his conclusions.

There have been other criticisms made of the CSIRO's report from highly qualified sources. A major concern however was the refusal of that organisation to publish the backup data until pressured over a considerable period from international websites, including those of eminent climate scientists. And this is not the first time there has been refusal to publicly to release backup and source data by climate researchers who fit into the alarmist category. The sheer arrogance of this action and the increasing attempts of AGW proponents to shut down debate are something we should all be concerned about. The more evidence that becomes available to debunk the IPCC's claims and the more scientists who shift camp from being AGW believers to being doubters, the more strident the proponents become. Cognitive dissonance is clearly becoming a factor. Maybe there is a case for the psychologists to become involved.

Sams, i laugh when you say "... to launch attacks from a nice little blog ..." and when you yourself are quite prepared to refer people to wicked pedia as your reference for climate alarm. However your alarm may be more valid if it shifted from climate and focused on the alarming state of what passes for science ...... particularly in OZ.

Your wicked pedia link in your recent post in the previous thread here, was to treat this fraud of the hockey stick graph as simply a controversy or even worse as nothing more than a dispute. Do you think people are completely stooopid? M Mann and co's attempted revision of the last millennium's climatic history with his "hockey stick " chart and hypothesis with its obvious "in house peer review" process, was accepted by the blinded climate alarmists lock stock and barrel "for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear."

Most IMPORTANTLY, this was not some harmless oversight or mere mistake that can be brushed off. It says everything about the delusional alarmists and more accurately, the shonky and political IPCC with its enforced consensus mindset. This old fashioned worship of authority cannot work anymore for the IPCC because on this one issue we see an eclipse of reason and total loss of all credibility on climate as well as what they understand as "science".

I simply want good honest science getting the available tax payer funding not some bogus alarmism rorting the system and destroying the careers of especially young promising people entering the profession. We need to focus on hard science projects with open accountability processes. Honest science is all about discovery and it should be no surprise that the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

malrob: "A major concern however was the refusal of that organisation to publish the backup data"

Having worked as a academic in universities in the past, I can tell you that these days they are over-the-top about intellectual property rights. This control is exerted by the university bureaucracy, rather than by the individual researchers or research teams, and seems to have been the delaying factor in this case. Deniers have seized on this, and reinterpreted it it as 'censorship' in shrill voices, but rest assured the source of the problem was most likely red tape.

malrob: "Maybe there is a case for the psychologists to become involved."

I wish they would. I'm sure they would have much to say on the twin topics of denial and paranoia.