"It is still my hope that the authors of the report will defend their work, as good scientists should."

...and the silence of deafening. I wonder why that might be.?

Come no bigmal, you know damn well.

Much as most of these people know they have to comply with K RUDD's instructions for their report, they don't like actually lying, particularly personally, in public.

The one I know has signed up to do dentistry next year.

bigmal: "...and the silence of deafening. I wonder why that might be.?"

Not quite silent - I think I hear the quiet whisper of climate change deniers' credibility deflating, possibly drowned out by the sound of ice caps and glaciers collapsing, or the clink of fossil fuel industry money that funds the denial 'research'.

Ian Castles write for the Lavoisier group, whose mission to sabotage policies that might fix climate change.

"The sources of funding for the group are not public, but it has links to many groups that have until recently been funded as part of the the Exxon Mobil Climate change denial campaign."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavoisier_group

That mission has largely failed.

Nobody is their right mind is going to waste their time reading this article that attempts to look like a science paper - written here presumably because there is not even a remote possibility that a climate science journal would accept it.

I"ve never written anything for the Lavoisier Group, Sams. On several occasions I've been glad to agree to requests from that Group (and from other organisations) to publish papers of mine that have been published or presented elsewhere.

Sams comments are typical of the global warming advocates. No rational, scientific arguments just ad hominem attacks. Perhaps he should read Professor P. Stott's article on "Cognitive dissonance" at his "Global Warming Politics" blog.

you gotta be kiddin are'nt you, sams. We already saw this episode last week - the one where you were belted out of the ring and here you go with the same rubbish. (Here's one of your little hints for you: why don't you actually say somethign?) You say "this is a policy discussion, not a science forum." so why dont you? or are you an astroturfer?

I can't see how Melbourne's decline in rainfall this century in relation to its climatic average fits in with your ascertain " was a median decline of 4 per cent, with the middle half of the distribution ranging from minus 13 per cent to plus 4 per cent ".

This year Melbourne has received 2/3 its climatic rainfall year to date , which is more than it received last year or the year before. The rainfall pattern over the whole of Victoria is just as dire. Or was 1990 a statistically dry year?

My garden and the Melbourne street and park trees say that your ascertains are wrong, Ian Castles.

Hasbeen: "Much as most of these people know they have to comply with K RUDD's instructions for their report, they don't like actually lying, particularly personally, in public. The one I know has signed up to do dentistry next year."

Sounds like you have more information on this issue Hasbeen. You can contact me via my website at http://landshape.org/enm. In particular, do you know anything about an earlier report that was sent back for rewriting?

I wonder how BoM and CSIRO are going to explain away the 2008 snow depth as recorded by Snowy Hydro, the best in twenty years.
It can't be all because of cloud seeding.
Though the alarmists do tend to believe models as apposed to actual observations.

The Bom and Csiro's guilded representatives must be paying significant insurance coverage for their misdirected fiction, considering past and current long range weather forecasting results supported by empirical research which are available to both but gladly never quoted in support of their nefarious projections. The distinction between science and politics has been lost in a rush for political flavor,fame & cash jackpots where players are rewarded for their principled obstructionism (insert precautionary principle)to stalemate action which does not suit their masters voice/choice.

"This year Melbourne has received 2/3 its climatic rainfall year to date , which is more than it received last year or the year before. The rainfall pattern over the whole of Victoria is just as dire. Or was 1990 a statistically dry year?"

What, exactly is your point? Melbourne is one of the few Australian stations with a long record. There have been runs as dry as the present as far back as the 1850s. The driest year on record was 1967, which is well before the supposed "global warming" scare. What does 1990 have to do with anything? FYI it was marginally below the long term average.

Wong and Rudd misrepresent climate science? What's new? Ms Wong did a great job of sidestepping questions put to her on Lateline the other night. According to her, it's the opposition's fault the Murray-Darling has dried up, plus IPCC projections of "less rainfall by 2050". What bearing this dodgy document has on 2008 is anyone's guess. I would have though over-allocation of water upstream was the most important factor, allied with drought (as if that's anything new).

The politician's dream is being realised! Tax the air we breathe(Carbon tax) and the water we drink (via charging much much for water than it costs to deliver).
In the 1st of Decemeber 1982 the storages on the Murray were empty. by the 31st they were full. I was on holiday in Mildura and they had opened the lock gates and the Murray was flowing straight through them as it was so high.
The rush is on before the inevitable deluge hits us and then lets hear the squeals from the Greens about climate change.

Get over it Ian, your view is not shared by the people that matter, the parade has past you by. I really don’t understand why OLO keeps posting these silly diretribes, they belong with the anti-Aids, anti-evolution, creationist, flat earther piece on some wacko website in the US.
Take this as a fine example, the author calls Penny Wong a liar, then admits she has just slightly paraphsed the report, but that it doesn’t matter because he thinks the reports is crediable anyway.
Maybe there is a good reason he is the former Head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics..

Corncob:
"Take this as a fine example, the author calls Penny Wong a liar, then admits she has just slightly paraphsed the report, but that it doesn’t matter because he thinks the reports is crediable anyway.
Maybe there is a good reason he is the former Head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics."

Ms Wong is a liar, and and as a statistician, well, there's the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics". She had no "statistics" available the other night on Lateline, just a load of waffle.

What are your scientific credentials that allow you to dismiss those who question "AGW theory" as "flat earthers"?

I've noticed a funny thing lately: many people are loathe to believe a Bureau forecast for two days hence yet take as gospel an IPCC "forecast" for 40 years into the future.

Ian Castles: "I've never written anything for the Lavoisier Group, Sams. On several occasions I've been glad to agree to requests from that Group (and from other organisations) to publish papers of mine that have been published or presented elsewhere."

Yes, I'm sure you were very glad.

hotair: "No rational, scientific arguments just ad hominem attacks."

Good heavens, surely you must realise that:

"The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Re: rational, scientific arguments: this is not a science journal, it is a policy discussion. If you want a rational scientific argument, perhaps you should go an read a peer-reviewed climate science journal or two, or even contribute to them.

cornonacob: "I really don’t understand why OLO keeps posting these silly [diatribes]"

There is obvious bias on the selection of OLO articles. What about the huge headlines we were getting in the daily email updates advertising the deniers' conference while everyone else is is in small print??

Sorry Davids, no can do.

I think the BOM, & CSIRO are gambling a bit on history, with these rainfall predictions.

How many of you know of the barrier reef cores, taken about 35/40 years ago now. They gave information of runoff in the lower reef area, well before AGW was invented. In fact, they go back to the days when our mate Cook, was cruising our waters.

I'm a bit hazy on the figures now, & far too old to "google", but in the early 1700s there were periods of drought, drier than we have seen, which lasted for 27 years.

When I saw these figures, in the late 70s,I think, I wondered if Queensland, & the nation would be able to survive if/when these conditions return.

Of course, if they do, it will have to be AGW causing them, won't it? As I said, I think they are on a reasonably safe bet that their predictions will come to pass, some time, & we will all be too interested in survival to worry about our carbon foot print.

>Sorry Davids, no can do.
OK Hasbeen. You have my address. Cheers

Billie, I suppose you’re the same person who asked whether the Lavoisier Group paid me $20,000 for my previous article (‘Scientists, Politicians and Public Policy’, 9 August, 5:32:04 PM)? The answer is No: I’ve never received any money from Lavoisier for any purpose. I don’t understand the relevance to this discussion of your statements about Melbourne’s rainfall last year and this year. My point was about the IPCC’s projections for average rainfall in southern Australia in 2050, not mine. If you disagree with those projections you’re disagreeing with the IPCC, not me. I agree with John Zillman’s view that the question of how climate change will manifest itself at the national regional and local level is ‘completely unanswerable’.

Cornonacob, you say that I’ve called Penny Wong a liar. I haven’t and wouldn’t. I pointed out that, contrary to her statement on Lateline, the IPCC did not say that a reduction of rainfall of around about 25 per cent should be expected in southern Australia by 2050. Their median estimate is for a reduction of 4 per cent by 2080-2099. If you think that the Minister’s statement was correct, please provide a quotation from the IPCC Report and a page reference. If you think that my statement is incorrect, please provide a quotation in support of this from the IPCC Report, and a page reference.

Sams, You tell me that this article ‘attempts to look like a science paper.’ I certainly wasn’t making any such attempt. It is an opinion piece in which I discuss views that have been put by Ministers on television programs, and statements made in various official reports. Of course there’s not even a remote possibility that a climate science journal would accept this article, nor is there a remote possibility that I would submit it. If you have a contribution to make to the discussion on my opinion piece, please make it

And still no answer to the authors perfectly reasonable request ..

The conclusion is obvious, its just more CSIRO/CMAR bias and beat ups.

Who cares if some have already gone and done dentistry or whatever.

We would all be better off if they went and got real jobs that added real value to the community,rather than the destructive nonsense being peddled by people with too many toys and not enough common sense.

They could even try and read some history books as well.Now that would be enlightening for the poor dears.

McKellar is one,Ruth Park is another and then work backwards from that.

Typical; another succinct article by Castles, and the only criticisms he receives are the usual ad hom. Warwick Hughes has been revealing the dearth of accurate forecasting by BoM for years; John McLean ditto for CSIRO; Wendy Craik has written 2 reports on the MDB noting that current conditions are not historically exceptional; David Stockwell has shown the CSIRO Exceptional Circumstances report has the usual model predictive ailments; these institutions have been politicised. IPCC is much more interesting; at a time when Mann has tried to revitalise the wretched Hockey-stick, and following the discraceful Ammann and Wahl debacle, the fact is you can still find all you need to refute AGW in AR4; for instance FIG 6.10 clearly establishes the MWP and repudiates Mann's concoctions; FIG 7.3 of AR4 conclusively shows that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a natural process, and, combined with DOE data, also shows that anthropogenic CO2 cannot have an atmospheric life of more than a couple of years.

As a corollary to the above I note that Tim Curtin has been banned from Brook's blog for out-arguing him on these very points. As I say, typical; AGW is now bereft of scientific validity; all that is left is censorship and ad hom.

cohenite: "As I say, typical; AGW is now bereft of scientific validity; all that is left is censorship and ad hom."

There are just a few that disagree with you, such as the national science academies of every G8+5 nation, plus a cast of many more:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, CSIRO, InterAcademy Council (IAC), the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, International Union for Quaternary Research, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), American Statistical Association, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association of State Climatologists, The Network of African Science Academies.

Yes, thanks for reminding me SAMS; as well as ad hom and censorship, AGW is upported by 'consensus' bully-boy condescension and exclusion; so what if some clapped-out, pusillanimous, 'independent' organisations have toed the company line; what you can't understand is that IPCC was never formed on a basis of ascertaining whether the AGW thesis of anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming was correct or not; it was set up on the basis that AGW was a fait accompli and thereafter to act as a conduit for the apocalyptic ramblings of hansen et al; that it has degenerated into an obfuscating, contradictory mess is indicative of that; and again, I repeat, its supporters, like you, are systemically incapable of responding in an open transparent way to criticism.

Sams,

One could go through your list and raise doubts about many on it.
1. The Russian Academy (Putin) would be on-side because they are not going to give up on the massive carbon credits they can sell to the dopey Europeans as well as selling them oil and gas.

2.If these Academies where truly interested in the common good, and not the lowest common denominator they would do something about the flawed state of peer review for one.Just peruse this site for one eg.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/04/role_of_blogs_in_communicating.html

3.Many have vested interest in other ways, eg the Institutes of Engineering can see massive amounts of work for their members coming out of this.This is despite many of the their membership also being publically active in expressing serious and well founded doubts, eg W Alexander of South Africa.

4. Many of the organisations you have listed to puff up your list, actually dont have a common view. I bet NASA in general is not too pleased with Hansen, nor CSIRO with the CMAR.

5. How do you handle the credibility issue when most on your list have also backed Gores AIT, without qualification. Here is a total fraud with only a high school certificate,(peer reviewed no doubt) producing a great tome supported by these academies, and organisations, that has made him incredible rich. Not bad for a tome that has 35 major errors and is still being used as his "prospectus", ----and with the support of the same people/organisations on your list.

"Yes, thanks for reminding me SAMS; as well as ad hom and censorship, AGW is upported by 'consensus' bully-boy condescension and exclusion; so what if some clapped-out, pusillanimous, 'independent' organisations have toed the company line"

So you think that the key science organisations of the entire developed world are "clapped out" and involved in some global conspiracy. When you take a close look, that is the essence of what every AGW denier's arguments boil downs to.

It is interesting to note that these are the same sorts of arguments that the Flat Earth Society use: despite vastly overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they will continue along with their warped theories and try to undermine the validity every scientific organisation that refutes them, often with some vague and absurd conspiracy theory. The holocaust deniers use similar tactics as well.

Yes, a succinct and beautiful article. Ian has primarily, and simply, compared the governments comments with the IPCC's own words, but negative contributors here (Sams, cornonthecob) seem quite unwilling, or unable, to read it for what it is, and respond. billie does, but in a lapse in comprehension, attributes the IPCC's words to Ian, and finds himself inadvertently doubting the very organization that tops Sams' list. Beautiful.

Sams, your quote from wiki comes under the domain of informal logic (a post-modern invention of the 70s by the looks), as ad hominem attacks, according to the entry, are fallacious and “always invalid” in formal logic. If the credibility of the ‘witness’ is your basis for judgment, rather than the content, then one might begin by suggesting that someone who publishes under their own name, and whose qualifications and career are on the public record, is more accountable than someone who uses a pseudonym like yourself. (You may wish to address this by giving your name and position.)

Such would not be the case using purely formal logic, where anonymity has no bearing, but as you choose the former, you render yourself impotent: ‘informally’ there is no basis to judge the value of your ad hominem attacks; ‘formally’ they are invalid.

In fact, you switch inconsistently between the two ‘modes’ to suit your agenda. Eg, you accept the truth of Ian’s corrective statement about not writing for Lavoisier in order to make another ad hominem attack: “Yes, I’m sure you were glad.” But you don’t acknowledge your original statement, which ipso facto, you have accepted as untrue. An honest person would acknowledge the mistake/falsehood, and perhaps even apologise. (The wiki entry mentions the critique of Massey, who says that informal logic "requires detailed classification schemes to organize it, whereas in other disciplines the underlying theory would provides (sic) this structure. He maintains that there is no method of establishing the invalidity of an argument aside from the formal method, and that the study of fallacies may be of more interest to other disciplines, like psychology...")

Sadly, beyond all this, no one seems terribly concerned that farmers and graziers may be making decisions on their livlihoods, in an already harsh land, based on these misrepresentative statements - hopefully, this wasn't part of the "terror" Dorothy McKellar was writing about.

Ian an excellent article on what is a very serious issue. It's unfortunate that we are served by politicians who see themselves as "saving the world" but appear to be clueless when it comes to actual facts.

As well as David Stockwell's critique of the the CSIRO's Exceptional Circumstances report readers of this thread should be aware of the following paper by D. Koutsoyiannis et al "On the credibility of climate predictions / De la crédibilité des prévisions climatiques" Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671

Abstract:
“Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”

Bottom line: climate models have no predictive power, in precipitation & temperature, at least at the local level.

For 3 different blog discussions on this paper see: -

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3361

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/08/koutsoyiannis-vs-realclimateorg.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/

Thanks Geoff and Fungochumley.

I was surprised at Minister Wong’s claim that the IPCC’s expectation was for a 25 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern part of Australia by 2050. This doesn’t square with the Panel’s finding that ‘The percentage JJA [i.e., winter] change in 2100 under the A1B scenario for southern Australia has an interquartile range of minus 26% to minus 7%’ (Chapter 11, WGI report, p. 900).

And even this statement turns out to be wrong – the correct range is minus 20% to minus 4% (Table 11.1, p. 856). The IPCC authors inadvertently quoted the corresponding ‘% precipitation bias’ (Table S11.1, Supplementary Information, p. SM.11-5).

The Chapter was the product of 2 Coordinating Lead Authors, 15 Lead Authors and 40 Contributing Authors, and was reviewed by a small army of experts and government representatives. It is part of a Report that is billed as ‘probably the most scrutinised scientific document in the world’ (Stephen Schneider onOckham’s Razor, ABC Radio, 18 May). And these key figures were transcribed from the wrong table.

The interquartile range for the projected change in ANNUAL precipitation in the 21st century in ‘South Australia’ is –13 to +3%, implying that at least 5 of the 21 global models in the IPCC’s Multi-Model Dataset project show an INCREASE in rainfall. And the median projected change is 4% by the end of the century - a far cry from Senator Wong’s claim that the Panel’s expectation was for a 25% reduction by 2050.

CSIRO’s grimmer projections from a sub-set of the models that are supposed to perform well under Australian conditions seem to me to be implausible. But in any case, what do they mean in the context of the IPCC’s overall assessment? The projected median decreases in rainfall for the ‘Southern Europe and Mediterranean’ and ‘Caribbean’ regions are 12%. Is it all right for the Italians, Spaniards and Jamaicans to produce independent assessments of their future climate, based on their own favoured sub-sets of the IPCC’s ensemble of models?

Apparently the answer is ‘Yes’. This is beyond parody.

fungochumley: "Sams, your quote from wiki comes under the domain of informal logic (a post-modern invention of the 70s by the looks), as ad hominem attacks, according to the entry, are fallacious and “always invalid” in formal logic."

Had a good laugh at this. Saying that informal logic looks like "a post-modern invention of the 70s" is like saying gravity is a post-modern invention of the 70s.

You are *using* informal logic all the time. Science uses informal logic extensively. Everybody does.

"[Informal logic] is the study of arguments as presented in ordinary language, as contrasted with the presentations of arguments in an artificial, formal, or technical language (see formal logic)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

We do not use formal logic here, a mathematical field that deals with looks like this:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Formal_Logic/Sentential_Logic/The_Sentential_Language

This is why the argument "you can't prove anything" is not valid for denying climate change, unless you are going to try to prove everything from mathematics.

Sams, rule 1 of the online forum is to keep responses on topic, so although I could respond to your strange comment about gravity, I fear it would only be following your avoidance away from the content of the article, which, as I said, you seem quite unwilling or unable to respond to, despite Ian's invitation to do so.

Alas, I WILL try a mathematical approach:

Penny Wong's statement of the figures (a) IS NOT EQUAL TO the IPCC's (b).

It's really quite black and white. That you cannot distinguish between the two is not something I feel I have the time or the duty to help you with here.

Of course, Ian goes further, but let's not stretch you, although it seems many lesser people who have read the article haven't had such difficulties. The article is attracting significant public attention - one comment at a major newspaper blog says it should be compulsory reading for every journalist in Australia.

As I also said, your "informal" pseudonymous ad hominem attacks are impotent, as we have no basis on which to value them against those whom you smear (Ian summarises his credentials in the commentary to his previous article here on 08/08/08 - not responded to by Sams), but if perhaps what you are trying to say is that - if not you - then we should at least place our trust in organizations like the IPCC, which heads your list, then I would have thought you would be slightly concerned that our government is misrepresenting their figures. !?

Is this a sound basis for policy on the supposedly "most challenging issue faced by humanity"? You repeatedly say this is a policy forum, so may I suggest that if you cannot, or will not, address the content of the article, that you proceed to another thread and stop wasting time and space here - two concepts that I would have thought you, as a former physicist apparently, would have the utmost respect for.

fungochumley: "You repeatedly say this is a policy forum, so may I suggest that if you cannot, or will not, address the content of the article, that you proceed to another thread and stop wasting time and space here."

Of course, you may suggest it, even if ever so shrilly. However, I will continue ignore your advice and continue to keep posting my responses for the benefit of other readers. Not much you can do about that I'm afraid.

Seems you are yet another regular member of the pro denial team hiding behind brand new alias (since you bring up old threads that happened before your account was created). I guess I can't stop you from doing that either.

Last time I analysed one of Ian Castles articles, and put evidence in his face that he was completely wrong, he just kept repeating that he was right, and the I was "picking on him" (awww ...), so on that count I won't waste my time again. In fact, I didn't even read most of this current article, because I can predict its is going to be a crock, based on the experience of his other articles. Frankly, I have better things to do. However, it is still constructive to respond to the other posters in the thread and post background information about the author - just in case anyone with a shred of intelligence makes the mistake of taking him seriously.

Thank you for the article, Ian. I have not seen a similar analysis anywhere else, and it is very useful information.

So that'd be nothing from you then, Sams? OK, thanks.

Sams: 'so I'll just keep .....blah blah blah
Why waste our time? You have nothing interesting to say. PLEEEESE stop being boring.

Q & A,
I'm hoping you'll see this msg here as I've reached my limit at Lawson thread. Thank you, I did accept your wishes as sincere. Don't know how you thought I hadn't. But then I often don't understand your interpretation of comments (such as those of IanC here). All the best.
PS. I agree with Froggie's comment on Sams's ageism. His true colours are on show to all.

I'm yet to see anyone counter the points made in this article, which seem quite straightforward and well referenced, primarily that the govt is misrepresenting the IPCC's own science. It is not a climate science paper for a journal, but a clear and concise article on the govt's misrepresentation. No one seems terribly concerned, except, of course, our farmers. Just the usual ad hom smear from the usual suspects, who defensively read it as an anti-AGW threat, and can't respond to what is written. Why do they comment at all?

Thank you Ian on a well argued article. I wish politicians would start taking notice of people like you rather than just blindly believing the IPCC.

Speaking of blindly following, Sams in a previous post mentioned the Institution of Engineers Australia as a supporting body to the notion of global warming. As a fully paid up member of that group, I can advise other readers that the "support" is by no means by popular vote or peer review amongst the members, rather, the support has been unilaterly forced upon us by the management team. (Sound familiar? IPCC maybe?).

In the Institutions magazine, there are starting to be more letters to the editor requesting a more balanced approach to reporting on the science behind global warming, but the Hanson-esque type managment don't want a bar of it - they are signed-up, life member believers!!

I often wonder how many other learned institutions that "support" AGW have been railroaded by a management that does not represent the views of its members? - or have based their opinions solely on the IPCC reports, in which large cracks are forming almost every day?

Andrew S,

Thank you for your comment. Please see my post on the 'Poor countries' media must tackle climate change' article (OLO, 24 September).

Thanks Ian. I read the post you mentioned. "Sams" must be running out of ideas!

To give you an idea of the stance the Institution of Engineers are taking, here is a link to a media statement from the Institution.

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=582952C5-DB22-FEAC-FF46-2C59513EFC92&siteName=ieaust

The media statement basically says that the science of AGW is settled, Ross Garnaut is correct, so lets just get stuck into making Australia a low carbon economy (Which would be quite good for us engineers anyway - so there could be some vested interest there!)

However, Ross Garnauts report relies heavily on the IPCC report(s), which in turn, is based on inaccurate computer models and the whole report is looking dodgier every day.

What annoys me though (apart from having no say in the media release) is that as engineers, we are generally sceptical by nature and are always questioning and requiring proof for understanding and believing a concept, yet we seem to have rolled over completely on this matter!

If I produced a computer model that beared no resemblance to reality, (such as the IPCC models), I'd lose my job, or worse still, go to jail if an item I designed, based on a computer model, caused financial loss or in the worst case, injured or killed someone. Yet our friends at the IPCC can cause countries, such as ourselves, to risk our economy and completely change the way we live, over computer models that have not even predicted the downward trend in temperatures over the last 10 years. This really calls into question their scorching predications over the next century.

Keep up the good work. I think one day, there are going to be some very red faces! (And it won't be from high temperatures!)

Andrew S: "The media statement basically says that the science of AGW is settled"

Thanks for the link, but why chose to reinterpret the statement when you could have more easily just quoted from it:

"There is no more time for further debate about the remaining scientific uncertainties about climate change for formulating policy objectives."

To reinterpret that statement as "the science is settled" is dishonest.

Here is more:

"The overwhelming scientific observations and research that have established climate change as real and highly dangerous for generations to come is the catalyst for effective mitigation policies."

"Climate change will not wait for the convenience of policy makers, and the longer Australia and the world wait before implementing decisive action, the more difficult the problem becomes and the more difficult will be the action necessary."

Thanks for your comments, Sams, however, I feel you may be nit-picking.

The entire media release never once questions the validity of AGW, or calls for more research into whether AGW is a real problem, before we commit to completely changing our economy. IEAust have simply fallen into line behind Garnaut. As a minimum, I would expect such a scientific body to at least question the AGW science before throwing their full support behind Garnaut. (Remember, Garnaut is an economist, not a climate scientists).

I agree that the word "settled" is not expressly stated in the media release. However, neither are the words "need more proof", or "need for debate", or similar such statements. It seems their position is "settled" to me.

If this misled other readers, I appologise. I was certainly not trying to be dishonest.

Sams, the Institution of Engineers Australia base their support for AGW on the Garnaut Report, which in turn is based on the IPCC report. To include IEAust in your cut and paste list of "scientific" bodies that support AGW can also be construed as dishonest, since there is no climate reasearch or peer reviews done by IEAust. IEAust have simply joined the conga-line.

Also, if you don't believe that the IEAust are whole heartedly behind AGW (as you post suggests), then they definitely should not be on your list of supporters.

Either way, I suggest you remove IEAUST from your list before you cut and paste it in future. They are certainly not climate scientists and they are clearly followers, not leaders.

(It mightn't be a bad exercise for you to go through the other scientific bodies in your list to see how they arrive at their support - I bet the acronym IPCC comes up a lot).

Regards.

I don't know why you list engineering institutes and the Langley Centre anyway, Sams. I thought you only cared about "climate" scientists who publish in "peer" reviewed climate science journals. Some inconsistency there, I think.