Col_Rouge I doubt you have ever worked with a computer model that's any more complex than a mortgage brokers financial plan for low-doc customers, or may be you are the architect of the superannuation funds data base.

There is a world of difference between financial modelling and the climate modelling.

Is the Lavoisier Group paying the author $20,000 for this article?

Ian Castles wrote: "You should extend the argument further again, Sams. The proper place for 11 Australian scientists to have reported the findings of the first study of its kind in Australia was a peer-reviewed journal."

Firstly, I thank Ian Castles for endorsing my argument and providing a surprisingly easy endgame for this debate.

Let's revisit my point again:

Me: "the proper place for scientists to report that scrutiny, assessment and validation (or not) is in the relevant peer-reviewed journals, in this case the journals of climate/atmospheric science.".

That would include, would it not, the papers that the report draws upon for its conclusions (referenced in the report) such as:

Mpelasoka, F Hennessy, K., Jones, R. & Bates, B. "Comparison of suitable drought indices for climate change impacts assessment over Australia towards resource management." International Journal of Climatology (2007)

and several others *by the authors of the report*. Yes, these people are respected climate scientists with a considerable bibliography of published material in top-tier climate research journals. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same of David Stockwell and his one-man anti-climate change lobby blog. Couple this with the report being prepared by 11 different scientists, across two organisations, and I'd say that the peer-review safety net is firmly in place. Ian Castles, by his own argument, has cast doubt upon Stockwell's findings and on his own judgement of what constitutes good science.

Sams, You say that Mpelasoka et al, International Journal of Climatology (2007) is one of 'the papers that the [DEC] Report draws upon for its conclusions …'

No it's not: if you'd read the Report, you'd have discovered that Mpelasoka et al (2007) is explicitly cited therein as one of six 'previous studies ... that have NOT adequately done this analysis' (p. 13, third sentence, emphasis added). And if you'd checked the reference you'd have found that the citation in the DECR is wrong. The citation there, reference 25, isn't to Mpelasoka et al - it's to Bates et al (2007): 'Effect of GCM bias on downscaled precipitation and runoff projections for the Serpentine catchment, Western Australia.'

I went through all this, and much more, in my post #35 of 27 July on the 'CSIRO: A Limited Hang Out??' thread at Climate Audit. I thought you'd have known of the error, especially because Andrew Bolt linked to my post at CA in his piece 'Dud studies behind Rudd's freakish claims' on 5 August. Don't you read these blogs?

You say that 'the peer-review safety net is firmly in place' and pour scorn on David Stockwell's blog. Perhaps you didn't notice that David's critique of the DECR cites Botkin et al, 'Forecasting the effects of global warming on biodiversity' 'BioScience' 57(3):227-236, 2007? And that he (David) was a co-author of that paper? And that David Hilbert, principal research scientist and officer in charge at the CSIRO Tropical Forest Research Centre in Queensland was also a co-author, as was Chris Marguks, leader of the Tropical Landscapes Program of CSIRO's Sustainable Ecosystems Division?

The author notes to Botkin et al identify David as 'a research scientist working jointly at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara ... and the San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of California-San Diego.' And he's the author of 'Niche Modeling.' In my view his credentials to review the DECR are more than adequate, and his critique warrants a response from the Report's authors.

With climate changed being so politically charged, and having such a huge effect on future policy, it should be subject to greater scrutiny than other scientific publications.

If as the author suggests, that the models used do not even meet the simplest test of matching past results, this should be a cause of great concern and should cast significant doubt on the predictions.

However, as I generally have a fair amount of faith in the CSIRO, I would be loath to write off their analysis, but their reluctance to release their core assumptions is worrying, and I would certainly like to see the brief on which they worked.

This issue with climate, not unlike the all important cosmological issue, has for myself become such an interesting study in human behaviour. Both go deeply to all questions and the problems that really prepossess all others. As an unexceptional lifeform we need to know where we came from, what are the limits, what are our goals, to what do we tend to, to what do we have control over, to what are the possibilities, to what is determinable and to how much we desire the indeterminable. In this respect we need to be concerned about purposeful behaviour which is the control of input variables. Our behaviour does not come from the stimulus-response model nor the cognitive science model because behaviour is the CONTROL of perceptions.

It is our connected control of perception that creates purposeful behaviour like a will to truth driven by a curiosity as well as an altruism and the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived as well as the will not to deceive. My question is why should we allow some vested interest, or cult of high priests or some arrogant designer try to codify their domination by seeking to take over our control of perception and substitute their fake model of the world?

As an example of how a fake model can take over, consider high priest Einstein who considered that empty space is a possibility, then postulated this "mystical matterless motion" oxymoron along with this next bit of nonsense called curved space. Like how can anyone, even myself fifty years ago, be expected to believe that "nothingness" exists, that everything in the vast expanse of the known universe came from "nothingness" and the clincher, that this "nothingness" is curved even though it contains nothing at all. This major regressive philosophical move by Einstein has been detrimental to physics ever since. Very simply, if scientists are not interested in causality as with much of Einstein's work, then they are not scientists. With climate we see similar faulty, initial assumptions.

Ian Castles: "You say that Mpelasoka et al, International Journal of Climatology (2007) is one of 'the papers that the [DEC] Report draws upon for its conclusions. No it's not"

On the contrary, it is, unless perhaps you don't understand the academic process. The role of this particular reference is to highlight a gap in the coverage of previous studies. There are several other references by the report's authors to choose from if for some reason you don't like that one, but really you are just grasping there.

Ian Castles: "Andrew Bolt linked to my post at CA in his piece" ... "Don't you read these blogs?"

So Andrew Bolt is your other source of "scientfic" information is it? The fact that you give credence to Bolt's dribble I find highly amusing, but confirms my suspicion that you will hold valid any piece of garbage that happens to agree with your prejudices. The front page today of Bolt's blog is replete with before and after pictures of Amy Winehouse, ridiculing her appearance. Do you care to comment on that as well?

No I don't read Climate Audit either or any other amateurish crank blog that comes along. The tin-foil hat club might enjoy that sort of thing, but I simply don't have the time to waste.

Ian Castles: "Perhaps you didn't notice that David's critique of " ..

Perhaps you don't understand the term "climate science" (here's a clue: its not biological science). What I asked was where is David Stockwell's list of publications in peer-reviewed *climate science* journals?