Would You Ask The CSIRO Or The BOM For Reliable Information About Climate Change? UPDATED

By Dr. John Happs ~

This Post Has been UPDATED with extra text at the bottom of the Post highlighted with red text as a heading indicating the UPDATE

Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) started life as the Advisory Council of Science and Industry in 1916 and has long been respected for its innovations in science, such as the Hendra vaccine, Barleymax, polymer heart valves, WiFi, insect repellent, to name just a few of its outstanding achievements. – https://csiropedia.csiro.au/our-top-10-inventions/

Unfortunately, it appears that the CSIRO is fast losing respect when it comes to reporting on climate science with problems starting some time ago when a number of CSIRO scientists actually praised the climate alarm nonsense that was kick-started with Al Gore’s discredited movie An Inconvenient Truth:

In 2006, An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) was released along with Al Gore’s book: “The planetary emergency of global warming.”  Both movie and book received widespread attention. Politicians, environmentalists and elements of the media quickly embraced the global warming creed’s doomsday message and promoted agendas such as taxing carbon dioxide, slowing economic growth, de-industrialisation and unreliable so-called green energy. –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-SV13UQXdk

Whilst the media were quick to promote the alarmism of AIT, it paid scant attention to the later event of October, 2007, when Chief Justice Michael Burton in London’s High Court identified many claims promoted in AIT as having been made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”

Expert scientific adviser, the late Professor Bob Carter, provided evidence on behalf of Stewart Dimmock, the school governor who objected to AIT’s propaganda being distributed throughout the UK school systems.

Chief Justice Burton pointed out that the “apocalyptic vision” promoted by Gore was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. Although Burton ruled that the movie could be shown in UK schools, he added that it must be accompanied by a cautionary statement about the political/ideological nature of the movie. If this did not occur, then screening the movie would contravene an Act of Parliament (section 406 of the Education Act 1996) designed to prohibit the political indoctrination of school children.

Justice Burton pointed to nine of Gore’s claims which he readily identified as inaccurate. These were:

1. Gore claimed that we can expect a sea level rise of up to 6 metres by the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland ice sheets. He implied that global warming and sea level rise were happening and would displace large numbers of people from island nations and locations such as Manhattan, the Netherlands and Bangladesh.

FACT: Greenland ice cores show that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, and Egyptian warm periods, along with other periods were warmer than current temperatures in Greenland with no impact on sea level or the Antarctica or Greenland ice sheets.  Gore’s assertion was easily refuted and Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

2. Gore claimed that low-lying Pacific Islands are being inundated as a result of anthropogenic global warming with island populations being evacuated to New Zealand.

FACT: Again, there is no evidence of significant sea level rise over the last 50 years and no evidence that Pacific Islands are under any threat. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim and statements by the late Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, sea level expert confirmed this:

“The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable.”

http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/04/world-leading-authority-sea-level-absolutely-stable-poor-quality-data-from-office-perps-ipcc-false/#sthash.8LQA9NTu.dpbs

3. Gore claimed that anthropogenic global warming could shut down the thermohaline circulation and move Europe into a new ice age.

FACT: There is no evidence of any weakening of the thermohaline circulation. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

4. Gore displayed graphs showing rising levels of carbon dioxide and increases in global temperature, with the implication that carbon dioxide levels drive global temperature.

FACT: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have never driven global temperature at any time over the last 500 million years. Changes in global temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide levels. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim and numerous peer-reviewed, published papers show that it is global temperature that drives atmospheric carbon dioxide levels:

Petit et al. (1999) analysed 420,000 years of Vostok ice core data and found that, as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon dioxide levels begin to fall is several thousand years.

https://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

Fischer et al. (1999) described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warmed, following a glacial maximum.

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/downloads/carbon-dioxide-atmospheric-warming-kerkin-june-2015.pdf

Monnin et al. (2001) looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600 years.

https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-temperature-who-leads-and-who-follows/

Mudelsee (2001) showed that over the full 420,000 year Vostok history carbon dioxide variations lag temperature by 1,300 ± 1000 years.

https://climatecite.com/wp-content/uploads/Mudelsee-M-The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_420_ka.pdf

Caillon et al. (2003) analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where carbon dioxide rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.

https://co2coalition.org/news/the-temperature-co2-climate-connection-an-epistemological-reappraisal-of-ice-core-messages/

5. Gore claimed that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for snowmelt on Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro.

FACT: Some melting of the Furtwangler Glacier at the summit of the mountain took place more than 125 years ago yet temperatures at the summit never rise above freezing point. Tropical glaciers, such as the Furtwangler Glacier, experience loss through ablation since they are sensitive to changes in air humidity and cloudiness. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

Mount Kilimanjaro

6. Gore claimed that Africa’s Lake Chad had dried up as a result of global warming.

FACT: The lake has been dry on numerous occasions in the past (8500 BC, 5500 BC, 1000 BC and 100 BC) mainly due to over-extraction and changing agricultural practices. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

Lake Chad

7. Gore claimed that Hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans in 2005 resulted from global warming. In fact parts of the city are below sea level.

FACT: Katrina was downgraded to category 3 when it made a direct hit on the levees, which failed as engineers predicted they would. “The city’s flood walls were exposed as ugly monuments to shoddy engineering.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/broken-promise-levees-failed-new-orleans-180956326/

Gore made no mention of the Category 4 Galveston hurricane that struck the Texas coast in 1900, or the Category 4 Palm Beach, Florida, of
1928. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2022/01/16/u-2021-had-the-fewest-glo…nes-in-the-satellite-era-2nd-fewest-strong-hurricanes-since-1980/

8. Gore claimed that polar bears were dying because they had to swim long distances to find ice, which was said to be disappearing due to global warming.

FACT: It is not unusual for Arctic sea-ice to disappear over time, only to rebound.  Despite continued hunting, polar bear numbers have grown from around 5,000 in the 1950’s to more than 25,000 today – the largest number since records began. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim and polar bear expert Dr. Susan Crockford exposed Gore’s lie. See:

https://www.amazon.com/Polar-Bear-Catastrophe-Never-Happened/dp/0993119085

9. Gore claimed that coral reefs are being bleached and lost because of global warming.

FACT: Strong El Nino events will lead to coral bleaching but there is no evidence to show that global warming has had negative impacts on coral reefs, with ample evidence to show that coral reefs are very resilient. Gore’s assertion was easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.

https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/corals-are-doing-ok/

It could be argued that Chief Justice Burton was far too generous in his criticisms of AIT, since many more of Gore’s errors can be identified and just as easily refuted. These include statements such as:

100 ppm of carbon dioxide leads to the difference between a nice day and having a mile of ice above your head;

Ice melt leads to the sun heating the Arctic Ocean; the Arctic is heating faster than the rest of the planet;

A record number of typhoons impacted Japan in 2004;

Carbon dioxide is pollution; atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will exceed 600 ppm by 2050;

In 2003, global warming caused the European heat wave and killed 35,000 people.

Gore also asserted, without evidence, that:

Global warming is producing stronger hurricanes;

Insurance claims are increasing due to more extreme weather events;

Flooding in Mumbai is increasing;

Severe tornadoes are becoming more frequent;

The Greenland Ice Sheet is becoming unstable;

Himalayan glacial meltwater is declining;

Glaciers are disappearing around the world;

The Sahara Desert is drying and expanding;

The West Antarctic ice sheet is becoming unstable; Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up;

Mosquitoes are reaching higher altitudes;

Many tropical diseases are increasing, with West Nile virus spreading throughout the USA.

Gore and other alarmists rely on the generally low level of scientific literacy in the public and (especially) amongst politicians to promote their unsubstantiated views. In fact, each of the above claims made by Gore can easily be checked in the scientific literature to show they have little substance. There are numerous rebuttals for each of Gore’s claims:

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

And:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/2/why-objectivity-and-honesty-not-politics-must-driv/

In An Inconvenient Truth, science is discarded and replaced by scaremongering and pseudoscience:

A number of scientists have demonstrated how An Inconvenient Truth is one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative and just bad science. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of climate science would have to agree and we would surely expect scientists at Australia’s CSIRO to identify and point out the many errors in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

So how did CSIRO climate scientists and other “climate experts” respond when, in September, 2006, Liz Minchin from The Age invited a number of our “best and brightest” to preview AIT and rate its scientific merit out of five.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/an-inconvenient-truth-or-gores-opportunism-you-decide-20060909-ge33m6.html

Dr. Penny Whetton, CSIRO’s Climate Change Impact and Risk leader, was fulsome in her praise for the Australian scientists who had advanced awareness of greenhouse gases, and she was just as enthusiastic about Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.

Whetton said:

“I was really quite moved, and given that this film was about a topic I deal with every day, this says something about how powerfully it communicates its message. Its scientific basis is very sound.” Rating: 4.75 out of 5

Liz Minchin then asked Dr. Michael Coughlan, head of the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology. He said:

“The science was generally solid, if simplistically treated. It was a bit long, but it was well produced and it kept my attention. 4 out of 5

Liz Minchin then asked Dr. Kevin Hennessy, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group who said:

“The only minor quibble I had was that Gore implies that most of the climate trends and recent extreme events are due to human activities. It’s not quite that simple … But easily the best documentary about global warming I’ve seen.”  Rating: 4.5 out of 5

The next reviewer was Dr. Kathy McInnes, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group who said:

“There were bits and pieces that were glossed over … But I was surprised by how accurate the science was overall.”  Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Minchin then asked Dr. David Jones, Head of climate analysis, National Climate Centre. He responded:

“There were a number of simplifications but at no time did I feel that he was moving outside the climate science knowledge envelope.” 4.9 out of 5

Then came Dr. Graeme Pearman, former CSIRO Director of Atmospheric Research. He said:

“By and large, I didn’t feel that the presentation overstated what we can say based on current scientific knowledge.”  Rating: 4 out of 5

When Minchin asked former CSIRO Climate Impact group leader Dr. Barrie Pittock for his opinion and rating, he seemed entirely satisfied, saying:

“It is technically brilliant, remarkably accurate and up to date, and should be palatable to a wide audience.  Rating: 5 out of 5

Remarkably accurate? Sound scientific basis? The science was generally solid?

Frankly, I found the above responses from scientists most embarrassing and I’m left wondering if these CSIRO and other “climate experts” actually watched the same movie I did. Anyone who knows anything about climate science and compares Gore’s version of climate science with the literature will quickly recognize climate alarmist nonsense.

There was no empirical evidence pointing to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) when Gore’s movie was released in 2006 and there is none today, despite the questionable process and findings of the political/ideological Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsements from the CSIRO and BOM.

Why then is the notion of CAGW still promoted by the CSIRO, and why would any of its scientists assign any credibility to the IPCC?

Edward Ring pointed to the problem:

“For over 50 years, with increasing frequency, corrupted, careerist scientists have produced biased studies that, amplified by agenda-driven corporate and political special interests, constitute a “consensus” that is supposedly “beyond debate.” We are in a “climate crisis.” To cope with this climate emergency, all measures are justifiable.”

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/23/the-corruption-of-climate-science/

In 2016, CSIRO head Dr. Larry Marshall said in an email to staff when announcing the restructure that the question of climate change had been “proved” and it was time to refocus on solutions to it.

That would be news to the tens of thousands of scientists who have signed petitions rejecting climate alarmism.

A scientist such as Larry Marshall, with a background in laser technology, making such a comment about the complex and inter-disciplinary area of climate science, is questionable at least.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/brandis-questions-climate-change-science/8bcl1bq1k

Fortunately, not all CSIRO scientists were convinced about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and Jo Nova (2017) noted that:

“Leaked emails from 2015 reveal a bitter dispute within CSIRO, Australia’s leading science body, as management tried to prevent top scientists from breaking ranks before the Paris climate summit.”

And:

“Critics say these tensions between CSIRO management and scientists are a symptom of ongoing self-censorship by an organisation fearful of offending government and losing funding.”

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/abc-pushing-suppressed-scientists-story-but-misses-that-csiro-wont-even-employ-a-skeptic/print/

It appears that significant CSIRO funding comes from federal, state and local government agencies, underwriting a policy of pursuing climate issues from a warmist perspective. This has helped fund unvalidated, wildly wrong computer-model projections of more frequent droughts, global-temperature increases and sea-level rises, all conveyed with unjustified alarmism and with none of those dire predictions proving to be correct.

Atmospheric scientist Dr. David Packham, a former principal research scientist with Australia’s CSIRO, wasn’t at all surprised about the CSIRO bias, saying:

“I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question … research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse-data gathering. There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence.”

Atmospheric physicist Dr. Garth Paltridge was a chief scientist with the CSIRO’s Division of Atmospheric Research. He noted the bias:

“They (CSIRO) have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science.”

Paltridge added:

“The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done.”

https://judithcurry.com/2012/06/22/science-held-hostage-in-climate-debate/

Former CSIRO Chief Scientist Dr. Art Raiche commented on the coercion:

“We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.”

http://galileomovement.com.au/blog/?p=54

A senior CSIRO environmental economist, Dr. Clive Spash, resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was censored. Spash had been in a dispute over the publication of his paper which criticised carbon trading schemes.

Spash submitted his paper to the UK journal New Political Economy in 2009 but the CSIRO contacted the editors, telling them the paper was being withdrawn because it had not been approved through internal CSIRO processes. Dr. Spash said that CSIRO managers maintained they had the right to ban the paper. He resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) had been censored.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/australian-government-allegedly.html

A 2006 ABC Four Corners interview between former CSIRO scientist Dr. Graeme Pearman and reporter Janine Cohen revealed some interesting insights into CSIRO culture. Here is an extract from that question and answer interview:

• The Federal Government provides the majority of the funding to CSIRO; has that compromised the organisation in recent years?

• There are times when it does.

• How were you pressured not to talk about climate change?

• Well, I was actually told that I couldn’t engage in the group but at that stage it was pretty late and in fact publications had already been prepared and so I was told what I could and couldn’t say publicly.

• And what were you told?

• I was told that I couldn’t ah say anything that indicated that I disagreed with current government policy and I presume that meant Federal Government policy and as I say, I tried to reiterate that in fact the document that we had prepared, any public statement that I made, was a partisan statement and that it did not refer to any particular government.

• Did you feel compromised?

• I was definitely compromised and it was probably only because I was in the latter stages of my career that I could handle, I could see that a young scientist placed in this position in the earlier stage of their career would probably have to roll over.

• Were you restricted from talking publicly about emission reductions in general?

• Yes, I was. I think it’s an organisation, it’s a CSIRO that is very afraid umm that there may be consequences to their bottom line if they in fact are seen to be interfering with umm government policy.

• Is there pressure to have only scientific results that deliver economic results?

• Yes, lots.

http://classicbackissues.australasianscience.com.au/bi2006/273Browse13.pdf

A number of scientists from the CSIRO are involved in the production of reports by the political/ideological Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as contributors and reviewers. It seems that the CSIRO is quick to offer support for the IPCC process and its findings, despite ample evidence showing how both are seriously flawed:

https://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

And:

https://www.amazon.com/Frozen-Climate-Views-IPCC-Analysis/dp/B0C735HFL3

Endorsing and promoting integrity in science should be the goal of anyone practicing or teaching science at any level. Yet we appear to have the blatant politicising of science by vested interest groups such as the CSIRO, the IPCC, various environmental groups and, of course, individuals such as Al Gore with his green investment portfolio:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/03/11/book-details-al-gore-quest-t…come-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire-profited-off-climate-lobbying/

And:

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/04/save-the-world-get-biggest- investment-op-in-history-of-world/

And:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#7cf2460032dc

 

We know that several CSIRO scientists have contributed to the IPCC climate reports, including  Kevin Hennessy, Roger Jones, Penny Whetton, Ian Watterson, Barrie Pittock, Bryson Bates, Nathan Bindoff, and Mark Howden.

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2021/August/IPCC-Climate-Change-2021-The-Physical-Science-Basis

See also:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis, was published on 9th August 2021.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/06/Fact_sheet_AR6.pdf

Williamson (2012) provided a detailed assessment of the CSIRO’s lack of impartiality and noted:

“It is readily seen, from a deep and extensive study of the scientific and political literature, that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has been seriously compromised – particularly with respect to climate science and the notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).”

And:

“CSIRO climate publications more closely resemble political activist pamphlets, rather than rounded and independently assessed scientific publications.”

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/CSIRODecline-Print-2.pdf

Both the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and CSIRO claim to play an important role in monitoring, analysing and communicating observed and future changes in Australia’s climate.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/documents/State-of-the-Climate-2020.pdf

Many IPCC contributing scientists come from government agencies and a number of universities such as the University of East Anglia, the home of the scandal-ridden and discredited Climatic Research Unit (CRU):

https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf?mibextid=S66gvF

With reference to the CRU, Dr. John McLean observed:

“The Climategate emails pulled back the curtain on a cabal of scientists who “hide the decline”; select a small subset of, in one infamous instance, tree ring-data that supports their claim while ignoring a broader base of survey findings; conspire to have scientific journals’ editors sacked, and discuss how to stall and stymie perfectly legal Freedom of Information requests. As those emails showed, the climate cabal even expressed joy over the death of a persistent critic.”

 https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/03/global-warming-killing-scientific-integrity/

Dr. Julie Arblaster from the Bureau of Meteorology was one of the authors of the IPCC’s 2007 report and was a Lead Author in 2013. Dr. Pandora Hope, a BOM research team leader, was also an IPCC Lead Author.

Dr. Scott Power from the BOM was an author of the IPCC WGI report and the IPCC WGI-III Synthesis Report.

I wonder how many people remember the BOM’s Dr. Bertrand Timbal forecast in 2009 when he said:

“It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming.”

And:

“In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

https://www.smh.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html

In 2011, the BOM declared that Australia had the third-wettest year on record. Rainfall was well above average in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Victoria experienced record rainfall, while the Murray-Darling Basin experienced its third highest summer rainfall on record. Australia’s mean rainfall total was 699 mm – some 234 mm above the long-term average.

Perhaps Timbal and others from the Bureau of Mythology Meteorology should stop forecasting declining rainfall following the new 24 hour record established on the 24^th February when 146.8 mm fell at Lismore airport, and more followed:

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2022/08/bom-buries-record-daily-rainfall-during-lismore-floods/

This is the same Bureau of Meteorology that has come under close scrutiny over its questionable Australian temperature data handling. As Dr. Jennifer Marohasy points out:

“In 1996, the bureau began transitioning from measuring temperatures using mercury thermometers to using platinum resistance probes connected to data loggers. At a small number of weather station some comparative data was recorded into meteorological books, as hand written entries. It has never been made public. As I see it, they don’t want to transcribe the manually recorded measurements, lest they betray a high level of incompetence, if not malfeasance.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/07/the-coronation-the-guardian-temperatures-misinformation-part-2/

And:

https://joannenova.com.au/2022/11/the-australian-climate-is-fine-but-the-state-of-the-csiro-and-the-bom-is-a-crisis/

For more than 40% of the time, the probes were recording temperatures that were higher than the mercury thermometers with one probe at the BOM’s site at Brisbane airport reported a temperature that was 0.7^oC higher than the mercury thermometer.

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) reported:

“The reason why the discrepancy is so significant is because the BOM has, in the interim, made several sensational claims of temperature records being broken at its stations, all the while comparing temperatures recorded using probes with historical temperatures recorded using mercury thermometers.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTJw_-sjO4

We also know the BOM has claimed that the number of very hot days in Australia (days over 40^oC) is increasing whilst ignoring temperature data (now recovered) from 1910 showing no overall trend in the average number of very hot days:

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the-bureau-of-met-disappears-very-hot-days-graph-showing-the-most-hot-days-in-1952/print/

When will administrators and scientists at the CSIRO and BOM admit that, uncontaminated satellite temperature data show no significant global temperature rise, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase? In fact, the Earth has not undergone the extreme warming predicted by computer models:

The IPCC is a political/ideological offshoot of the United Nations and has been committing scientific malfeasance since its inception in 1988, with over 100 instances documented:

https://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

Unfortunately, neither the CSIRO or BOM will acknowledge this. Neither will they tell politicians and the media that:

Sea level rise has not accelerated dramatically as predicted by climate alarmists:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/new-paper-finds-no-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise/

And:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/31/sea-level-rise-hockey-stick-or-roller-coaster/

No ocean is even approaching a pH of 7 (neutral) with no prospect of becoming acidic:

https://co2coalition.org/publications/ocean-health-is-there-an-acidification-problem/

And:

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2015-Cohen-Happer-Fundamentals-of-Ocean-pH.pdf

The numerous predictions of Arctic summer ice disappearance by “experts” such as Dr. Peter Wadhams, have all proved to be spectacularly wrong:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/ed-hawkins-mocks-peter-wadhams/

And:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/31/arctic-ice-a-cold-reality-check-for-climate-alarmism/

Predictions of the disappearance of snow by “experts” such as Dr. David Viner, have proved to be spectacularly wrong:

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2021/02/15/that-laughably-wrong-climate-prediction-is-now-21-years-old/

And:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/02/22/snow-depth-trends-revealed-from-cmip6-models-conflict-with-observations/#more-56295

Predictions of the disappearance of glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020 proved to be spectacularly wrong:

https://climatethetruth.com/2022/11/11/its-2022-and-glacier-national-park-still-has-glaciers/

And:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/20/to-shrink-or-not-to-shrink-that-is-the-question/

The prediction in 2007 by Dr. Tim Flannery that cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains since global warming had caused “A 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” proved to be spectacularly wrong.  No surprise there!

http://www.wernercairns.com/2011/04/australian-governments-human-scarecrow.html

And:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/flannery-washed-out-in-perth/news-story/dce43bec13c5610492502d78c226c50e

Numerous peer-reviewed, published papers confirm that we are currently experiencing a stable climate with fewer intense storms, hurricanes, droughts, floods and wildfires:

https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/08/25-new-papers-confirm-a-remarkably-stable-modern-climate-fewer-intense-storms-hurricanes-droughts-floods-fires/

And:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9

Will the administrators and scientists at the CSIRO and BOM ever admit that there is no climate emergency when more than 31,000 scientists, including geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists, signed the Oregon Petition to say there is no climate emergency:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Will the CSIRO and BOM ever challenge the climate alarmism for which there is no empirical evidence?

The late Dr. Robert Carter doubted that, saying:

“Last week saw the release of a CSIRO report card entitled Marine Climate Change in Australia, and a Climate Commission Report The Critical Decade – Victorian climate impacts and opportunities.”

And:

“Both reports contain a maximum of self-interested spin and a minimum of sound science or assessment, and they continue as advisory agencies with the now ingrained habit of telling the federal government what it wants to hear about the global warming issue.” 

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2012/08/a-bumper-week-for-climateers/

Former Chairman of the ABC, Maurice Newman summed up the ongoing problem:

“There is a bigger issue at stake here than the vanity and credibility of politicians and climate scientists. It is the damage already done to science and the scientific method by demonstrated false claims and alarmist predictions which have failed to come true.”

(The Spectator, 24^th March, 2012)

Sadly, it looks as if the false claims and alarmist predictions will continue to flow from the CSIRO since we are told:

“The Board of Directors of CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, has appointed Professor Doug Hilton, AO, as Chief Executive, commencing on 29 September 2023.”

In an interview with Greens Leader Adam Bandt, biologist Hilton made clear his position, saying:

“Climate change is man-made and the evidence is overwhelming vs the climate change sceptics relying on fringe science. How do you get to the point where journalists are sophisticated enough to be able to say “we don’t have to give equal air-time?”

Presumably the “fringe science” he refers to comes from the more than 1,000 peer-reviewed, published papers that support skeptical arguments against catastrophic, anthropogenic climate alarmism:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

So, will Doug Hilton’s move to the CSIRO be seamless?

Roger Franklin answered that question, saying:

“Yes, Professor Hilton, you’ll fit right in.”

https://quadrant.org.au/csir-oh-dear/

Presumably, if the alarmism were to disappear from the CSIRO and BOM then so might some of their government funding.  After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Shame on any organisation that places self-interest above the integrity of science.

UPDATE

The latest Summary for Policymakers report (AR6, August, 2021) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has met with severe criticism from many scientists that do not have a vested interest in promoting climate alarmism.  As predicted, AR6 warned us of the impending doom that awaits us whilst ignoring the many ridiculous failed climate predictions over the last 40 years or more.

The 36 page report not only ignores the many failed “climate doom” predictions, it conveniently ignores facts such as:

The addition of more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has a decreasing impact on global temperature.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature at any time over the last 500 million years.

Global temperature precedes carbon dioxide levels as warming oceans release carbon dioxide.

IPCC computer model predictions have proved to be spectacularly wrong.

Tens of thousands of scientists have signed petitions to say there is no climate emergency.

Not surprisingly, despite decades of ill-founded green policies, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise, demonstrating how only negligible amounts of carbon dioxide come from human activity.

Critiques of the AR6 report can be located here:

https://clintel.org/statement-clintel-new-ipcc-report-provides-little-objective-basis-for-policymaking/

And:

https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/10/ipcc-enters-into-thin-air-german-scientists-ipcc-in-a-hopeless-situation-stained-scientists/

Dr. Judith Curry points out:

“The IPCC focuses on “dangerous anthropogenic climate change,” which leads to ignoring natural climate change, focusing on extreme emissions scenarios, and cherry picking the time periods and the literature to make climate change appear “dangerous.”

https://judithcurry.com/2023/05/13/clintels-critical-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-ar6/

Dr. Nir Shaviv comments:

“Many climate scientists are under pressure to produce alarming reports. There is such a large climate industry that people need to publish things that show a large effect [from man-made emissions], or they don’t get grants. The IPCC’s scientists are not looking at all the evidence.”

https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/08/29/scientists-rip-un-ipcc-report-mits-dr-richard-lindzen-demonizing-co2-is-just-crazy-ignore-the-climate-crisis-dr-nir-sha

Perhaps we should ask those scientists from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) who contributed to AR6 if Shaviv’s comments are correct. The list includes:

CSIRO contributors to AR6 include:

CANADELL, Josep G.

GROSE, Michael

HAVERD, Vanessa

HEMER, Mark

HENNESSY, Kevin

KRUMMEL, Paul B.

LENTON, Andrew

MARSLAND, Simon

MCINNES, Kathleen L.

McVICAR, Tim R.

SAVITA, Abhishek

STAVERT, Ann

BOM contributors to AR6 include:

COLMAN, Robert

HOPE, Pandora

MCGREE, Simon

STEINLE, Peter

TREWIN, Blair

*****

Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years.

John has published the following books:

Climate Change: A Politicised Storm in a Teacup.

Climate Change: How Politics and Self-Interests Have Debased Science.

Tagged: BOM (Australian Bureau Of Meteorology), Climate Change Hypocrisy, Climate Change Lies, CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), Dr. John Happs

Posted in: Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Leftists (In the USA a.k.a. as Liberals-Progressives-Socialists-Communists) Usually Democrats, Propaganda