In a public statement reflective of the changing mood among world climate experts, Australia’s pre-eminent scientific body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has refused to attribute a decade of drought in the Australian island state of Tasmania to man made climate change. As reported by Rosslyn Beeby, Science and Environment reporter of the Canberra Times yesterday, CSIRO says ''the jury is still out'' on the science.
The stand has infuriated green lobbyists desperate for some good news to rescucitate their cause from what appears to be fatal woundings inflicted by the Climategate scandal and at the political disaster of the Copenhagen Summit. However, Australian sceptics are poised to stab again at the heart of the floundering green goliath with evidence from none other than the Australian Meteorological Magazine (AMM), the country’s pre-eminent climate publication that wholly substantiates CSIRO’s neutral stance on this issue.
While the battle still rages among politicians over EPA (cap and trade) in the Australian Parliament
sceptic analysts have been perusing the ‘the handbook’ of Aussie climatologists, the Australian Meteorological Magazine’s publication and have found ‘Updating Australia’s high-quality annual temperature dataset’ [AMM; 53 (2004) 75-93]. This peer-reviewed paper proves that Australian climate scientists themselves cannot be certain about the facts on climate change in their nation. The paper vindicates the stand of CSIRO by admitting that climatologists plugged numerous gaps in the Australian temperature data records by using subjective methods rather than facts. Moreover, the report admits they are finding fewer reliable records and have nothing older than one hundred years to indicate any climate change trend. The magazine goes on to say,
“Unfortunately sixteen of the original records were found to have closed with no potential candidate station available to continue the record. Also, due to a decline or reassessment of data quality, 81 stations were removed from the dataset.” (Press et al. 1996).
One of CSIRO’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was ''no evidence'' linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.
''At this stage, we'd prefer to say we're talking about natural variability. The science is not sufficiently advanced to say its climate change, one way or the other. The jury is still out on that,'' Dr Post said. Thus confirming what is known to be the case by the current generation of Australian scientists and what Australian Meteorological Magazine was forced to concede. AMM said, “Some records contain many years in which annual mean values were estimated. Often this amounted to more than twenty contiguous years of estimated data.” Thus it would appear to be utter folly, without evidence, to blame human carbon dioxide emissions for the decade-long Tasmanian drought despite water availability in northern Tasmania's premier wine growing region having dropped by 24 per cent.
Just like climatologists at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit, at the University of East Anglia, their Australian warmist counterparts have also had to admit that they ‘fudged’ the data to build their case for global warming. Sceptics are denouncing the ‘trick’ known as ‘homogenisation’ whereby climate scientists, not in possession of the facts resort to guesswork. AMM admit that,“The decision of whether or not to correct for a potential inhomogeneity is often a subjective one.”
But Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown, has ignored such admissions from climate experts and immediately gone on the offensive. He has accused CSIRO of ''caving in to political pressure'' to soften its stance on climate change in the lead-up to this year's federal election. He points out that more than 80 per cent of Tasmania's river catchments have been affected by drought, with the South Esk the island's longest river and source of water for beer production most at risk.
''We should ask why CSIRO is prepared to turn an unaccountable blind eye to recent climate trends in Tasmania. This undercurrent of scepticism would seem to suggest the report has been politicised,'' Senator Brown said.
Climate sceptics have long accused environmental alarmists of trumping up natural climate variation to attribute a man made influence. Sceptics will say that Mr. Brown may be guilty in this case or is perhaps unaware of the Australian Met. Office conclusions that,
“The subjectivity inherently involved in the homogeneity process means that two different adjustment schemes will not necessarily result in the same homogeneity adjustments being calculated for individual records.”
In other words the science that allegedly ‘proves’ man made global warming is little more than ‘GIGO’ (‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’). CSIRO’s critics will be well advised to look again at what Australian climatologists have admitted to. In no way in this corner of the globe can it be inferred from the data that the science of man made global warming is ‘settled’.