Understanding Climate Risk

Science, policy and decision-making

CSIRO climate research cuts: Statement by concerned scientists

leave a comment »

The following is a statement prepared by a group of climate scientists in response to the recent announcement of cuts by CSIRO. It was released today at lunchtime by scientists attending the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 2016 Conference.


We strongly believe that the proposed cuts to CSIRO (announced 4/2/16) will seriously undermine Australia’s capacity to respond to the challenges posed by climate change.

Some 100 positions are to be cut in CSIRO’s Ocean and Atmosphere Flagship as part of 350 lost positions across the organisation. This will cripple CSIRO’s climate research.

Australia is a continent surrounded by rapidly changing weather patterns, connected to a rapidly changing global climate. We have already learnt a great deal about our region’s climate, but urgently need to improve our understanding in important areas. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Roger Jones

February 8, 2016 at 5:26 pm

CSIRO cuts to climate science are against the public good

leave a comment »

Roger Jones, Victoria University

CSIRO (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) is facing another round of job losses to basic public research, with the news that the organisation is making deep staffing cuts to areas such as Oceans and Atmosphere and Land and Water. Internally, there are signals that Oceans and Atmosphere will be cut substantially, amid 350 job losses over two years across the organisation.

In a letter to staff, CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said:

CSIRO pioneered climate research … But we cannot rest on our laurels as that is the path to mediocrity. Our climate models are among the best in the world and our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change. That question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it, and how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Roger Jones

February 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm

A message from our sponsor

leave a comment »

Dear All,

in a devastating blow to the 97% of deluded climatologists who continue to pull the wool over their own eyes, human-induced global warming has been disproven…

Empirical evidence disproves, no less! What ho! Egads! Science crumbles in the face of such devastating analysis. There are so many zingers here that Bill Shortninbread should look out.

And now, read on… Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Roger Jones

August 25, 2015 at 10:39 pm

Bishop takes us for mugs and insults China

leave a comment »

Yesterday, Julie Bishop said this in a statement:

The Chair of the Climate Change Authority, Mr Bernie Fraser, released a statement on 14 August noting that China’s emissions would increase by 72 to 96 per cent above 2005 levels by 2030.

The Australian Government disputes these figures.

China’s 2030 target will allow emissions to increase by around 150 per cent from 2005 levels when calculated on China’s national currency.

In saying that, she obviously thinks Australians are idiots, the press will report anything without examining it and the Chinese are a shifty lot who are intent on fiddling the books. Read the rest of this entry »

Pell hoists himself on his own logic

with one comment

We have been waiting for Cardinal George Pell to comment publicly on Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’ because it professes pretty much the opposite to Pell’s public omnipotence on all things climate change.

Speaking to the Financial Times in a story on his reform of Vatican finance, Pell says this:

“It’s got many, many interesting elements. There are parts of it which are beautiful,” he says. “But the church has no particular expertise in science . . . the church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters. We believe in the autonomy of science,” added Cardinal Pell.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Roger Jones

July 19, 2015 at 1:28 pm

Is the Chief Scientist’s recent science & economy report really pseudo-science?

leave a comment »

Fairfax journo Gareth Hutchens has an article in today’s Herald with the headline:

Australia’s scientists forced to rely on pseudo-science to be taken seriously in Canberra

Well, it is April the first.

Hutchens has a go at the recent Chief Scientist and Australian Academy report: The importance of advanced physical and mathematical sciences to the Australian economy (pdf). They engaged the Centre of International Economics to conduct an economic analysis that used the MMRF-NRA computable general equilibrium model to estimate the impacts of a number of input assumptions on the contribution of the physical and mathematical sciences to the economy. The report estimates that the direct contribution of the advanced physical and mathematical sciences is
equal to 11% of the Australian economy (about $145 billion per year). Along with the direct contribution, the report estimates additional and flow-on benefits of another 11%, bringing total benefits to just over 22% (around $292 billion per year).

I felt I had to defend the report, which is not perfect but necessary (I think I also agree with the headline). In doing so I find myself in defence of CGE economic models (which I can’t quite believe I’m doing). Basically, Hutchens reckons that by engaging with an economic consultancy and an economic model, the Chief Scientist and Australian Academy of Science have prostituted themselves (my words) to the same economic lobbying that everyone else in Canberra uses to argue for government support. Here’s my response posted to the comments of the article (slightly edited – doesn’t seem to have made it through, either):

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Roger Jones

April 1, 2015 at 9:17 am

New IPCC report: busting myths, both scientific and economic

leave a comment »

New IPCC report: busting myths, both scientific and economic

By Roger Jones, Victoria University

The headline statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new Synthesis Report – unequivocal climate change, almost certainly driven largely by humans, and an urgent need to cut emissions – won’t come as any surprise to people who paid attention to the three larger reports the IPCC has released over the past 14 months.

But reading the full synthesis report, as opposed to the shorter Summary for Policymakers (SPM), shows that while the facts haven’t changed, the IPCC has subtly altered its approach to how it presents this information. Instead of dealing largely in forecasts and responses, as in previous syntheses, it now frames the climate problem squarely in terms of risk management.

Not everything of importance in the full synthesis report made it into the SPM. The language in the SPM is also weaker, particularly about the nature of irreversible risks and about threats to food security. The full report contains valuable pointers for managing climate risks and the benefits of acting, so should be preferred for decision-making purposes.

The report is also great for debunking some of the persistent myths about climate change, both scientific and economic. But, unfortunately given the urgent need for new economic policy to cut carbon, it’s stronger on the former than the latter. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Roger Jones

November 3, 2014 at 4:06 pm


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 576 other followers