Jen,

the title needs to be changed. It is a CSIRO & BoM report.

Regards,

David

Thanks David - done!

David's analysis points to an interesting conclusion - if the climate models are that problematical then two possibilities exist:

1. The theory is right but we have the wrong model or,

2. The theory is wrong.

Much like the problems in astrophysics when the space probes, like Pioneer 10 and 11, were 100,000 kms off course - caused by some mysterious force. The Ulysses craft is also misbehaving.

The current solution is to effect ad hoc adjustments the the existing theory (MOND for example) to explain the aberrant probe behaviour.

Empiricists would take a different approach by questioning the theoretical fundamentals.

The problem arises when the journeymen of a scientific profession gain control.

For the non-statisticians among us, the following gives a layman's summary of the validation problems in the CSIRO-BoM Drought report.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7736

"For the non-statisticians among us, the following gives a layman's summary of the validation problems in the CSIRO-BoM Drought report."

It doesn't do anything of the sort. It doesn't explain anything, just repeats Stockwell's claims.

SJT: "It doesn't explain anything, just repeats Stockwell's claims."

In shorrt it's a layman's summary.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7736
Scientists, politicians and public policy
By Ian Castles - posted Friday, 8 August 2008

just filing this here

Just checked out Ian Castles, the author of the layman's summary in the above linked article. He is the former Head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Well qualified to explain, in layman's terms, the findings and concerns raised by David Stockwell.

But Castle's preamble also raises other concerns, especially that uncritical Govt acceptance of the CSIRO BoM Drought Report has policy implications for future drought / exceptional circumstances policy. I am still considering those.

There are laymen and laymen it seems.

Well done David; this puts you in the same company as McIntyre and Koutsoyiannis.

"Well done David; this puts you in the same company as McIntyre and Koutsoyiannis."

The irony, it burns.

I don't think so.

Steve McI just broke Wahl and Amman utterly and irrevocably.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393

The ICCP AR4 Hockey Stick is dead, dead, dead.

Just as the CSIRO&BoM DECR is now dead, dead, dead.

I am the very model of a modern climate scientist,

I can program my computer in a style archaic and diabolical,
I can simulate in Fortran and list in order alphabetical,
I can document my articles using references real and hypothetical
[Chorus explains - in press and preparational]
In short, I am the very model of a modern climate scientist,

For my knowledge of statistics, though I’m plucky and adventury
Has only been brought down to the middle of the century
But still, in matters modeling and simulationist,
I am the very model of a modern climate scientist

Steve; McInyre's efforts are superlative; his comments at 16 sum it all up; the machinations, the ego, the power; none of this will make the msm and the lie will perservere; it astounds me that anyone with half a brain could defend IPCC and the politics of AGW; I don't think there is any science so I exclude that; which brings us to Jenny's latest thread about blogging being at the margins; this is a big scam and right now I think it is still at the 'can fool all the people for some of the time' stage.

Love your ditty; hope SJT doesn't choke on the irony.

Sorry, the ditty was courtesy of Steve McI. I'm nowhere as intelligent and witty - but we strive!

McIntyre reminds me of the creationists. "How do you explain this then." The physical basis is sound, and the 'hockey stick' is not the AGW case. It is only an attempt to explain the context of what is happening. The PCA analysis is still sound, and any body of research is bound to have errors, and what are claimed to be errors but aren't. McIntyres only problem with it was a small piece of the original code. From that he has gilded a magnificent lilly.

From the above linked Online Opinion article by Ian Castles:
“What they say in two short points…- firstly that when it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years, that's the first point.
Secondly, with exceptional circumstances drought conditions, under scenarios within it, that that will occur twice as often, and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included. Now this is a serious revision of the impact of climate change on drought and the Agricultural Minister will make that clear in the report that he releases later today ...”
This CSIRO BoM Drought Report is a political document intended to inform – or direct – policy, especially in relation to Exceptional Circumstances drought assistance. Simply, if it is deemed, by convenient figures, that droughts are going to occur ten times more frequently, then they will no longer be exceptional. That will justify axing Exceptional Circumstances Drought Assistance, and using the money for something more politically fashionable e.g. more research grants for “Climate Change”.

Was that the purpose of the report?