|||

Disclaimer


The projections are based on results from computer models that
involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully
understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted for the
accuracy of the projections inferred from this brochure or for any
person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in
reliance on this information.


And further:


Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they represent
feedback effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud
regimes, biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The
coarse spatial resolution of climate models also remains a limitation
on their ability to simulate the details of regional climate change.
Future climate change will also be influenced by other, largely
unpredictable, factors such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic
eruptions and chaotic variations within the climate system itself.
Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate response to the enhanced
greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot be defined.
Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled out,
these projections should be considered with caution.
||||


Here we have one of the Robo-Liar Bonzo's favourite pieces of copy
and paste.


Like all brazen liars he doesn't think sourcing your stuff is
important. Sourcing your quotes means that people get to consider
their contemporary relevance. This one here seems to be from one
source but actually it's composed of at least two sources.


1. The CSIRO (Australia)


The projections are based on results from computer models that
involve
simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully
understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted for the
accuracy of the projections inferred from this brochure or for any
person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in
reliance on this information.


||||


The CSIRO was and is the lead scientific body in Australia. It is
however a creature of government and accordingly must act in a way
that avoids creating legal liability for government. Just as
governments routinely deny that chemicals such as Agent Orange caused
harm to servicemen, so too they will fight tooth and nail to avoid
admitting anything that causes potential liability. Worse still at
the
time this disclaimer was contrived (1998) the then government was
actively whiteanting action on Kyoto. Since that time, the government
has changed and has now ratified Kyoto. It's telling that Bonzo edits
out the CSIRO in 1998 to turn this into an all-purpose and all-time
disclaimer. John Howard's agenda is apparently to speak (at least in
Bonzo's 'mind') for all other organisations forever -- and readers
aren't supposed to be aware that this was what it was.


This one actually comes from a complex of reports -- one of which was
this:


Climate Change Under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions In Northern
Australia


http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/environme...al.html#Introd...


Here's the proper text:


|||
This report relates to climate simulations based on computer
modelling. Models involve simplifications of real physical processes
that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be
accepted by CSIRO or the clients (the Northern Territory Department
of
Lands, Planning and Environment; Queensland Department of Primary
Industries; Department of Natural Resources; and the Western
Australian Department of Environmental Protection) for the accuracy
of
forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any
person's
interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance of
this report.
|||


But this would not have been what Bonzo wanted so he cherry-picked
it.


And further:


Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they represent
feedback effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud
regimes, biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The
coarse spatial resolution of climate models also remains a limitation
on their ability to simulate the details of regional climate change.
Future climate change will also be influenced by other, largely
unpredictable, factors such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic
eruptions and chaotic variations within the climate system itself.
Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate response to the
enhanced
greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot be defined.
Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled out,
these projections should be considered with caution.


This one came from Dr Peter Whetton, again from the CSIRO


|||
Uncertainties about future human behaviour and shortcomings in
climate
modelling limit our climate change projections to ranges of change
for
some variables, and qualified statements on possible changes for
others. Uncertainties have been quantified where possible, accounting
for future greenhouse gas emissions and model to model differences in
simulating both global and regional climate responses. Greenhouse gas
emissions are subject to uncertainties concerning population growth,
technological change and social and political behaviour. Climate
model responses are most uncertain in how they represent feedback
effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud regimes,
biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The coarse
spatial resolution of climate models also remains a limitation on
their ability to simulate the details of regional climate change.
Future
climate change will also be influenced by other, largely
unpredictable, factors such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic
eruptions and chaotic variations within the climate system itself.
Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate response to the enhanced
greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot be defined.
Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled out,
these projections should be considered with caution


http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2...03.htm?print=1


|||


This is a perfectly reasonable cautionary statement. Taken in context
one cannot object. It's not a backpedal on climate change or the
force
of the AGW-hypothesis at all. IIRC there's a passage in IPCC 2001a
that is fairly similar. It specifically notes that the behaviour of
humans and government policy in the period being modelled affects the
predictive power of the model. Bonzo excises all this and begins at
Climate models because the other part is at odds with the point that
he wants to make - that one can't trust climate models. He can't or
won't give the reference because then people would see him
cherry-picking to make his case.

Dr Whetton would be appalled to find that this claim was being
adduced to deny the integrity of climate change modelling.


Fran