ANSWER 1

Written response:

The range of locations where data is being collected from varies with each study, but for marine species changes for example, there is a constant backbone, thanks to the efforts such as the group who leads the Reef Life Survey (https://reeflifesurvey.com/), but other elements pop in and out as projects and resources allow (Australia is a big country so constantly monitoring all of it is beyond what is currently possible). Some of the additional locations have come from new science projects, but also from community members via Redmap (https://www.redmap.org.au/) where anybody using the marine environment can share information and help science understand which species are possibly moving due to climate change, Fishers are also sharing critical information via the FishSOOP project (https://www.frdc.com.au/fishsoop-solving-ocean-data-issues). So it’s a bit of a group effort to pull the threads together around Australia. For each type of data or suite of projects, there are always checks made to ensure that if researchers are using different data sources or locations over time, they factor that into the analysis and the findings.  

Some of the sampling technology has not changed over time (e.g. divers swimming transects), but in other cases more sophisticated information and methods are being , trialled and added as they are found to be reliable – such as acoustics, satellite data (for ocean colour, which tells us about plankton) and using new and more powerful computer processing to work up the data. When new data sources are brought into mix we again conduct a range of checks to ensure that we understand how the data sources might differ, and what we can legitimately say with each of them (this is part of what leads to some of the uncertainty you mention in your question!)).  

Now to the second half of your question. Science is not a “one and done” kind of job, especially as the world changes with climate change. Scientists figure things out based on what has happened in the past (the data previously collected) and what’s happening now (the new data). From that they can make a pretty good estimate of what is coming, but its not perfect there will be surprises. Sometimes the surprises are large and some times small. Either way science has to update its understanding as surprises occur. So as scientists we stand by what we say and the process we used to get there. However, it would be dishonest to say the information is going to be perfect, so we have to be clear on what we don’t know yet. That is at least some of the disclaimers you might have seen. There is another form of disclaimer, which might have generated your query. Scientists live and work in a society where legal actions are a real thing and we often work for large organisations, such as Universities and the CSIRO who have legal arms. Given our uncertainty and the fact people have sued organisations in the past when surprises occurred it is a requirement of our legal department that extra legal disclaimers go on. We appreciate the frustration but it is a sad reality of the world we live in. If you ever have specific queries about how trust worthy the science is, how confident (how certain) scientists are on a particular point, or whether there have been recent surprises please do just reach out. Scientists in general do like to be helpful and are often happy to help explain things.