CSIRO Advice Poisoned by Fear: Garth Paltridge

“I HEAR on the scientific grapevine that CSIRO’s biggest problem when providing formal advice to the federal Government on the matter of climate change is to say nothing that can be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the army of irresponsible sceptics out there who are doubtful about the dreadful consequences of global warming.

One can only feel sorry for the Government. Where can it go these days to get unbiased advice on the issue of global warming? Its official sources are poisoned by the fear among many scientists that they may be labelled by their colleagues and by their institutions as climate-change sceptics.

Basically, the problem is that the research community has gone so far along the path of frightening the life out of the man in the street that to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general. And so, like corpuscles in the blood, researchers all over the world now rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by any idea that threatens the carefully cultivated belief in climatic disaster.

Garth Paltridge
Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow,
Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies,
University of Tasmania”

Republished from The Australian

85 Responses to CSIRO Advice Poisoned by Fear: Garth Paltridge

  1. Jeremy C May 31, 2008 at 12:07 pm #

    Hmmmmm. I was at a lecture on climate change by an Australian scientist the other week who had also been one of the lead authors on a section of the last IPCC report. He didn’t seem frightened or cowed to me, quite the opposite. So, during the question time, I asked him if he saw CC as a religious thing and instead of a guilty and furtive look crossing his face he just laughed….

  2. Ianl May 31, 2008 at 12:29 pm #

    I had wondered briefly how many times this must be said:

    That climate changes is not in doubt. That the activities of homo sapiens are now the overwhelming causes of change is the issue

    It doesn’t matter how many times that is said, people who ask pointed questions are labelled as climate-change deniers

    The disingenuousness, the intellectual dishonesty, of this is patent. So people who ask pointed questions have to do it away from the “meeja”, lest they are burnt at the stake

    I agree with Paltridge – the horses are now so frightened that Scientific Method (ie. self-correction through testing predictions, back analyses etc) cannot be gainfully used in public.

    This is the result (and not at all unpredictable) of throwing science to the populist media in order to gain political support.

  3. Lord Creepo May 31, 2008 at 1:02 pm #

    LOL – I was also at a presentation in recent days by CSIRO on climate change to a wide audience and they were most candid about various science issues.

    Didn’t see much religion / fire and brimstone either – something about climate science seemed to be the point.

    And audience reaction was mixed with many with a quick random vox pop reaction of “well it’s very complex difficult stuff – really relevant to water resource issues – risks either way – are we doing enough on this issue – we’ve progressed a lot – we haven’t progressed at all – hey I read on the internet …. right through to the extremes of utter crap versus urgent need to act”

    But alas noone seems alarmed or hysterical afterwards.

    Perhaps the grapevine story was a plant? Don’t you love this stuff? The art of the plausible deniability. Did they say it or not. All depends on your world view and receptivity doesn’t it.

    If sceptics were serious – they’d be seeking more formal engagement with CSIRO and BoM instead of sniping from the sidelines and running conspiracy theories. Now that there is a highly organised “International Climate Science Coalition” – of some substance we’re told –
    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ so surely inter-organisational dialogue is possible.

  4. wes george May 31, 2008 at 3:09 pm #

    Odd, how Jeremy and the creep bring up the topic of religion (with “guilty and furtive” LOL included.) Funny that, I don’t see a word about religiosity in Paltridge’s statement.

    Hmmm.

    Me thinks the Church of the Latter Day Warming protestith too much.

  5. Denialist Scum May 31, 2008 at 3:13 pm #

    It might be useful to go back and actually read the lead article.

    In spite of Lord Creepo’s ranting, it’s not necessarily a criticism of the CSIRO – it’s a (valid) criticism of the manner in which the government interacts with the CSIRO.

    But I disagree with Paltridge’s comment that “one can only feel sorry for the Government”. Bollocks! It’s up to the government to show leadership on the issue – not look for a smokescreen to hide behind.

    Interesting, though, how defensive all the Climate Scientologists get when they perceive that they are under attack.

  6. Lord Creepo May 31, 2008 at 3:51 pm #

    Weak as water guys … Wes, this blog is littered with denialist mega-rants on AGW religiosity. Might one suggest that any government might look to its science organisations for advice on science matters.

    Reality gents is that sceptics aren’t really sceptics at all – it’s all just a matter of creating super-uncertainty to fog out any possibility of doing anything about anything. The olde tobacco tactics. It’s pure political theatre. If sceptics are serious (which they’re not) engage with CSIRO and BoM more formally. Won’t happen. Our research organisations can’t rationally engage with mavericks and egotists.

  7. wes george May 31, 2008 at 4:09 pm #

    Is that perchance Holy Water, Lord Creepo?

    “Our research organisations can’t rationally engage with mavericks and egotists.”

    maverick |ˈmav(ə)rik|
    noun
    1 an unorthodox or independent-minded person : a free-thinking maverick.
    • a person who refuses to conform to a particular party or group

    heretic |ˈherətik|
    noun
    a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
    • a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

  8. Graeme Bird May 31, 2008 at 5:33 pm #

    They’ve all got to be sacked and the premises closed down. Once you are telling the man what he wants to hear you are not a scientist any more.

  9. Ianl May 31, 2008 at 7:32 pm #

    Quote:

    “If sceptics are serious (which they’re not) engage with CSIRO and BoM more formally.”

    Unhappily for you, I do quite frequently, especially the CSIRO geophysicists and geologists. They have much the same comments as Paltridge.

    Sad … they really don’t like zealots like Creepo. I can understand their viewpoint.

  10. Louis Hissink May 31, 2008 at 7:32 pm #

    Lord Creepo obviously has little experience with guvmint science, otherwise he would not be blithe.

  11. Lord Creepo May 31, 2008 at 7:53 pm #

    Unhappily ? And was that especially or “only”. Funny how most geologists are outraged eh? Probably feel left out. Who says I’m a zealot. On here if you’re not a rabid denialist, I guess by definition you’re a zealot.

  12. Louis Hissink May 31, 2008 at 8:22 pm #

    blithe (bl, blth)
    adj. blith·er, blith·est
    1. Carefree and lighthearted.
    2. Lacking or showing a lack of due concern; casual: spoke with blithe ignorance of the true situation.

    Says it all really.

  13. Louis Hissink May 31, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

    Lord Creepo,

    How do you deduce that Ianl is a geologist? Because he communicates with such people?

    I am a geologist and we have many communications here but, as facts show, no geologist you are.

  14. wes george May 31, 2008 at 9:27 pm #

    “On here if you’re not a rabid denialist, I guess by definition you’re a zealot.”

    Lord Creepo, after all your denying you now admit you’re, by definition, a religious fanatic.

    I think we are making some progress with your 12-step program. Good on ya, mate.

    zealot |ˈzelət|
    noun
    a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

  15. Ian Mott May 31, 2008 at 10:04 pm #

    Hhmmn, so Lord Creepo would have us believe that a formal “inter-organisational dialogue is possible”. What, like the united association of victims of internet fraud will have a formal meeting, under a tree in Nigeria, with the union of scammers and bunko artists? yeah, right, be right with you.

  16. kim June 1, 2008 at 12:40 am #

    Heh, is it time to suggest a little torch formality and pitchfork engagement?
    ========================

  17. SJT June 1, 2008 at 8:02 am #

    “Unhappily for you, I do quite frequently, especially the CSIRO geophysicists and geologists. They have much the same comments as Paltridge.

    Sad … they really don’t like zealots like Creepo. I can understand their viewpoint.”

    I was just talking to one of their climate research scientists last night, and he is quite happy to talk to me on the topic, and he has nothing but contempt for the typical denier that is found on this website. He knows perfectly well the limitations of their ability to make estimates of climate sensitivity, so they are hard at work on improving the reliability of projections. The recent conference on climate change modellers was all about improving the resolution of models so that clouds can be modelled more realitistically, and how to get the computing power together to do that.

  18. ecosceptic_ii June 1, 2008 at 8:23 am #

    I must have missed it when Luke (AKA everything) put up who he is, his connections, cv and publications list for others to reade.

    If that didn’t happen then he’s not disagreeing with the quote

  19. Pete June 1, 2008 at 9:03 am #

    SJT at June 1, 2008 08:02 AM:

    “He knows perfectly well the limitations of their ability to make estimates of climate sensitivity, so they are hard at work on improving the reliability of projections. The recent conference on climate change modellers was all about improving the resolution of models so that clouds can be modelled more realitistically, and how to get the computing power together to do that.”

    That is excellent. Let’s hope they can finally get the models to actually conform to reality without so much “back tweaking”. I suspect that if they can get the physics right in the models, the models will lose their extreme sensitivity. I hope they are also working to include cosmic ray contribution to cloud formation rolled in.

    If it wasn’t for the massive publicity and the various parties with agendas influencing things, the modelers would have been working these corrections with little fanfare until they were confident they got things right before going mainstream.

    I hope they can get the models to work, because, other than a more severe drop off in the recent global cooling, it may be the only thing to stop the insanity of carbon cap and trade schemes.

    Obviously, I see the basic physics as saying that CO2 increases cannot have such a massive contribution to warming.

    I suppose there is another “fear” I have, and that is that the modelers do something, but don’t get it right, but their Masters run with it, and say “we’ve adjusted the adjustments in the models and now we can take these results to the bank. OOPS, we meant to say You can take these results to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but..

  20. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 1, 2008 at 9:21 am #

    What’s an ecosceptic_ii – did “i” give it away and grow up.

    “Union of scammers and bunko artists” – well isn’t that utterly hilarious – it’s actually you guys and you can’t see it. Of course Mottsa doesn’t want to get anywhere coz bitching is so much more fun. And as we now know if you add up all governments of any colour, all public servants, all scientists, any greenies, anyone who’s EVER had one environmental concern (LIKE Bumble bees), all those who live in cities or suburbia, all those who are left handed, anyone with an ounce of compassion – which doesn’t leave very many people left mind you – well you’re the ones he’s talk to. At least you’ll share a mutual appreciation of banjo music.

    If you lot were serious you would advocate engagement – have a look for example at this web site – http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

    Guys this is your church here – your altar – the focus of your denialist religion. Mission central.

    Tell me – do you think it looks utterly hysterical?

    What a bunch of wailing…

    So – when sceptics start to have some meaningful engagement and stop acting like 5th columnists you might get somewhere.

    Until then keep taking those rabies meds.

  21. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 9:59 am #

    The CSIRO situation seems quite credible given what experience I have had with lefty academics.

    In fact most academics these days are progressives, social democrats, supporters of government funded science, and climate science, or geography as it used to be called, has been hijacked by the humanities departments of the universities.

    Most teachers are also of the progressive position and collectively they appear to be enthralled by the Socratic method of reasoning, and this influences their science, or lack of it.

    While CSIRO might be fine tuning their climate sensitivity models, they seem not to realise that this basic theory has never been observed as something that needed a theory. Climate sensitivity was invented from a misunderstanding of CO2 behaviour, and the misinterpretation that absorption means helding heat.

    Since no one has actually published an experiment confirming that climate sensitivity is actually a physical fact, one is forced to conclude that it’s therefore pseudoscience.

  22. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 1, 2008 at 10:32 am #

    “While CSIRO might be fine tuning their climate sensitivity models” – Louis this is soooo wrong I’m more than shocked. This is a new level of dopey even for you. Have you the teeniest idea what you’re even talking about. Don’t bother answering. Climate sensitivity of a climate model is an emergent property.

    “A” rough metric of comparing different models. It’s not some tuneable parameter.

    Louis you’re a climatological ignoramus. Stick to kimberlites.

  23. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm #

    An emergent property, what post modernist waffle Creepo – it not an emergent property but a scientifically unsubstantiated assumption on which climate models are based purely on the belief that more CO2 must raise temperature.

    I don’t mind being an ignoramus when it comes to pseudoscience by the way.

  24. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 1, 2008 at 1:43 pm #

    Hissink – you’re a drip. Grow up and at least get on the page instead of sprouting utter crap. Go back to worrying about trivia like how anomalies work. Your level mate.

  25. Tilo Reber June 1, 2008 at 1:46 pm #

    “The olde tobacco tactics.”

    Kind of a dumb approach Creepo. Anyone can draw a parallel between anything and anything else and then say, see this is just another case of one of those. The trick is not just to assert it because it suits your needs. And you cannot assert it because in a world of 6 billion people you found a dozen that shared both causes, the trick is to prove your parallel before you claim it.

  26. Tilo Reber June 1, 2008 at 1:49 pm #

    “Louis this is soooo wrong I’m more than shocked. This is a new level of dopey even for you. Have you the teeniest idea what you’re even talking about. Don’t bother answering.”

    Do we really need this much sound and fury on your way to signifying nothing, Creepo?

  27. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 2:35 pm #

    Creepo, all you seem to do is vilify people who don’t toe the litany you spruik. Wes has it right concerning you as well, but creepo baiting is fun.

  28. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 1, 2008 at 2:54 pm #

    Well Tilo it is the olde tobacco tactics – there is no attempt at anything else other than obfuscation. When I hear you being even handed and not supporting stupidity from Louis you may get some serious consideration.

  29. Denialist Scum June 1, 2008 at 3:00 pm #

    “I was just talking to one of their climate research scientists last night, and he is quite happy to talk to me on the topic, and he has nothing but contempt for the typical denier that is found on this website. He knows perfectly well the limitations of their ability to make estimates of climate sensitivity, so they are hard at work on improving the reliability of projections.”

    Fascinating insight. In summary: The research scientists know perfectly well the limitations of their ability to make estimates of climate sensitivites, while at the same time having nothing but contempt for ‘deniers’.

    Another way of summing this up, of course, is that these egg-heads, who cannot reliably predict the weather a day in advance, all the while are trying to ‘perfect’ climate models for the entire globe — have nothing but contempt for a lay public with enough insight to realise that the whole excercise is pointless, and a complete and utter waste of time and resources. And probably pay their salaries, I might add.

  30. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 3:35 pm #

    Gee Creepo

    Some retired chemist has explained my stupidity a bit better than I here: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html

    Have fun mashing that up intellectually

  31. wes george June 1, 2008 at 4:18 pm #

    I once thought that Luke was a common garden-variety troll, but you blokes vouched him as part of Jennifer’s affirmative action program to introduced mentally stunted gnomes afflicted the ad hominem variety of Tourette’s Syndrome to blog commenting.

    Nevertheless, you got to admit Luke is a witty twit. Orwell would be proud. His logical fallacies are executed to textbook perfection, his ad hominem attacks platitudinous and his grammar pre-school. I find him a paragon of persuasiveness!

    It true, Luke (a mental giant among gnomes) represents the very best of intellectual rigor that the proponents of AGW could spare at the moment as most of them are busy volunteering to help Rudd watch fuel prices rise from concealed positions around the CBDs of the nation.

    The rest are working on an International Hold Your Breath Hour 2008 after the huge success of Lights Out Hour 2008.

    From their website: “Just as Lights Out Hour 2008 help stomp out Enlightenment values in our society, if only every one on Earth would hold their breath for one hour a day 3 billion tons of CO2 emissions could be eliminated annually. That translates into a new iceberg plus fish and chips (no sauce) for every polar bear on Earth. Hold Your Breath Hour 2008 is only a start, but the dogma is in and we must act now. Free koolAid and carbon credit vouchers afterwards.”

  32. El Creepo June 1, 2008 at 4:47 pm #

    Wes do you actually walk around the house talking like that? I suppose it could be worse – you could live with Mottsa – interminable outpourings of vast rhetoric. Speeches before brekky, lunch and dinner.

    Anyway Wes – so do you support your colleague Louis’s statements on climate sensitivity? Yes or no will do?

    Louis – too much link link link (Rog taught me that) – pls explain in your own words. It’s a lot funnier. And Louis have you noticed a pattern – either geologists, economists or older male retired persons.

    But seriously guys – why don’t so-called sceptics engage with the establishment (well apart from John Howard)? Have they/you ever tried?

  33. Denialist Scum June 1, 2008 at 5:18 pm #

    “why don’t so-called sceptics engage with the establishment”

    Still don’t get it, huh?
    I’ve got bad news for you. The skeptics ARE the establishment. They’re the ones who run businesses, get elected to parliament, actually DO things, etc. etc.

    The AGW followers are the ones that are incapable of engaging with the establishment, as you prove on a daily basis. After all, if they had any skills in that area, their policies would have been implemented by now.

    As has been pointed out several times on various threads — it’s up to the AGW co-religionists to prove their case, not vice versa. In the unlikely event that this should ever come to pass, then maybe the establishment will sit up and pay attention – but I’m not holding my breath on that one (sorry Wes).

  34. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 5:47 pm #

    Creepo – I have often said so in my own words and you (as well as Ender and others) react violently so I merely offer you another skeptic’s view.

    I take it that you don’t understand that explanation of CO2 physics either, judging from any mention of the articles content.

    No, all you do is spew ad hominem after ad hominem at us, just alike a typical lefty religious proselytiser who finds anything we write here as blasphemy.

    And only because you don’t know how to counter the argument apart from shooting the arguer (new word) to counter it.

  35. wes george June 1, 2008 at 5:55 pm #

    But seriously, guys, the garden gnome with Tourette’s Syndrome is on to something. Let me translate:

    We need to enrage with the establishment of a New Dark Ages (well afart of John Howard ((the actor?))) After all. it was warmer then and petrol was only two chicken feet a pig’s bladder. Luke, where is your substansisssizingly large link for that claim? Links, man! We need the bloody link!

    The we/they/us-um have never tired of all this older male rational ecogeo meo logic link, link, link. Plz Rog hurl in your own vowels. It’s a lot funnieriery. Louis has pattern baldness.

    (insert gratuitous string of ad hominem here fired randomly in all directions…)

    Anyway, Luke—I certainly do support my colleague’s sensitivity to CO2, at 400 ppm his temperature should rise by 5c over the next decade and the oceans evaporate. Link, link, link.

    (insert fatman AGore.mpeg chucklingly about his father’s tobacco farm fortune he inherited)

    Actually, talking around the house while walking with gums full of speeches can be hazardous. Might trip over a garden gnome, spill your motzarella all over your rhetorical breekkie. They served hot lunch in buckets until the start of WWII, then we adjust g minT UP. Jones, Briffa, Jimmy Hoffa, et al.

    What’s for dinner, Gnome? Nothing OT or homoinem, I hope?

  36. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 1, 2008 at 7:25 pm #

    So given your lack of suppport for Louis’s statement I’ll take that as embarrassment Wes. That’s OK.

    But seriously guys – you’re having a little day dream if you think you’re the establishment. “afart” of JH a Freudian slip perhaps?

    But yes if you want to see me at home – try googling Tourtette’s Guy.

  37. Denialist Scum June 1, 2008 at 7:42 pm #

    “you’re having a little day dream if you think you’re the establishment”

    Here’s a little challenge for you: put together a short list of “Establishment” people (who are not on a government payroll) who DO support AGW.

    Take as long as you like.

  38. SJT June 1, 2008 at 8:09 pm #

    “Climate sensitivity was invented from a misunderstanding of CO2 behaviour, and the misinterpretation that absorption means helding heat.”

    Louis, get with the program. Paul here, and Pat Michaels, and anyone with half a brain, accepts the greenhouse properties of CO2. How do you think your blanket works? It doesn’t “hold” heat, either, but it slows down the transmission of it, making you warmer in the process.

  39. SJT June 1, 2008 at 8:24 pm #

    “That is excellent. Let’s hope they can finally get the models to actually conform to reality without so much “back tweaking”. I suspect that if they can get the physics right in the models, the models will lose their extreme sensitivity. I hope they are also working to include cosmic ray contribution to cloud formation rolled in.”

    So far the models have done a pretty good job.

  40. Denialist Scum June 1, 2008 at 8:25 pm #

    “and anyone with half a brain..”

    …and that’s exactly the problem. Anyone with a little more grey matter realises it is total garbage.

  41. Denialist Scum June 1, 2008 at 8:28 pm #

    “So far the models have done a pretty good job.”

    Like, f’rinstance?

  42. kim June 1, 2008 at 8:44 pm #

    SJT, blankets work by stopping convection, and given the great uncertainty in optical path length T, there is room for that being the mechanism of action of CO2’s greenhouse effect.

    But, I don’t think so; I think you are just plain mistaken.
    =========================

  43. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 8:46 pm #

    SJT,

    There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because gases cannot trap heat – Mars is a good example of this fact.

    But you prefer to rely on authority – and like I’ve pointed out, no one has done any laboratory experiments on this – everyone “assumes” it must be.

    But the global temperature measurements show that the theory is wrong, temperature remaining steady while CO2 continues to rise. In complete contradiction to the theory. The models have done a totally lousy job of predicting the temperature of the last 10 years. By extension more CO2 has not resulted in high temperatures but every conceivable ad hoc explanation is being offered as why this is not so.

    But its the herd instinct, so let’s see how much damage your lot inflict on humanity, again.

  44. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 8:58 pm #

    SJT,

    Horticultural greenhouses work by stopping convection by interposing a physical barrier to the circulation. My caravan, in which I live, get very hot, even when its actually cooler outside, so I am quite aware of the physics obehind the greenhouse effect. It has nothing to do with IR, and all to do with the misunderstanding of the term “absorption” when used in describing atomic spectra.

    That you don’t know how a blanket works also explains why you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

  45. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 1, 2008 at 10:05 pm #

    Oh lordy he’s back on the old glasshouse analogy ruse. SJT – it’s like Groundhog Day.

  46. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 10:14 pm #

    Creepo

    That is the climate change model, that CO2 traps heat – this is now wrong?

    Perhaps you should add a suffix to your title – Ad Hocus.

  47. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 1, 2008 at 10:26 pm #

    You know full well this is not how it works – we’ve been over this so many times and you keeping banging on about glasshouses.

  48. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 10:35 pm #

    Creepo,

    it’s basic physics, gases, Brownian motion. CO2 absorbs IR and instantly increases its temperature, vis. its kinetic motion, but this is then instantly transmitted to the surrounding molecules of N2 and O2.

    Because the earth is in thermal disequilibrium, heat flow continues outwards.

    AGW theory might operate if thermal equilibrium exists, but the earth is not in thermal equilibrium.

    Just look up the definition of temperature.

  49. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 10:47 pm #

    In addition, one might suspect Mars is in thermal equilibrium, but I digress, it’s a habit of being a scientific maverick. One suspects that the radiative models used to explain the earth might be better applied to Mars than Earth.

  50. Denialist Scum June 1, 2008 at 11:03 pm #

    “One suspects that the radiative models used to explain the earth might be better applied to Mars than Earth.”

    Louis — wrong! Global Warming on Mars is also caused by gas-guzzling SUVs:
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/klaus092305.htm

  51. Louis Hissink June 1, 2008 at 11:21 pm #

    Drat, I forgot about Marvin’s vehicles, sigh.

    Actually I was listening to the IQ2 debate, on You Tube, whether global warming was a crisis and had not realised that Gavin Schmidt was English (shades of Charles Lyell).

    I’ve had the suspicion that life is essentially an epiphenomenon of its environment, and that our industrialisation and emission of CO2 is an effect of global warming. After all, when winter goes to spring, life blossoms, reaches its peak during summer, then decreases when the next winter arrives.

    Maybe human activity follows this on a longer scale – LIA little human activity, rising backgroud temperatures, more clement climate and human activity increases.

    Perhaps our present indutrial activity is this a result of global warming, rather than a cause.

    Just an idea to ponder.

  52. kim June 2, 2008 at 12:29 am #

    Interesting thought, L, but depending upon which is cause, and which effect, the mechanisms differ wildly.
    ==============================

  53. Graeme Bird June 2, 2008 at 10:03 am #

    Its a matter of everyone continuously emailing the CSIRO and leveling abuse at them. Asking them when they are going to stop their lying. This sort of thing.

    We’ve just got to let them know that the game is up. If we cannot get some momentum going for mass-sackings they just aren’t ever going to change.

  54. SJT June 2, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    Graeme

    an interesting suggestion. At what point does the abuse have to get to be effective?

  55. SJT June 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm #

    “Some retired chemist has explained my stupidity a bit better than I here: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html

    Have fun mashing that up intellectually”

    Exactly what you would expect of Junkscience, lies. The greenhouse reference is an analogy, just like analogies are often used in science to explain a complex concept in simple terms.

    Your high school teacher was not lying when he said that atoms are like little balls, even though they aren’t.

    The CO2 greenhouse effect is like a greenhouse, but the mechanism it uses is quite different to achieve similar end result, a rise in temperature.

    There, now do you understand?

  56. Louis Hissink June 2, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    SJT

    You have said nothing except make a few tautologies.

    Rise in temperature? Not observed to date.

    So I understand fully.

  57. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 2, 2008 at 5:44 pm #

    Birdy mate – get back to your shift work or you’ll be the one being mass sacked.

  58. Denialist Scum June 2, 2008 at 6:09 pm #

    “At what point does the abuse have to get to be effective?”

    Abuse is rarely effective — ask Creepo – he does is constantly, and no-one is swayed by him (at least not to his way of thinking).

    Far more effective to do three things:
    – write to your local MP and/or relevant minister (except for Peter Garrett – that would be a waste of postage) and inform them that you are unhappy with the stance taken by these guvmit funded parasites (use your own words), that they seem to be a law unto themselves – going against what is plain to the man in the street – and that you are unhappy with this, and didn’t think you were voting for Kevin07 to preside over such a massive waste of guvmit funds on these spongers (CSIRO, ABC, et. al), and how you will reconsider your voting intentions if there is not a significant realignment with reality; and
    – mail a copy of the letter to the relevant oxygen-thieving organisation; and
    – encourage friends and relatives to do the same (mention this in the letter to the MP, by the way).

    Politicians will get the message if enough people do this (I’ve started writing mine already). Remember: no-one of any real substance supports this AGW hogwash – only brainless morons, and they don’t count.

    Politicians know this, but they cannot ignore all the sheep that are bleating for their standard of living to be significantly reduced.

  59. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 2, 2008 at 7:58 pm #

    ooooooo – Gee I bet government never gets any nutter letters. They will be so shocked.

    So just consider this – you receive an abusive anti-CSIRO letter from a moronic nutter and you compare this letter to intelligent people with significant careers. They might even ponder the numerous inventions and patents. They might consider CSIRO’s distinguished history of science in agriculture, materials, astronomy and biotechnology.

    I’m sure you will get their full attention – for a microsecond.

    Be sure to enclose your contact details DS.

    BTW they checked your voting intentions recently. It’s called an election – you may have heard of it.

  60. Denialist Scum June 2, 2008 at 8:17 pm #

    “Gee I bet government never gets any nutter letters.”
    They get lots of them — the most recent being one from a Dr. James Hansen:
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf
    In terms of nutters, they don’t come much bigger than that.

    “It’s called an election – you may have heard of it.”

    That’s exactly my point. Enough sheep voted (in part) for the warm fuzzies attached to ratification of the Kyoto wealth redistribution program to help get Krudd over the line.

    And when the sheep start running in the other direction (when petrol and electricity prices start to soar), the politicians will drop the “intelligent people with significant careers” (i.e. the ones that created their political problems in the first place) so fast it will make your head spin.

    Elections in Australia are won and lost at the margins. Politicians are very sensitive to issues that can swing a few hundred votes in a handful of marginal seats. Your egg-heads will come a distant second to well-organised letter-writing campaign that targets enough of these marginal seats to cause discomfort – especially against a backdrop of declining economic conditions.

  61. SJT June 2, 2008 at 8:22 pm #

    “guvmit funded parasites (use your own words), that they seem to be a law unto themselves – going against what is plain to the man in the street -”

    I was visiting one of these guvmint funded parasites at the weekend. He is a very pleasant person who could be making much more money in private industry, but he just happens to love his job. They are planning to spend a billion dollars on a new computer system, but that’s all going to those parasites from the big computer companies, the workers at the CSIRO won’t see a cent.

    The man in the street seems to agree that AGW is real. Maybe you meant to say ‘a man in the street.’

  62. Denialist Scum June 2, 2008 at 8:54 pm #

    “The man in the street seems to agree that AGW is real.”
    I wouldn’t go betting the house on that one …
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/05/12/belief-in-global-warming-slips/

    As it becomes more obvious that AGW is a fraud – combined with tougher economic conditions – the numbers will continue to slip.

    “He is a very pleasant person who could be making much more money in private industry”
    I think I’m going to go and throw up now! I spent years marketing to these ‘very pleasant people’ – most of them were clueless when it came to commercial or political reality (like having to justify their funding and budgets), and few if any of them ever had the guts to step out of their sheltered workshop environment to take the commercial risks in private industry. They were all more concerned with going home at 4:21 and organising their flex-day rosters.

    “They are planning to spend a billion dollars on a new computer system”
    Great! More taxpayers money poured down the drain to chase the AGW rainbow. Fabulous! Keep up the good work!

  63. Denialist Scum June 2, 2008 at 9:08 pm #

    “The man in the street seems to agree that AGW is real.”
    … and in case you’re interested in reading what emerging business leaders (the ones who will make future business decisions) think, check out the Aspen Institute report from a few months back:
    http://www.aspencbe.org/documents/ExecutiveSummaryMBAStudentAttitudesReport2008.pdf
    See pg. 5:
    “Despite recent public discussion of the environment—global warming, alternative energy sources, and the like — students rank the importance of companies having progressive environmental policies near the bottom of the list.”

    Hardly the response you might expect to the “greatest moral issue of our time”.

  64. SJT June 2, 2008 at 9:23 pm #

    “I think I’m going to go and throw up now! I spent years marketing to these ‘very pleasant people’ – most of them were clueless when it came to commercial or political reality (like having to justify their funding and budgets), and few if any of them ever had the guts to step out of their sheltered workshop environment to take the commercial risks in private industry. They were all more concerned with going home at 4:21 and organising their flex-day rosters.”

    You’re in advertising? Say it isn’t so :). I’ll give you a tip, he has a lot more of a clue of funding and budgets than you’ll ever have.

  65. Denialist Scum June 2, 2008 at 9:30 pm #

    “I’ll give you a tip, he has a lot more of a clue of funding and budgets than you’ll ever have.”

    Yeah — obviously!!
    That’s why it’s all going to “those parasites from the big computer companies” and none of it is going to his people. No wonder he doesn’t want to roll the dice in private enterprise! Wouldn’t make the second interview, I’m guessing.

  66. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 2, 2008 at 9:30 pm #

    “They were all more concerned with going home at 4:21 and organising their flex-day rosters.” DS you are a nasty little coprolite aren’t you. You wouldn’t know mate – your practical knowledge of any of this has been demonstrated to be zippo. Our scientists not supposed to be in “commercial” reality – swimming in the largesse that surrounds most big construction projects and being entertained on marketers expense accounts – they’re doing something called research. You may have heard of it. On second thoughts given you’re a moron probably not.

    “wealth redistribution program” – errr no – it was all done on tree clearing credits thanks to John Howard and the Australia clause his government inserted.

    And did you say you were in – gulp “marketing” – vomit ! “Marketing” hahahahahahaha….

    Desert island with limited resources – “any marketers present”. Bang ! There goes DS.

    Make sure you add Marketer when you sign your letter to the guvmint.

  67. Denialist Scum June 2, 2008 at 9:44 pm #

    You would make a lousy poker player.

    Every time you’ve got nothing intelligent to add (which unfortunately is most of the time), you have dig out the Nelson Muntz personality.

    Let me know when the dummy spit is finished.

    And where’s my list of Establishment Supporters of this “wonderful AGW research”?

  68. Denialist Scum June 2, 2008 at 10:16 pm #

    Hey Nelson,
    If you’ve finished your red cordial – check this out:
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/May_2008_Was_Another_Cold_Month.pdf
    “For 75% of the [US] nation, May was cooler than normal, as much as 6F below in the far North Central.”

    …and this:
    “As of the latest update, Antarctic ice remains at 1 million square kilometers ahead of last year at this time and ahead of the average since 1979. If it stays at this anomaly, we will surpass the record set late last winter there.”

    Keep up the good work on the “research” front, guys. Us taxpayers are mighty proud of you.

  69. SJT June 2, 2008 at 10:44 pm #

    “Yeah — obviously!!
    That’s why it’s all going to “those parasites from the big computer companies” and none of it is going to his people. No wonder he doesn’t want to roll the dice in private enterprise! Wouldn’t make the second interview, I’m guessing.”

    Change your goal posts faster than I can blink. Oh, that’s right, you come from advertising.

  70. Graeme Bird June 3, 2008 at 12:45 am #

    “Graeme

    an interesting suggestion. At what point does the abuse have to get to be effective?

    Posted by: SJT at June 2, 2008 01:16 PM”

    They have to know they’ve been caught, and to fear for their jobs and reputations.

    I mean all you alarmists are lying. You know you are lying. We know you are lying. And yet you keep doing it.

    Never do you come up with evidence.

    For this to be going on in the nations official science agency is just unacceptable.

    If the CSIRO and everyone in it had acted like scientists, they may have spared us the lost opportunities and the untold damage that is already taking shape.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/carbon-lies-already-creating-malinvestmentsloppy-economics-concepts-opportunity-cost/

    THERE IS SIMPLY NO SUBSTITUTE FOR MASS-SACKINGS.

  71. Lord Creepo (aka everything) June 3, 2008 at 1:08 am #

    zzzzzzzzzzzzz boring.

  72. Denialist Scum June 3, 2008 at 8:33 am #

    Hey Nelson,

    Thanks for the best laugh in ages. Me & a couple of friends were having beers last night, and I read your post out — the one where you dribble on about:

    “Desert island with limited resources – “any marketers present”. Bang ! There goes DS.”

    One of the guys pointed out what I had missed the first time around — namely 3 key points which demonstrate how out of touch you AGW fruit loops really are:

    1) Who in their right mind would let public servants onto a lifeboat in the first place? Unless it was a lifeboat already overloaded with public servants, in which case pull the trigger now.

    2) If you made it to a desert island, who would keep a bunch of loonies whose only ‘skill’ is trying to ‘prove’ that it’s getting warmer, when there are more important problems to solve (as always). You’d happily feed them to the sharks — if they would eat them, that is.

    3) But more importantly – who in their right mind would let a dribbling cretin who can’t form complete sentences ever be in charge of a firearm? Any self-respecting marketeer who couldn’t see that one coming would deserve to be shot.

    But thanks for the laughs.

  73. Denialist Scum June 3, 2008 at 8:47 am #

    “Oh, that’s right, you come from advertising.”

    Ahh — ‘Global Warming Science’ in action.
    Not in advertising. Never have been in advertising. Never will be in advertising. Never even mentioned the word.

    But you, through complete ignorance and lack of imagination, have not only decided that I’m in advertising – now you appear to be setting out to ‘prove’ your case through the simple process of repetition.

    Welcome to Climate Scientology folks – when lost for an idea (and isn’t that always), make something up.

  74. wjp June 3, 2008 at 9:44 am #

    Denialist Scum: M. Creepo and SJT might like to take some time out at this point and check their respective CV’s.
    Do you think, DS, these guys could come close to a SMH Timelines 3/6/2008 mention?

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituaries/a-master-of-beautiful-design/2008/06/02/1212258735330.html

    Unfortunately the accompanying print cartoon appears lost. There is a twin engine airplane coming straight at you: “When one engine fails on a twin engine airplane, you always have enough power to get you to the scene of the crash”

  75. El Creepo June 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm #

    A marketer. Errr yechy… I’m still trembling in revulsion. After that disclosure – well mate – it’ simply “whatever”. Whatever you you reckon.

  76. SJT June 3, 2008 at 11:25 pm #

    “Welcome to Climate Scientology folks – when lost for an idea (and isn’t that always), make something up.”

    My bad, you said you were from marketing, you are form marketing. Don’t let me sully the advertisers with the stench of the salesmen.

  77. Denialist Scum June 4, 2008 at 9:14 am #

    zzzzzzzzzzzz …. boring.

    I’m disappointed. I’d hoped that you would be able to come up with more original insults than that. Have a talk to Nelson if you’re stuck. He seems to have enough for everyone.

    You clowns should get out of your sheltered workshop some time and take note of how the real world functions. You might even learn that not everyone in marketing is a salesman.

  78. wjp June 4, 2008 at 9:56 am #

    El Creepo, SJT: you wouldn’t have anything you’d like to sell, move or flog perchance?
    No theories, bridges? Anything?
    Remember, no porkies.

  79. Ecosceptic_ii June 4, 2008 at 2:33 pm #

    Luke (AKA The Cook)

    Having a stir in the kitchen?

    What’s an ecosceptic_ii – did “i” give it away and grow up.

    Try pronunciation
    ecosceptic_ii

    Try addition

    Ecosceptic_i, Ecosceptic_ii, – –

    Sounds like you’re singing that old chorus

    “Shut the door, they’re coming in the window
    Shut the window, they’re coming in the door”!

  80. El Creepo June 4, 2008 at 7:31 pm #

    Yes OK you can be a salesman – marketer – purveyor of fine crap – whatever. So there you are – off you go quietly now and try not to bump into anything on the way out. We’ll call you if we need you….

  81. Denialist Scum June 4, 2008 at 8:11 pm #

    Oh dear…
    That’s your best shot?

  82. El Creepo June 4, 2008 at 9:16 pm #

    No that’s a pat on the head gramps. Now off you toddle. Careful as you go. Although you tell us some more of your old marketing yarns (again!).

  83. Ian Beale June 5, 2008 at 9:51 pm #

    Sort of on this thread – looks like there may be some more deniers recruited to a different camp. See

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23787527-23272,00.html

    Obesity epidemic ‘a myth’

  84. Ian Beale June 5, 2008 at 9:53 pm #

    Sort of on this thread – looks like there may be some more deniers recruited to a different camp. See

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23787527-23272,00.html

    “Obesity epidemic ‘a myth’

    AUSTRALIA’S childhood obesity epidemic has been “exaggerated” and government-led national prevention efforts may be misdirected, with childhood obesity only increasing in lower-income families.”

    and check the reactions reported

  85. Jane Paltridge June 24, 2008 at 1:28 pm #

    Hi Dad.

Website by 46digital