you're an expert on CSIRO then? Please elaborate.

Is that rubbish about deaththreats & other nonsense worth posting?!
It just gets away from the real debate. loonies are everywhere on all sides.
Don't give them the benefit of publicising their nonsense!

I don't think Petethemoskeet has to elaborate on anything Dr Odius.
You are a science insider whereas we are the outsiders, the tax payer's who pay for the CSIRO and no doubt pay your salary as well.

What the more blinkered CSIRO insiders are too blind to see and obviously don't want to know about is that the public's perceptions of the CSIRO have and are still changing quite dramatically during the last decade or so.
The CSIRO has fallen from a great heights of public respect it had for some 30 or 40 years down to now being close to just another research organisation which is populated by a fair collection of publicity seeking by media press release, alarmist climate and barrier reef, grant seeking, advocacy scientists.
They are the ones who are always being quoted in the media with the constant refrain that we or something they are supposedly expert in [ and often come from a completely different discipline but hey they are "scientists" ] are all doomed unless we do this or that or something else dreampt up by these same alarmist scientist advocates.

The remaining and really excellent divisions of CSIRO are being down graded in the public's eyes by those climate alarmist advocates within the CSIRO organisation.
And you can slate home most of that increase in the public's increasingly cycnical perceptions and questioning of a lot of the CSIRO's pronouncements onto the Internet.
For the first time we, the public, can start to examine and contrast vast amounts of science from other sources and disciplines and the claims made by scientists with other areas of science as well as a very large pool of knowledge and experience from both the academic and the proletariat and that has become accessible through the internet and World Wide Web.

And what many of us are seeing in so much so called science is often what we don't like and is countered by both science and the experiences and down to earth knowledge of ordinary non science people from all parts of the globe.
So consequently for a lot of the ordinary tax paying public, science and scientists have lost their aura of infallibility and as the doubts and faults and conflicts both personal and academic, often the same thing as the internet has revealed, become known to the public, the scientists are being dragged down from their former highly regarded pedestal and are being seen by increasing numbers of the public as just ordinary people who, unlike most working Australians, are being allowed to do what they want to do but doing it on the public purse at the public's expense.

And you can go right back and blame the scientists themselves for this.
Many publicity seeking scientists have learn't how to use the media through press releases to enhance their own status and the science they profess to practice and to push a particular line of action ie; advocacy, and they have made a welter of it.

What they didn't realise and most still don't is that seeking publicity and publicity itself is a double edged sword.
If one seeks publicity then equally one will be put under much greater scrutiny and the internet has given the interested public the ability to do that, to exam both the science but also the scientist personally and his / her particular motives and it turns out that more often than not, particularly in the publicity seeking warmist alarmist advocacy climate science that the motives are anything but pure in a high percentage of cases.
And suddenly as this attitude on the part of the warmists scientists penetrates through society, science has started to lose it's aura of mysticism for a lot of the public and is being consequently down graded in standing in the public's eyes and will ultimately be downgraded in the eyes of the politicals and bureaucracy with all that entails for the future of science and in Australia's case, the CSIRO.

How climate change has got Worldwide Fund for Nature bamboozled
WWF has travelled too far from its original aim, to protect endangered species.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...bamboozled.html

Mate - you just don't get it do you.

As far as I'm concerned, Heartland stuffed up. This was immediately acknowledged by most on these boards and by most of the climate change "deniers" world wide. It should have been left at that. But no. You of course seem to find fault with this and keep digging it up trying to get mileage.

Which of course is hillarious given that it was you who is guilty of doing last year of just what Heartland did now. Aren't you? Defend this posting please (by one _PG_) and please tell us what is different between your behaviour and those hypocrites Heartland?

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthrea...s_a#Post1002804

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/ea...-investigation/

Ouch CRU called liars.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536

The above is what prompted the FOI to specify six months (and we know what happens to FOI requests on "climatescience" stuff that take more than 30 seconds of someones time to fulfill)

The money quote is:



Yes __PG__ - Simon was a bit foolish in limmiting the FOI... He was pretty silly in assuming the "climatescientists" were telling the truth. Wasn't he...? LOL.

Hmmm...



If anyone is reading the Climate Audit detail, then the CRU Briffa defense of Yamal mentioned is this item:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Every now and then a classic is dropped into the humdrum of normal AGW debate and this one sets a new low for jounalistic um whatever it is they waffle about um professionalism? Intergrity? reporting of the um facts, scientific excelenece in reporting?

Anyway this is good for a laugh, maybe it was a tounge in cheek peiece that some editor took as a real investigation or something. -

Plant eating Dinosaurs caused global warming with their farts. Sorry - by passing wind excessively -
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/climate-craziness-of-the-week-paleotootology/

"Plant eating Dinosaurs caused global warming with their farts" LOL

And when Buffalo Bill thined out the bison herds in Nth America this caused global cooling.

Can we get together and get a couple of million dollar grant to put together a paper that uses buffalo fart forcing and this new "peer reviewed climate-fart-science" to eliminate and adjust out that pesky dip temperature dip from the 1870's to the 1920's?


So that we can prove that the models are correct?

It's consistent with the observations that people accept or reject science based upon their world views, not on the basis of scientific evidence and the strength of coherent scientific arguments.

So what's your problem with what Hearland did if that;s OK?

BD has the above in his new "Climate Craziness" thread.
As an increasing number of articles / papers apparently borne of the sheer desperation that the man made, very dangerous global warming / climate change meme is losing it's impact on the populace and is coming under ever more intensive scrutiny, low quality papers bordering on the ridiculous and articles such as this from the so called climate warming scientists who are probably desperate for further grants to be funded, just reinforces the doubts in some of the populace's minds and increases contempt for the believers and the editors who provide the means of publication who are stupid enough to publish this "quality" [ ??? ] of paper in the minds of those who are far more familiar with the science.

Paleontology indicates that the world of the dinosaurs, the Mid-Cretaceous period some 100 million years ago was a very warm and humid and wet era with temperatures perhaps some 6 C to 12 C higher than today. [ Linky > Mesozoic ]
It was a period of an immense range of life both plant and animal. A lot of the coal beds we use today, our infamous so called fossil fuels, the trapped and stored solar energy collected over some 100 million years in the profligate plant growth of the era were laid down during the Cretaceous of some 130 million to some 65 million years ago.
The rotting down of this immense growth in those hot, humid conditions of probably more or less continual mists and rainfall would have released huge amounts of methane.
The termites and bacterial life forms of that period of profligate plant growth that consumed and rotted down that plant bio-mass would have arguably far out weighed the cretaceous animals in bio-mass and termites of course are well known for releasing considerable amounts of methane and CO2 as a part of their biological activities.
It didn't need dinosaurs to create more methane, it just needed yet another "model" to generate another heavily publicised paper through yet another self serving press release promoting yet another stupid and unverifiable claim from climate warming science.

The end result is that climate science, science generally and climate modeling cop yet another blow to their standings and a further diminishment in respect in the eyes of the public and other science disciplines.

Climate warming science can't blame anybody else.
It is all their own work!

Well Heartland said exactly what Anders Breivik said. That only madmen, tyrants, fanatics, extremists, communists etc. accept the science behind the theory of AGW.

Can't resist that opening!
Judging by what we have seen so far from a warmista or two on this forum, he might even be right!

He does need to elaborate if he is making claims about "all the work that CSIRO is doing".

And from your rather long response, I'd say that neither you nor he have provided evidence for the claim that all CSIRO work is following some alarmist pro AGW agenda. It isn't.

Following from the post above, I find it hard to take anyone seriously who constantly refers to 'warmistas'. Its inflammatory language that masks a deeper agenda and lack of scientific rigour. The moderators shouldn't allow this in a forum that is attempting at least to facilitate scientific discussion.

Yep, as a Mod, but not of this forum I could not agree more strongly. Typical attitude though sadly...and one that i think reflects back on the posters than the ones they are posting about. Great to finally see some debate happening in this thread and to see a couple of folk posting a different POV and refusing to be bullied by the old gang

I agree , both camps use similar phrases often..respect should be shown.
But, I am not sure who are and on what side the old bully gang is though?

Pretty easy to establish using the number of posts made by individuals in the threads. Seems to indicate that the old gang might include names such as yourself, ROM, Arnost etc., purely on the assumption that you have been posting in here a long time.

I agree that the respect thing would be more appropriate, but ROM seems to love using his made up word .