CSIRO: 97% Gloomy Religion

CSIRO boss defends shake-up, says politics of climate ‘more like religion than science’

Dr Marshall said he understood the concerns – from both abroad and his staff internally.

“I don’t blame our scientists for crying out – they’re passionate about what they do,” he said.

“When a scientist has spent 20 or 30 years working in a particular area, they love it, that’s what gets them out of bed in the morning – they’re not going to want to change.

 ✈

Wait. What?

“they love it, that’s what gets them out of the bed in the morning”

 

What sort of person loves this?:

When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job
Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in.

Things are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it.

   ✈

Every Day.

Eternally Gloomy because their apocalypse fails to materialise.

Can’t talk about it.

Send money.

Worse Apocalypse. Ever.

Advertisements

Climate Frauds UN-IPCC exposed quoting fraudulently adjusted temperature data in court.

At a stroke this case may affirm that up to one quarter of our planet’s climate records have been fraudulently audited.

New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court.

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) are reeling after what may prove a fatally embarrassing admission that it is breaking a solemn undertaking given to parliament.

As such, this would bring a swift victory for skeptics with profound legal ramifications around the world.

In the sparsely-measured southern hemisphere the New Zealand climate data is critical to claims about a verified global temperature record.

Read on @ John O’Sullivan’s Climate Realist blog:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10030&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29

(via Tom Nelson)

UPDATES:

Friday September 07

Climate change deniers swamped in NIWA court challenge

“The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in issue. The application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.”

Justice Venning says Dunleavy “has no applicable qualifications” and “his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert”.

He also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose “general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science”.

Joannenova , 7 Sept. 2012:

The NZ court case of skeptics versus NIWA has come down against the skeptics.

“By ruling that the evidence from Terry Dunleavy, and Bob Dedekind was inadmissible on the grounds of qualification, Justice Venning has done two things: a) he has apparently left the door open for an appeal or other form or review (precident might be an interesting thread to follow); and b) he has removed himself from the matter, and is no longer involved or able to comment.”

Rereke Whakaaro
September 7, 2012 at 10:14 pm     comment #5.1
UPDATE 12 Sept. 2012:
UPDATE 15 Sept. 2012:  
A judge has thrown out a legal challenge by climate change sceptics, which accused Government scientists of manipulating data. 
Wratt is a senior member of the IPCC, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, and is in agreement with the majority of the world’s climate scientists who say human-induced climate change is happening all around us and that the warming of the Earth and acidification of the oceans is reaching a critical stage.
Wratt’s frustration is not just at the sceptics but also at the attention they receive, given they are the minority.
The New Zealand Climate and Health Council, which says it has 150 medical professionals as members, said groups like the Climate Science Coalition were “still peddling lies that kill, they are delaying action essential to protect human health”.

How does one trust an Australian Journalist?

Following on from the previous post, “How does one trust an Australian Climate Scientist,” a leading Australian Climate Scientist, Prof. Paul Chubb, a MAJOR player in the ‘death threat to scientists’ scandal, appears at the Australian National Press Club, misleading a respected  journalist institution.

As with so many other people who ‘believe’ in man made catastrophic global warming’, compromise, hypocrisy and a lack of morality catches them out.

The following email was sent to  the NPC:

To whom it may concern,

On 24th May 2012, (6 days ago) Professor Ian Chubb unequivocally led the National Press Club of Australia to believe that the “Death Threats” were real and he had acted properly by relocating the scientists concerned.

See video of Ian Chubb’s address and in particular question put to him by Christian Kerr of the Australian at 30mins 40seconds of the video.
Video of Ian Chubb’s Address

On the face of it, having regard to his reported evidence to the Senate Committee Ian Chubb fair and square and carefully mislead the National Press Club.


Why did Chubb provide those answers, when he now admits he never read the offending emails?

The NPC awarded this ‘misleader of the truth’ for his ‘misleading’ efforts.

Will the NPC take back the free membership and/or demand a apology?

Is there not one journalist in the NPC prepared to seek the truth or reason why this man needed to exaggerate?

This scandal has a long way to go, like a snowball traveling downhill, as it is more than just misleading the NPC, but goes to the heart of journalism and it’s desire to tell the truth.

Remember, the internet never forgets.

Regards,
******
As of this posting, no reply, no action, nothing from the NPC.
There is SO much wrong with this.
This is evidence the Australian media has abandoned its principles.
If they respond to the email, there will be an update.