CSIRO Gagging Climate Debate

[Allan_L (Allan)]

Fantastic Post.
Thanks Jonathan.

That truly should settle the debate here (I hope).
and restore the credibility of CSIRO and its integrity.

Perhaps this whole thing was just another Media Sensationalisation!

But that's another story (or thread)

[Rod66 (Rod)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The policy is quite clear, to comment on a matter of raw science fact there is no need for Executive permission.

To comment on the Policy of Government in any matter needs Executive approval. As Policy is a nebulous thing that is open to interpretation and flavor of Government then any scientific comment can then be misconstrued by any uninformed partisan to suit their cause.

The major problem is how ignorant most people are when it comes to the real world complexities of Science.

To see the totally scientifically ignorant snatching irrelevant data to prove their side of the current AGW debate should give you an idea what a dog's breakfast these matters can become if handled incorrectly.

Bert

Well said. But yet thats the incredible problem we have now. Because of the obfuscation by the media of any facts and the proliferation of one sided arguments by credentialled and non-credentialed experts using data that is only favourable to their cause, the population is completely polarised. Its no longer possible for the ordinary man (or woman) to disseminate the truth, hence causing immense confusion. At the very least, because there is so much confusion, you'd think the government would take a step back and try to establish a base set of irrefutable facts on which their policy is founded, but for some unfathomable reason, they are pressing on with this like its the holy grail, regardless of their "facts" being shot down in flames. One must assume therefore there is an incredible incentive for politicians, or there is something they are not telling us...

If you really want to get serious, Barnaby Joyce is putting a petition together to force the government to stop this nightmare. You can sign his petition on his web site www.barnabyjoyce.com.au

cheers

Rod

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Rod66

Well said. But yet thats the incredible problem we have now. Because of the obfuscation by the media of any facts and the proliferation of one sided arguments by credentialled and non-credentialed experts using data that is only favourable to their cause, the population is completely polarised. Its no longer possible for the ordinary man (or woman) to disseminate the truth, hence causing immense confusion. At the very least, because there is so much confusion, you'd think the government would take a step back and try to establish a base set of irrefutable facts on which their policy is founded, but for some unfathomable reason, they are pressing on with this like its the holy grail, regardless of their "facts" being shot down in flames. One must assume therefore there is an incredible incentive for politicians, or there is something they are not telling us...

If you really want to get serious, Barnaby Joyce is putting a petition together to force the government to stop this nightmare. You can sign his petition on his web site www.barnabyjoyce.com.au

cheers

Rod

Rod as a scientist who understands the science of AGW. I find Barnaby to be an honest but ignorant and misguided fool when it comes to Global Warming.

What gave you the idea I thought otherwise?

I am sure you are correct that any financial incentive to change our ways such as an ETS could be abused by the usual suspects.

I can assure you that there is no confusion as far as the science is concerned!

It is the vested interests of oil and coal that are spending a fortune on confusing the public.

I personally do not give a damn for myself as I am sixty. It is my children and grandchildren and everyone else's whose future I fear for.

Bert

[Rod66 (Rod)]

Sorry Bert, I didn't mean to implicate you with Barnaby Joyce, that was more a general advertisement to all and sundry.

Misguided or not and I have no opinion on that to be honest, he is trying to stop this damn thing for various reasons, but thats fine with me as I have my own reasons which may be different to his, but he's about the only vehicle left at the moment that has any possiblity of delaying this bill. Thats why he gets my vote.

Interesting you say there is no confusion as far as the science is concerned, yet scientists the world over seem to be debating quite loudly. I'm no scientist, just an everyday guy but I can't see any fact from either side that is proven beyond doubt..the media has won this round I'm afraid..

Rod

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Rod66

Sorry Bert, I didn't mean to implicate you with Barnaby Joyce, that was more a general advertisement to all and sundry.

Misguided or not and I have no opinion on that to be honest, he is trying to stop this damn thing for various reasons, but thats fine with me as I have my own reasons which may be different to his, but he's about the only vehicle left at the moment that has any possiblity of delaying this bill. Thats why he gets my vote.

Interesting you say there is no confusion as far as the science is concerned, yet scientists the world over seem to be debating quite loudly. I'm no scientist, just an everyday guy but I can't see any fact from either side that is proven beyond doubt..the media has won this round I'm afraid..

Rod

The only debate comes from the deniers who are ill informed and or totally ignorant.

Scientists are debating but only about the finer points.

Have a look where the denialist scientists are funded.

Plimer for one is a sad case as his book is all over the place.

When denialists start saying that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas they have my attention.

Unfortunately unless you have a degree in science and you have Physics and Mathematics as majors you cannot begin to sort the lies from the truths let alone the half truths!

Bert

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I wasn't going to enter the debate but .....

As I see the reason why increased CO2 should warm the planet is beyond doubt. Even someone with a mere chemistry major can see that. (Nor is the idea new. It was first proposed in the late 19th century. In 1959 Isaac Asimov wrote an essay entitled 'No More Ice Ages?')

The models of exactly how much the planet will warm are still incomplete, and always will be. However they have come a long way since the 2D models of the early 1990s and none of the improvements have radically changed the predictions.

As someone whos job involves producing data for palaeoclimate/environment reconstruction, who works with a lot of palaeo scientists and who has an uncompleted PhD in the field (the use of multiple isotope proxies in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction) I believe the data does not unequivically prove AGW. However the data is entirely consistant with the hypothesis. It is just that the range and rate of natural change is poorly constrained. (That may change quite soon. Quaternary Science Reviews will have a special edition on the ice core records early in the new year and I believe there will be a lot of high resolution data presented there). The problem, however, is that if we wait until the data is unequivical then it will be too late to stop the AGW. I also think that everything proposed to combat AGW is a good idea anyway.

So I support measures designed to reduce our use of fossil fuel, to reduce usage of resources and recycling. Whether the ETS is the way to achieve that is out of my field, and the subject of another debate.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

It amazes me how the flat earth global warming deniers argue that it’s the politicians who are beating this whole thing up for some obscure political/economic advantage when the people who stand most to lose from initiatives to address global warming are the traditional $$$ and power men. That is, the people who since industrialisation have used every devise at their disposal to misinform and obscure any debate that might remotely affect their business/power interests (remember all those years when they argued that there was no evidence that tobacco causes cancer). What’s clear is that they have the politicians so firmly in their pockets (who only ever pay lip service to this issue) that no effective agreement will be reached at Copenhagen and we will all be made to suffer for the lies and cheap tricks of these people and the gullibility of the flat earth global warming deniers.

[Allan_L (Allan)]

Thanks for your views guys.

But please remember that this thread was only about the media report of gagging of CSIRO scientists by CSIRO and not whether GW is or is caused by human contribution to CO2 count, etc..

And now that the true nature of the alleged gag has been revealed, (sse post 80 from Jonathan) I don't think there is much more to debate here.

Additionally, I am cognisant of Mike's request to avoid Religion Politics Race and GW.

So please lets not go there again. (at least in this thread)

But again, thanks for your views.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Well after reading this thread, apart from being very disappointed in the level of scientific understanding that many have on this site. The most obvious thing to say is, it seems that to members are divided into two groups, those that lap up whatever the "Australian" dishes out without much thinking and those that do put a bit of thought into their views. Whatever side of this debate you are on, please educate yourself before commenting, as they say better to be thought.....
Australia is served very poorly by its media, but it get the media it deserves.

[xstream (John)]

The starter of this thread has requested it be closed.

Poll now finished, thank you.