CSIRO Boss Attacks Climate Lobby: ‘More Like Religion Than Science’ 

Posted: February 11, 2016 by oldbrew in climate, government, News

How many climate scientists is too many? [image credit: NSIDC]

How many climate scientists is too many?
[image credit: NSIDC]

Thunder Down Under as the boss of some climate scientists dares to reshuffle his resources, shattering false dreams of endless opportunity for a group that seemed to believe it was bulletproof, career-wise. As Jo Nova pointed out, if the science is settled, how much work can there be left to do?

The CSIRO’s chief has told the ABC the backlash from his decision to restructure the organisation has made him feel like an “early climate scientist in the ’70s fighting against the oil lobby” and that there is so much emotion in the debate it almost “sounds more like religion than science”.

Dr Larry Marshall said he would not be backing down on his controversial shake-up of the organisation’s climate divisions, telling the ABC he was yet to be persuaded. The redirection of climate science priorities at the CSIRO has drawn international condemnation, with thousands of climate scientists signing an open letter protesting against the changes.

The Oceans and Atmosphere division is expected to be one of the hardest hit, with 60 positions to go through a mix of redeployment and redundancies. All up, 350 jobs will “change” – a plan that’s drawn the ire of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-chair and even the World Meteorological Organisation which has made an unprecedented statement condemning the decision.

But Dr Marshall said he had not been persuaded to reconsider the changes. “For that to happen, someone’s going to have to convince me that measuring and modelling is far more important than mitigation – and at this point you know, none of my leadership believe that,” he said.

Since the changes were announced last Thursday, Dr Marshall has spent much of the week trying to clarify the restructure, stressing that there will not be a net loss of jobs. “I feel like the early climate scientists in the ’70s fighting against the oil lobby,” he said. “I guess I had the realisation that the climate lobby is perhaps more powerful than the energy lobby was back in the ’70s – and the politics of climate I think there’s a lot of emotion in this debate.”

“In fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me. I’ve been told by some extreme elements that they’ve put me at the top of the climate deniers list and what perplexes me is how saying that we’re going to shift more resources to mitigation – i.e. doing something to address climate change versus just measuring and modelling it – I don’t see how that makes me a climate denier.”

Source: CSIRO Boss Attacks Climate Lobby: ‘More Like Religion Than Science’ | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  1. oldbrew says:

    Jo Nova reported: “Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist said before the announcement.


    The focus has switched to mitigation of (potential or actual?) climate effects.

  2. Climatism says:

    That awkward moment when the head of Australia’s premier warmist institution – the CSIRO – acknowledges that ‘climate change’ has become a religious enterprise.

  3. bobfj says:

    It seems that thousands of international “climate scientists” might be worrying that other policy makers might see that mitigation is a better emphasis than continuing research on what “has already been settled”. AKA worried about job security.

  4. oldbrew says:

    How exactly they plan to achieve ‘mitigation’ of every conceivable climate unpleasantness is going to be interesting to watch 😉

  5. erl happ says:

    Government funded research….a recipe for misdirection of scarce resources and waste on the grandest scale.

    Well, it seems that global markets are currently indicating a lack of confidence in the allocation of resources, Central banks can’t stimulate investment even though interest rates are below or close to negative. We are seeing a flight to ‘safe havens’. How safe I wonder? You can’t eat that stuff.

    The cheapest sources of energy have been taxed to the point of unprofitably. Out in the real world energy has never been cheaper in real terms than today.

    I read that in parts of the globe the banking system is awash with non performing loans.

    Governments are cash strapped. In many parts of Europe it seems that youth cant get jobs. In the US, the leader of the free world, only the ability of the central bank to keep credit flowing is enabling the government to pay its bills. Only the mistaken belief that the US dollar is a safe haven is saving it from junk bond status.

    Its nice to know that at the head of one division of the CSIRO there is a man saying that ‘enough is enough’. In Australia it is the Commonwealth that has the ‘growth taxes’. The states had to abandon CSIRO type industry support via their ‘Departments of Agriculture’ thirty years ago.

    Humanity will look back and see the green agenda as the intellectual folly of this age. That things have to get so bad, and look so precarious for so long, before we see the required change of policy is not comforting.

  6. gallopingcamel says:

    The best to kill the CAGW fraud is to defund the junk scientists.

    Australia is showing how to do it but CSIRO spending is a drop in the bucket. We need to demand similar measures in the USA. It is time for Michael Mann and his ilk to find honest work.

  7. p.g.sharrow says:

    This is terrible! Their New Boss wants to do the real work of unneeded mitigation and the “climate Scientists” want to continue with their worthless computer projections based on assumptions and their religious dogmas. Do they dare tell their boss that there is no solution to their none existent problem?

    An end to the gravy train of funding for their unending intellectual vacation.
    ……… THE END of THEIR WORLD..pg

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    What are they going to mitigate? Nature? Here’s an idea: Spend some resources on exploration of nature. (Not expecting that to be a popular idea.)

  9. oldbrew says:

    They will peer into their crystal balls aka climate models, discover that various nasties are on the horizon, then launch into madcap schemes to counter the supposed nasties.

    This will be called science :/

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    If I saw this guy in person I would say to him, “what the **** are you going to mitigate???”

  11. Jason Calley says:

    “what perplexes me is how saying that we’re going to shift more resources to mitigation – i.e. doing something to address climate change versus just measuring and modelling it – I don’t see how that makes me a climate denier.”

    Dr. Marshall is confused. He apparently thinks that being a “climate denier” has something to do with belief (or lack of belief) in CAGW.

    No…. a “climate denier” is anyone whose actions threaten to derail the climate gravy train.