CSIRO Climate Update: "We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us"

"Climate Change" Climate Job Trends from Indeed.com
“Climate Change” Climate Job Trends from Indeed.com

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova – The floor show from Aussie climate scientists whose jobs are on the line is continuing. Now that climate job security is a thing of the past, it turns out there are all sorts of uncertainties about climate projections, which maybe didn’t get much exposure, back in the golden years of government funded research.

According to The Guardian;

In the email to staff on Thursday, Marshall said that since climate change was proven to be real, CSIRO could shift its focus.

“Everybody is laughing at Marshall’s statement,” the scientist told Guardian Australia. “Who is he to declare that climate change is answered? The IPCC says so many problems are not answered yet. And unless you know how the climate is changing, how do you adapt to it?

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/05/senior-csiro-scientist-derides-chief-executives-claim-climate-change-is-answered

It gets better. Tony Haymet, who seems to have parachuted safely into a professorship at the SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography in the US, before the Aussie climate job cuts started, had this to [say];

“If you are a complete failure, what you do is take one of your best divisions, shut it down, and invest in your pet project,” Haymet said.

“That’s the coward’s way out … The job is to raise more resources. It’s like shutting down the Australian cricket team, saying we need a lacrosse team, and spending three decades investing in that.”

“We’ve only seen the beginning of climate change. We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us

Read more: Same link as above

Then there are really lame excuses for keeping the tax money flowing, like the following from Neville Nicholls, Professor Emeritus, School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University;

This decision cedes our place at the big table with the adults discussing what to do about climate change. From today we join the minnows on the little table on the veranda, waiting to be told what we will have to do by the grown-up countries that still have access to high-quality climate science.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/csiro-is-poised-to-slash-climate-research-jobs-experts-react-54170

I mean seriously? Does it matter who produces the information? Not that much actual usable information has been produced to date, if we are to believe the sudden rush of assertions about the uncertainty of climate projections, and the need for more research.

Just imagine if similar climate research job cuts were looming in the USA and Britain. We might discover that we don’t really understand the climate system at all.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 8, 2016 1:41 pm

We used Newtonian physics to get to the moon and back. Those same basic physics govern whether a cataclysmic meteor is careering toward our planet, and we don’t know what the heck is waiting for us. That doesn’t mean we need 1 million meteor scientists to sit around to one-up each other on ever-more catastrophic predictions on how soon a meteor might hit. We don’t need a million meteor scientists to create computer models of how the impact of a meteor strike might play out with ever larger meteors, or over 10,000 years in the future.
If the science is settled, the scientists need to go work on other things of more gravity that are still unknown, rather than argue over how many CO2 molecules dance on the head of a pin.

Reply to  KTM
February 8, 2016 2:13 pm

I dunno. Didn’t a meteor just kill some poor bloke in India? That is the problem with these change things. First one bloke, then two, then 4, then … and before you know it millions will die of meteor change.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ShrNfr
February 8, 2016 3:21 pm

Millions won’t die from meteor strikes until someone finds a reasonably plausible way to blame meteors on Man.
(Loose bolts from the space station?)

Reply to  ShrNfr
February 8, 2016 9:14 pm

Gunga Din
It was George Bush wot done it!

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  ShrNfr
February 9, 2016 1:50 pm

Brings new meaning to hiding under a rock.

john harmsworth
Reply to  ShrNfr
February 9, 2016 3:54 pm

Exactly! Illegal aliens! First one sneaks in- and it was assisted by who? Global warming, that’s who! Warmed up the air before the meteor got here so there would be less resistance. That nice Indian man was probably a climate scientist- just going about his everyday efforts to save the planet from evil industrialists when he was ruthlessly attacked by an illegal alien rock.

Reply to  KTM
February 8, 2016 2:25 pm

But it might be worth it to have a million astronomers cataloging ALL of the possible meteors careening around the solar system that might hit us though.
We know, sooner or later the earth will be hit.
The same can’t be said for AGW.

Reply to  micro6500
February 8, 2016 3:27 pm

That sounds like a method to find a million meteors only to discover that they’re all the same meteors.
Plus all million ‘new’ astronomers will be shrieking that is “worse than they thought”.
Remember, jobs for ex ‘climate science’ team members must take advantage of their skills while avoiding tempting them to use their less salubrious skills and weaknesses.
Ditch digging, underground coal or uranium mining, asteroid farming, moon lander flag men, mars dust sweepers, comet drivers…

Reply to  micro6500
February 8, 2016 3:29 pm
Berényi Péter
Reply to  micro6500
February 8, 2016 3:32 pm

You don’t need a million astronomers to do it. It’s a job for several people with the proper equipment.
However, once cataloged, you still have to have a couple of Orion class spaceships ready, preferably on low Earth orbit. Especially for an object zooming in from deep space on a hyperbolic trajectory, never ever seen and never cataloged. That’s how it should be done.
It costs money, but the ultimate doomsday costs even more. The technology is around for half a century anyway.

Reply to  micro6500
February 8, 2016 5:04 pm

AtheoK: I recall that a number of years ago a nuclear physicist postulated that there was only one electron that somehow zoomed all over the universe.

Reply to  micro6500
February 8, 2016 6:32 pm

Actually, “ultimate doomsday” costs nothing at all.

Reply to  micro6500
February 8, 2016 7:35 pm

The issue is that astronomers are honest and were clear about what the risks were. To this day, they still are.
Climate science does not have this type of integrity. Not even within orders of magnitude.

Reply to  micro6500
February 12, 2016 3:55 pm

This is my argument. There is historical evidence that is REALLY indisputable that asteroids strike the earth with significant impact every 2 million years or so and really big asteroids every 60 million years or so. We are currently definitely on the “DUE” situation. Nevertheless it might take a million years or it might hit tomorrow.
What we do know is that when one of these buggers hits there is an extremely high probability of 1 billion or more deaths. This will make any other natural disaster or possibly all other natural disasters ever to hit the world in humankinds history combined into one disaster. The results will be stressful for the earth but it will survive however, having 15% of al humanity killed in one hit will be unbelievable magnitude. This is not speculation. It is a fact that will happen.
Unlike Global Warming which will take hundreds of years to manifest and we can adapt to or that we can warn ourselves of impending storms, we can build buildings to survive 9,0 earthquakes. We can have rapid response teams to storms or other normal disasters or anything that global warming could throw. On the other hand an asteroid strike will give us possibly a month or two warning if we are lucky. In any case understanding how an asteroid will break up in the atmosphere and impact is impossible. So, we won’t know who will be hit until the thing actually is in the atmosphere and crashing. At that time no mitigation, no building codes, no underground shelter or fast response would help. 1 billion people will die and that’s it within minutes.
Is it worth spending a few billion here and there to track these things? To work on ways to deflect asteroids or to build alternate safe havens like mars? The CAGW crowd is worried about a degree or two. If an asteroid hits like this the earth will be plunged into ice ball earth again for possibly hundreds of years or thousands and many more will die. The climate will fall 10s of degrees overnight and possibly stay that way for whoever is alive at the time or survives lifetime.
I realize it is a remote thing but it is real. It will happen. We ignore it and continue as if that day will never happen. Life could be snuffed out on this little planet in many ways. The sun itself could have a little outburst and engulf the earth in massive radiation and heatwave that would melt and kill as bad as any asteroid or worse. As far as we know this is the only place in the entire universe that life has started and come to this point. It would be ashame if this tiny singular spot of life incredibly rare were snuffed out and humans did nothing to insure that life itself, that the little miracle we have here is lost forever so that the universe would remain lifeless rock for trillions of light years in all directions (some think it is that big).
I have trouble understanding what the CAGW crowd thinks the negative effects of all this CO2 are. They speak in these apocalypic terms. I am aware there are apocalyptic scenarios but climate change by CO2 is not something I can grasp. The seas go up a few meters in a few hundred years? Really we are worried about saving beachfront property owners of the future? Food supply imperiled? Really? With all the technology, increasing arable land, longer growing seasons they think this is remotely believable? Diseases from the tropics coming to get us? Really with so many mutations of existing bugs ahead of us and improvements in medical technology it is hard to believe this is the big risk. I just don’t understand what they are worried about. It makes no sense to me. None of it makes any sense. I try but it simply is stupid.

george e. smith
Reply to  KTM
February 8, 2016 2:58 pm

Those golden years were taxpayer funded. Government has no inate means of funding anything.

Reply to  KTM
February 8, 2016 3:40 pm

Planet X will mess up all the orbits so it won’t matter any way … 😉

February 8, 2016 1:43 pm

Fantastic! The question is, if government funding was available to disprove CAGW would you accept the job?

Reed Coray
Reply to  RichardK
February 8, 2016 1:53 pm

I project (not predict) that 97% of all climate scientist would accept money to disprove CAGW.

Reply to  Reed Coray
February 8, 2016 2:38 pm

Well I’m sure that the 2500 Nobel prize winning scientists will quickly be snapped up to work in other fields.
I hear that they are having trouble keeping plasma warm enough for long enough for commerially viable nuclear fusion. They could use their expertise to correct the temperature data.
The guys a BOM managed to turn cooling into warming over a whole continent, I’m sure they create a little more heat in a small confined volume. It just needs to be homgenised. Since they refuse to publish their methods they are in the enviable position of being the only ones who know how to do it.
They can name their price !!

Reply to  Reed Coray
February 8, 2016 2:50 pm

Since the IPCC is 95% certain, we only need to keep about 5% of them on to tie up the loose ends.
The rest should be able to find some seasonal work : picking cherries. They’re good at that.

george e. smith
Reply to  Reed Coray
February 8, 2016 3:06 pm

The Nobel prize presumably acknowledges somebody who discovered something important. Patents sort of do the same thing.
Neither one bestows universal knowledge on the recipient. There’s no history of such successes being repeated with success in other fields.
Marie Curie is just about the only dual Nobel winner in two different fields. (Physics and Chemistry I believe).
Sadly, her successes killed her.

bit chilly
Reply to  Reed Coray
February 8, 2016 3:35 pm

mike , that is a whole new level of sarcasm right there, brilliant .

Reply to  Reed Coray
February 8, 2016 7:51 pm

Mike–this made me bust out laughing, “I hear that they are having trouble keeping plasma warm enough for long enough for commerially viable nuclear fusion. They could use their expertise to correct the temperature data.”

David A
Reply to  Reed Coray
February 9, 2016 3:26 am

Actually Shelly, since the plasma fields do not hold the heat, certainly they could just surround them with CO2, a million parts per million, presto fusion solved.
The contradictions in these “scientists” wishing to keep their gravy are astounding…
“And unless you know how the climate is changing, how do you adapt to it?”
What the hell, they just spent 20 years telling us how the earth is warming CATASTROPHICALLY! Now they do not know “how the climate is changing” I will “adapt” by looking out side. If it is raining I will bring my umbrella. Neither you, me, or society should listen to one word these yahoos utter, let alone fund them.

Reply to  Reed Coray
February 10, 2016 1:57 am

LOL this made my day.

Warren Latham
Reply to  RichardK
February 8, 2016 2:38 pm

No (with respect) that is NOT the question.
Please remember when, how and by whom the term “global warming” was invented. That “inventor” is a known liar who has no proof whatever that CO2 is a pollutant and therefore the onus is entirely upon the “inventor” to give such proof.
It is NOT for me or for you or anyone else to disprove that which was NOT invented by any of us.
None of us is likely to have ever used the term before it was invented.
There is no such thing as global warming: there never was.

Reply to  RichardK
February 8, 2016 7:13 pm

A few thoughts…
Regarding the CSIRO cuts, what we’re likely to see is something similar to the purges by Stalin in the mid to late 1930’s back when it was really hot (maybe that was global warming caused?). Anyone not deemed completely loyal and completely politically on point will be the first to go. See ya’ all you lukewarmers.
Will this be like making concentrated orange juice out of a bunch of oranges? Just add grant money down the road and it reconstitutes. And if those that remain head off to Antarctica again, will it be like frozen concentrated orange juice in the little cans in the freezer section? But I digress…
Maybe I’m being naïve and there were none that were ever off-point or lukewarm (and would never accept money to actually look at the CAGW theory scientifically).
In any case, you can be assured that the worst of the climate hooligans will remain.
a violent young troublemaker, typically one of a gang.
synonyms: troublemaker, delinquent, juvenile delinquent, mischief-maker, vandal, alarmist climate non-scientist

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 10, 2016 2:16 pm

what we’re likely to see is something similar to the purges by Stalin in the mid to late 1930’s back when it was really hot (maybe that was global warming caused?).

So then, we in the USA can expect another Cold War? This time with Australia?

February 8, 2016 1:48 pm

Somebody, ANYBODY !! Please tell me WHEN, in the last 4.6 billion years of the Earth’s history, did the climate STOP changing ???

Reply to  Marcus
February 10, 2016 2:41 am

That’s the question the alarmists refuse to answer because the answer would embarrass them and maybe set people thinking. And we can’t have THAT.

John M
February 8, 2016 1:49 pm

I guess now they know how coal miners feel.
Of course there’s always performance art.

Reply to  John M
February 8, 2016 10:47 pm

OMG….how embarrassing for them.

Reply to  John M
February 9, 2016 4:48 am

Bondi, Gold and Hoyle were Cosmologists but their Steady State Theory was wrong. So what point is the video making? Do Climate Scientists in videos have total authority in Climate science?

Reply to  John M
February 10, 2016 2:21 pm

Well, that convinced me. And “I’m a fuckin’ climate scientist”. Who would have guessed?
Maybe I’ll go watch my plants grow now… That was really, debilitating?

Reply to  John M
February 10, 2016 3:25 pm

Here are more climate scientists.

February 8, 2016 1:50 pm

If you have to justify your job to others, your job isn’t really justifiable, is it? If you’re a fireman, you don’t need fires to “prove” the worth of your position. Ditto a policeman, the trash collector, the doctor, etc. Next time, don’t claim the science is “settled”. Keep them guessing.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Trebla
February 8, 2016 2:14 pm

In Ray Bradbury’s sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451, it was the firemen making the fires: out of books lest anyone think outside the party line. See any parallels to cli-fi writers at CSIRO?

February 8, 2016 1:52 pm

That’s always been a great issue with the whole CAGW swindle. We have been lectured to and threatened by the so-called experts for years The experts have expressed undying certitude in their predictions. To which I say, “Dear Expert, you expect us to reshape the world’s economy and everyone’s lifestyle, so you cannot be wrong about anything you say.” And now when the gravy train isn’t arriving, these experts say, “Oops, we’re not sure about a whole bunch of stuff.” Yeah, right. Now pick up your computer games and go play with them somewhere else.

Reply to  PaulH
February 8, 2016 2:18 pm

More than threatened, people have lost jobs and careers, they have tried to rewrite international law, so sceptics can be imprisoned and silenced.

February 8, 2016 2:13 pm

“We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us.”
Of course we know “what’s waiting for us”. They’ve made it abundantly clear. EVERYTHING is waiting for us: Drought, heat, rain, floods, snow, no-snow, earthquakes, volcanoes, giant jellyfish and meteorites – to name but a few of their promises and hype. We’re going to fry as the seas boil and freeze our assets off in the impending Ice Age. It’s all there!
They never could make up their minds, even though they claimed high certainty of each and every claim. Why should we pay them for their shoddy work and their computer games of make-believe? It is criminal to gain funding through *frord* and deception, is it not? What about inciting panic in order to bring down society and shut down civilization? People die when that happens. That ought to count for something. These people need to be investigated and charged.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
February 8, 2016 2:19 pm

Couldn’t their computer models calculate the job security sensitivity to doubling of scaremongering?

Reply to  vukcevic
February 8, 2016 2:22 pm

Accurately? Um….nope. Not that either. 🙂

Man Bearpig
Reply to  A.D. Everard
February 8, 2016 2:26 pm

… and depressed dogs and sharknadoes

Reply to  Man Bearpig
February 8, 2016 5:16 pm

Dang! I forgot the depressed dogs and the sharknadoes.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
February 9, 2016 3:34 am

“We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us.”
I would hope that they would find honest work. Except that history shows that these people can’t do honest work. And no, I still can’t bring myself to call them scientists.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
February 10, 2016 2:32 pm

It is criminal to gain funding through *frord*

Typo alert: that’e fnord I think, not frord.

February 8, 2016 2:20 pm

I totally believe that this is the result of “hiring” (developing, creating) “climate communicators” (aka advertising/marketing/propagandists) to talk to the world about “climate science”. They wanted the world to be scared…..so the climate communicators tried scaring the public to death with widgets and bombs and whatnot. No dice. So they tried to put a deadline on things-Kyoto, Al Gore’s line in the sand, Paris-to “force” the public to demand and end to fossil fuel usage. No dice. But at the same time they advertised Paris as a GRAND solution-so everybody took their parade chairs and parasols and went home.
But…but….wait…..we still need our jobs!….you’ve successfully marketed us OUT of work! You’ve created a situation in which either the world is doomed and we can’t stop it (so who needs to spend money keeping us at work) or we’ve struck a deal in which the world is saved (so who needs to spend money keeping us at work) !!!
I think HUGE congratulations to social scientists like John Cook, and Stephan Lewandowsky, and Dana Nuccitelli and other talented “climate communicators” are in order!!! For what? Why, for so ineptly misunderstanding/miscalculating human behavior and helping to create campaigns that backfired so spectacularly on each other, that they almost rendered climate scientists obsolete in the process! Now…if Mickey Mann and Friends can render the satellite data/research obsolete as well, maybe we can defund NASA and NOAA’s “climate research” teams and get back to space exploration and marine biology???
Yes folks, this is what happens when the government hands out money to irresponsible, egotistical, completely illogical people. They end up eating their own on the way to fame and citations per publication!
I have always said that CAGW promoters can and will do more damage to their own arguments than any “skeptic” could ever hope to do to it.

Reply to  Aphan
February 8, 2016 2:30 pm

You’re right on. The people that act out of fear always have something more immediate to worry about than sea-level rise 50-80 years from now. Scare tactics can work, but the consequences must be immediate, personal and devastating.

bit chilly
Reply to  Aphan
February 8, 2016 3:43 pm

i think you nailed the situation perfectly there aphan .

Reply to  Aphan
February 9, 2016 12:10 am

@ Aphan, I love the “eat their own” remark, it is time for popcorn and a brew! . I do fell somewhat sorry for the guys that lost their jobs but hey that’s what you get for being a sycophant instead of your standing up!

Reply to  Aphan
February 9, 2016 12:49 am


Reply to  Aphan
February 10, 2016 2:44 pm

I have always said that CAGW promoters can and will do more damage to their own arguments than any “skeptic” could ever hope to do to it.

I have to agree to an extent, but I think you sell vocal skeptics short a bit. Australia is the first to de-fund “climate science” but they weren’t a major contributor to start. When the US see the light, and Europe rolls over, the job will be largely finished. Until then this is a battle won, but the war isn’t over.
Without a vocal skeptical audience, who would force the cAGW proponents to make the absurd claims and idiotic rebuttals they have? In a vacuum of blind acceptance they just thrive at the public trough. Don’t count yourselves worthless.

Reply to  Bartleby
February 10, 2016 3:04 pm

Oh I don’t discount vocal skeptics at all. I have no doubt that the war isn’t over yet. 🙂
It has just never ceased to amaze me how stupid and counterproductive Cook and Lew and others have been. (especially since they work in the social sciences) I seriously hope that someday someone does the research to find out if there’s a correlation between Cook and Lew and Oreskes and others behaviors and the INCREASE in skeptics over time. It would be the cherry on that crap Sundae if they actually had a profound influence on it’s downfall.

Reply to  Bartleby
February 10, 2016 3:11 pm

Oh…and PS….I find it ironic (in a fun sort of way) that Australia is ALSO the place where some of the most prominent “climate communicators”/CAGWers are employed.

February 8, 2016 2:24 pm

Settled science consequences unsettled the scientists who settled the suddenly now unsettled science according to unsettled scientists.
Trying to have your cake and eat it too usually ends in severe indigestion.

February 8, 2016 2:24 pm

What I find remarkable is you have guys with advanced degrees in technical fields scared to death because they might get laid off and have to look for another job. Meanwhile here in this country, coal miners and workers in industries that support them are being laid off by the thousands in rural areas where there aren’t many other jobs, particularly ones that pay as well as mining. I have a lot sympathy for the miners but much less sympathy or empathy for the researchers.

Reply to  Sean
February 8, 2016 2:27 pm

It was the cries of “bad coal…BAD BAD COAL” from the guys with the advanced degrees in technical fields that caused the coal miner/worker lay offs. It’s too bad that the laid off tech/scientists don’t have to stand in the unemployment lines with the laid off coal miners because I suspect that the coal miners would beat the living crap out of them.

Reply to  Aphan
February 9, 2016 12:12 am

+ Many and deservedly so!

Reply to  Sean
February 8, 2016 2:31 pm

Looks good on ’em, doesn’t it? Guys AND gals, presuming CSIRO is an equal opportunity expunger.

Reply to  Sean
February 8, 2016 3:49 pm

Sean, given the absolutely lousy “science” these people with their questionable advanced degrees have been practicing, I believe the coal miners are more employable and have better chances of landing jobs. Charlatans do not last long in private industry.

Reply to  jayhd
February 10, 2016 3:12 pm

And if predictions of cooling are accurate, the coal miners will be employed again long before the climateers are.

February 8, 2016 2:32 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
How to keep your government funded climate job. Lessons 101-103 :
– “We have no idea what the climate is doing.”
– “The science is not settled.”
– “The 97% consensus thing was merely a propaganda tool to prove our theory when the data wouldn’t.”

Reply to  Climatism
February 10, 2016 3:13 pm

I wonder if Cook et al covered this in their Denial 101 online course? (snark)

Mike the Morlock
February 8, 2016 2:32 pm

People I hate to point this out, but no one has gotten a pink slip yet.
The Australian Gov is going to be under tremendous pressure to rescind the layoffs. They will in all likelihood demand Mr Marshall’s head on a platter.
The question is will the powers that be hold their ground.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 9, 2016 12:13 am

Mike please keep us up to date on this and on this thread, Thanks!

February 8, 2016 2:36 pm

Typo alert:

It gets better. Tony Haymet, who seems to have parachuted safely into a professorship at the SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography in the US, before the Aussie climate job cuts started, had this to day

Should it be say?
Lacrosse – The effect is similar to Australian Rules Football played with bloody huge clubs. The sport has been considerably cleaned up. Not nearly as many people die playing it these days.

Reply to  commieBob
February 8, 2016 3:49 pm

Lacrosse was often played between Eastern North American tribes to settle disputes rather than going to war. Lacrosse was like a war game, like “Climate Science”.

Reply to  commieBob
February 8, 2016 4:26 pm

Are Footie matches still allowed 4% casualties amongst players before the match is abandoned?

February 8, 2016 2:44 pm

Well if the famous ‘97% of Climate Scientists’ agree that the Science is settled we no longer need them.
So sack the 97% and put the funding to the 3% that have other ideas.
I bet that in a few years it would be 3% saying ‘The Science is Settled’ and 97% saying we need more research.

February 8, 2016 2:47 pm

I regard the long term climate models as the computerized equivalent of witch craft – nobody knows exactly what is going on but it creates a hell of a lot of noise and keeps the shaman gainfully employed…
Maybe we need a cartoon of scientists dancing around a computer and a chap in the background pulls the plug…

Bryan A
February 8, 2016 2:50 pm

Apologies to Joni…A more complete version
Both Sides, Now
Environmentalists claim to care
that CO2 is added to the air
from energy that’s used everywhere
They’ve looked at climate that way
But now they only mock the sun
They say rain and snow will never come
So many things they could have done
But climate got in their way
They’ve looked at climate from both sides now
From hot and cold, and still somehow
It’s climate illusions they recall
they really don’t know climate at all
Carbon turns the models wheel
It drives the temperature you feel
This fairy tale will soon come real
they’ve modeled climate that way
But Paris is just another show
They’ll all be crying when you go
And if you care, don’t let them know
Don’t give yourself away
They’ve tweaked the models from both sides now
From give and take, and still somehow
It’s model’s illusions they recall
They really don’t trust models at all
But Models and Data don’t agree
The temperature has stagnated you see
they couldn’t let the data be
It just got in their way
But now the data is looking strange
They temperature record’s changed
The Data’s lost, the science defamed
It’s changing every day
They’ve looked at climate from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It’s climate’s illusions they recall
they really don’t know life at all
They’ve looked at climate from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It’s climate’s illusions they recall
they really don’t know life at all

February 8, 2016 2:51 pm

But they themselves told us that the Science was settled! 97% of them were in agreement. They said that the certainty and confidence was now over 95%. Nothing more to be done, was there now? Bye, bye……

Reply to  ntesdorf
February 8, 2016 4:58 pm

They rely on expert judgement. But without the experts, all is lost.

Claude Harvey
February 8, 2016 2:53 pm

Do not expect adult behavior from spurned scientists. Back in the 1980’s, I was visiting the old Sperry Research Center when the announcement came, out of the blue, that the facility was being closed. By sundown, that bunch of outraged PhD’s had stripped its office-supply storeroom of every pencil, pad, staple and scrap of paper in it. Only a few, forlorn paperclips remained scattered about the floor. The place looked as if a Viking raiding party had passed through.

Leon Brozyna
February 8, 2016 3:17 pm

So, what the soon-to-be-unemployed climate scientists are saying is, “we don’t know what we’re talking about and what’s happening to the climate, so we need funding and jobs to find out.”
I’ll take them at their word … they don’t know what they’re talking about. Why waste money on their nonsense when there are more pressing concerns needing attention in the here and now.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Leon Brozyna
February 8, 2016 3:27 pm

But the best way for them (grant leaches, profiteer and politicians) to benefit from the CGI here and now is to scare people about the there and then.

February 8, 2016 3:37 pm

I’m an engineer with 35+ years of experience and have no problems finding work. I build stuff that employees other people and gives them the opportunity to manage their own lives. Environmental scientist/climate scientist/activist or whatever; build theories that are targeted at disrupting the free markets, killing jobs and enslaving people to the government. They feel powerful by having the control.
I’ve been involved in science for a long time and these people are not scientist, they are trained activist who despise capitalism and have very little science skills. My opinion of course.

John in L du B
Reply to  jjs
February 8, 2016 6:40 pm

Jjs. I’m a physicist with 35+ years experience. I too have no problem finding work. I’ve worked mostly in industry including nuclear and healthcare. While you and I were doing useful things like building stuff people needed, developing useful products, doing real research to seriously understand the world around us and solving problems something strange has been going on at the universities.
I just can’t imagine what my PhD supervisor would say to me if I told him that my computer model was more believable than the data. It seems like there has been a complete moral breakdown in academia.

Gary Pearse
February 8, 2016 4:02 pm

Many of us have been saying if the science is settled and the debate is over, why do we need a 100,000 climate mechanics armed with one linear equation which they refuse alter even after over 35yrs.
I think we can call this the Stephen Schneider Effect. They took him at his word that cliSci has to exaggerate and lie as much as they feel comfortable with to get the message out there and to express no uncertainty. Well cliSci, we’ll done.
This is much bigger than Csiro. The Unis are choc full of students who are facing irrelevance and professors who won’t be needed. If the pause filled up clinics with cliSci folk in classical psychological d*Nile, layoffs will fill the need for psyche ‘resource teams to prevent them from doing harm to themselves. Melissa, I warned you five years ago to not take environmental option in geology but you put me in the spam folder.

Mark Gilbert
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 8, 2016 8:52 pm

My daughter too (sigh)

Reply to  Mark Gilbert
February 9, 2016 12:37 am

My daughter is working in a liquor store she telling me sales are up!

Bruce Cobb
February 8, 2016 4:03 pm

“We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us.”
Well, unemployment for one.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 8, 2016 7:19 pm

Bruce they have been offered the opportunity to go into mitigation, but at this stage its uncertain whether any of them will make the cut.

FJ Shepherd
February 8, 2016 4:13 pm

That climate change job trend graph in the article looks like a reversed hockey stick. I wonder if that will correlate with temperature trends soon, or, will they just keep adjusting the data to death.

Jimmy Haigh
February 8, 2016 4:26 pm

Welcome to the real world. The climate guys are now just starting to worry about their futures. Just wait until you lose your jobs for real like hundreds of thousands of oil/gas industry people – like myself – who are already out of work. Mind you it’s worse for us as we were actually doing something useful.

February 8, 2016 4:31 pm

If only there was some kind of device that could be launched into space where it can measure climate change for the whole planet! Then each country wouldn’t need hundreds of people to measure climate change; they could provide genuinely GLOBAL datasets! Imagine the resources saved!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Andrew
February 8, 2016 5:10 pm

It’s thousands of people and there is such a device up there and the data twisters are trying to kill the satellite data. Its okay for these pesky satellites to tell us what is happening on Mars (which BTW also had a shrinking ice cap in the 1990s.), Titan, Saturn and the rest, but don’t do that kind of stuff for the earth.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 9, 2016 3:49 am

“but don’t do that kind of stuff for the earth.” – or more to the point, don’t do it with the Earth and forget to make it show a nice warming trend, exactly the same slope as the most popular models show. Not most correct, you notice – it’s just a beauty contest.

Robert of Ottawa
February 8, 2016 5:07 pm

From Sydney Morning Herald via Andrew Bolt, desperate climate scientist gather

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
February 10, 2016 5:59 am

what’s with the happy snap of a flock of unperched spangled drongos ? 😉

high treason
February 8, 2016 5:08 pm

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned”-Richard Feynman. This quote pretty well puts things in a nutshell. If they claim their science is settled, then no new research is required. If they turn around and say they need to do more research, it means the claim is simply untrue. This then means the “debate is over” is also untrue. As both assertions were always highly questionable, we need to scrutinize why certain bodies have always been making these 2 outrageous statements. They are both from the realms of religion.

Scottish Sceptic
February 8, 2016 5:19 pm

To be really cynical – it just shows that climate “scientists” are no longer helping politicians get elected. Scaremongering with bad science is no longer winning votes – so now the politicians need a scape goat – and here we have 350 of them all tied up and ready for slaughter.
And all because … the politicians think that will get them votes.

Gary Pearse
February 8, 2016 5:21 pm

““Everybody is laughing at Marshall’s statement,” the scientist told Guardian Australia.”
Even this they can’t get right – tears and fear I suppose can make you laugh in a crazy sort of way. I do feel bad for the legions of young scientists though that were inveigled into this dead end career, dead end precisely because it was settled and not to be questioned. From personal experience, there is nothing you could do to advise these students of the abyss that lay ahead.
As pointed out above, the pink slips haven’t been handed out yet, but I think governments, virtually all facing grim economic times and citizens that are critical of their killer energy and environmental policies, may be encouraged to do the ‘unthinkable’ with this lead from Australia. I hope this is the beginning of the end of this global pandemic self immolation movement. It will only get more painful if they try to keep this beast alive.

Steve in SC
February 8, 2016 5:24 pm

I propose that any former climate scientists be put to work as heat wave observers on Adak in the Aleutians.
The government would be money ahead to send them there and feed them.

Reply to  Steve in SC
February 8, 2016 6:07 pm

I propose that any former climate scientists be put to work as heat wave observers on Adak in the Aleutians.
The government would be money ahead to send them there and feed them.

Should they not been “given 40 acres and a mule” … on the west coast of Greenland? There, they could grow their own food!

February 8, 2016 5:29 pm

This is my own favourite example of the great Australian CAGW and renewables madness cash giveaway.
Here is a wayback machine copy of a press-release from Wollongong University – which plainly states that
“Researchers from UOW are developing technologies for next generation offshore wind turbines that are one-third the price and 1,000 times more efficient, and they could be installed off the coast of Australia in the next five years.”
The claim from this esteemed organization lead to viral coverage.
The researcher received about $200,000 for this project.
I do not know whether the grant awarding body were aware that wind turbines can never become 1000 times more efficient without a very significant relaxation of the laws of physics.
Since the generator unit in modern large turbines is already more than 90% efficient.
90,000% efficiency seems unlikely anytime soon. (sarc)
My second favourite is the Antarctic Climate Change exploration ship that got stranded in the ice and had to be rescued at great expense.
And the third must be the proxy study published widely in MSM which was withdrawn only hours after publication (never to return) and yet cost the Australian tax payer approx. a quarter of a million dollars (by recollection).
There must be more ways of wasting millions of oz dollars of other people’s hard earned cash, and I’m sure that the Australian CAGW crowd are busy trying to find them…

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
February 8, 2016 6:04 pm

Yes, Turney’s steel ship never made it to Cape Denison, but Mawson’s wooden boat did. Mawson’s Hut was recently dug out of ice and snow. Seems the Antarctic has had both more and less snow and ice over time.

Reply to  lee
February 8, 2016 7:53 pm

Yeah, it makes you realize that Mawson and other polar explorers of that time where part of a breed of heroes. The modern ship had access to satellite ice data and modern weather forecasting, GPS and radar – PLUS the ability to call mayday and receive aid in the event of the ice closing in.
Back in the early 20th century explorers were seemingly reliant only on luck, judgement and an astonishing level of personal bravery.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  lee
February 9, 2016 3:48 am

On the other hand Shackleton’s Endurance which had specifically built for Polar operations was crushed in the ice and only superhuman efforts enabled the survival of the crew. Prior to good weather forecasts and satellite imagery it was always a risk. The thing about sea ice is it shifts rapidly and what was open water can close in very fast Last summer (the warmest evah) the Canadian Icebreaker Amundsen had tobreak off its normal research cruise to resupply northern settlements that were running out of supplies as they were still ice bound in July.
As an interesting sideline the Guardian is running an article today which reports that any Arctic shipping route is at least 40 years away and will require ice reinforced ships. It contains this interesting quote from the Arctic Institute.
“It is highly unlikely that large-scale containerised cargo transports will appear in the near future. The question then arises: when, if ever, will the ice conditions allow for continuous and economically feasible container transport along the route?”

James Walker
Reply to  lee
February 9, 2016 9:24 am

Certainly not before 2056, and possibly for the final twenty years of the next solar warm period, which should end around 2188 and the start of the next grand mimimum.

February 8, 2016 7:06 pm

Well. In Paris Mr. Bon Ki Moon Hoisted his “big” glass of Champagne and uttered …. ! … [cough] [cough] Rule Da … Verld ! HA Ha . and gasping for air refrained from further eruptions.
Well. Mr. Bon Ki Moon, your turn at the UN is coming of an … End. That IS good!
Ha ha

John in L du B
Reply to  601nan
February 10, 2016 12:23 pm

Not if he’s replaced by Obama

February 8, 2016 8:17 pm

In 2010 a discussion broke out on my blog on an article called Wind Farms: Do they kill birds?. A poster called Marcus started putting up a whole load of highly offensive ad hominem. Example:

Wow, your arguments seem to be cribbed directly from the Denialist Industry hand-book. You come here to attack wind-farms because of the toll they take on bird life, yet you have no problem with Coal-fired electricity, which kills 20x more birds PER GW-H of electricity generated-you even go so far as pushing another Denialist meme-namely the simplistic “CO2 as plant food” nonsense. For the record, it is nitrogen & water-*not* CO2-which has the greatest impact on plant biomass. Personally I don’t even know why I’m dealing with someone who is clearly just using the “poor little birdies” defense to actually defend the monopoly position of the coal & oil industries. For someone to do that, but then accuse others of “lying” really makes me laugh!

I tolerated his BS, and I and others replied to his nonsense. Then I told him to stick to the facts instead of posting personal attacks:

Marcus, your offensive attitude doesn’t deserve any reply actually – in fact most or all of your friends on the alarmist websites would simply delete comments far more moderate than yours. However, I and others who reject the global warming scam, such as Anthony Watts on WUWT, don’t behave like that.
Let’s start with some of your ad hominems, shall we? So my aim is simply to defend the fossil fuel industry? Then why have I participated in the Friends of Felton protests against building a coal mine on prime agricultural land? Or written letters to my local newspaper and the national press opposing the mine? Why did I spend a day to take a complete photo survey of another coal mine build in an irresponsible location and send the lot to activists trying to alert people to the dangers of the mine? Why have I objected to badly-sited coal mines on this very blog? You know nothing about me and you prove your own bad motives by writing hate without any evidence for a word you’ve said.
Moving on: My aim is *not* to protect bird life? Have you looked at my other main website, http://wingedhearts.org? Are you an honorary member of a bird family? Has a wild bird on its last day come to you to die in your arms instead of doing the instinctive thing and hiding away in solitary under some bush? Has an Australian magpie mother led you one tree at a time through the bush to show you her nest when other members of her species attack humans who go anywhere near a nest? Has a magpie mother relocated her nest so you can see how the babies are growing before they emerge into the world, and then left you to guard the chicks while she goes to find food? And as for bats, have you personally cared for an orphan bat, paid the $500 in costs (whilst unemployed) to get properly inoculated against rabies which is a condition of being allowed to touch wild bats, made it its bottle five times a day, held it upside down in a ‘mummy roll’ while it feeds, shared your own bedroom with him so he has company at night, cleaned his wings every day? No? Didn’t think so. So keep your offensive personal opinions to yourself, if you don’t mind. This site is for discussion of issues, not to give you your personal libel zone.

Anyway, Marcus would be a trivial irrelevance, not unlike a thousand other offensive, nasty pieces of work promoting the CAGW scam, were it not for one thing, which was pointed out privately to me some time ago. Even though that thing is embarrassing for the alarmists, I still didn’t bother with it until today, right now, when the climate “scientists” protest their rightful dismissal:
“Marcus” was posting from a CSIRO account during work time!
So does their worthy climate “science” include getting taxpayer dollars to libel skeptics on no basis whatsoever?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ron House
February 9, 2016 12:21 am

I have seen much MUCH worse from a Govn’t employee (Senior Judge), using Govn’t e-mail systems to send “naughty” e-mails to a private sector employee (Telecom New Zealand).

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Ron House
February 9, 2016 1:54 am

About a decade ago I worked in the wind sector in Scotland and knew those pushing the whole thing (largely for their own gain). Having read up on the subject I was aware that birds were being killed but I wanted to know the accurate figure so asked one. Their response: “birds are not killed”.
Now, having had a bird die from flying into one of our house windows, and seeing the regular death toll beside the roads, it was pretty damned obvious that birdmincers (as I now call them in “honour” of his remark) will kill birds. But as a then supporter of wind, I wanted to counter the opponents with real information. Instead I was being fed overt and clearly selfish lies.
OK, let’s be fair – all businessmen try to spin the best possible PR for their product whether selling birdmincers, oil or exocet missiles. What was different with wind, is not only were their lies more blatant, but they were supported endorsed and encouraged by immoral and repugnant “Green=gullibles” so that the wind’s lies are all that much worse.
And it’s because the wind business got such an easy ride and were able to tell such outrageous lies that I’m pretty certain that as the public, politicians and eventually the Greens and even finally the real idiots like the BBC & Guardian finally turn on this evil money-grabbing business scam, there will be far more shady dealings an dodgy data to be revealed than in most similar enterprises.

Reply to  Ron House
February 10, 2016 3:19 pm

Our “Marcus” is a steel worker. Just making that clear to all 🙂
He also likes Snuggies, puppies, and driving Janice Moore crazy. 😛

February 8, 2016 10:35 pm

Where’s Andrew Bolt when we need him ?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Rober
February 9, 2016 12:15 am

Probably looking for another broadcaster to work for. I think Channel 10 binned him ‘çoz of his sceptical views on climate change.

February 8, 2016 11:03 pm
February 8, 2016 11:26 pm

Centrelink is waiting for us. That is the answer

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robert
February 9, 2016 12:10 am

I hope so then they will know what real work (Stress) and data recording (Job searches) is like, otherwise you don’t get your benefits. My last contract was and current contract is with a New South Wales state Govn’t agency. I can see almost all of them would struggle in the private sector. I, by chance, moved from private sector to Govn’t. And it’s a doddle! I have been in the current contract for 5 weeks and only today I have been granted access to the systems to actually do the job. The only Govn’t sector I could not work in would be hospitals and nursing.

February 9, 2016 2:50 am

After years of sitting, maybe they can retrain as stand-up comics

February 9, 2016 2:56 am

Big Food and Big Pharma have an enormous amount at stake Just like Climate Change.https://youtu.be/fvKdYUCUca8?t=55 :You couldn’t make this up unless you were smoking something: after revelations of ‘trial by ambush’ and secret reports comes the news that professors of bioethics, surgery and psychiatry exercising a statutory function for the Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) may have shown dedication beyond the call of duty to ensure that Prof Tim Noakes was charged and that the hearing against him succeeds. The HPCSA went straight into total denial mode, even contradicting a written instruction by its own registrar in an apparent spin on a cat and mouse game of gross irregularities on the part of one of its committees involved in charging Noakes. Here’s what happened on the first day of the hearing that resumed in Cape Town on February 8 and that grows stranger by the day. – Marika Sboros

Reply to  Russell
February 9, 2016 5:27 am

Lynne Gill 3 months ago Doesn’t this sound like Climate Change !
I’m only 30 minutes in and I want to call for any surviving pushers of these toxic “foodstuffs”, the industrialists, the tame medicos, the politicians who rolled over, and the lawyers who “fixed” things for this insane, and immoral crowd of terrorists, to be taken out and shot. They have murdered thousands upon thousands of people in the western world who followed suit. I am enraged. And now we have the iniquity of the TTIP which will give these powerful industrialist even more power to ruin our lives.

February 9, 2016 3:14 am

Climate scientists being sacked from Australia’s CSIRO ,our premier taxpayer-funded scientific research body, because they are now longer needed because “the Science is Settled “must represent one of the most outstanding examples of the “biter being bit” I can recall.Talk about an own goal.
Alarmist public commentators and warmist scientists in Australia such as David Karoly and Will Steffen ran or supported the stupid mantra “the science is settled ” in relation to argument over the size and causes of global warming.
Their clear intent was to close down debate and also to demonize those who questioned the orthodoxy line that man-made CO2 emissions were the principal cause of global warming -now transmuted into climate change- which they predicted would be “catastrophic”.
They have now reaped what they sowed-and aren’t they (eg Karol)y whingeing loudly at what they themselves have brought about.

February 9, 2016 4:00 am

I preferred Robert’s answer.

Tom Moran
February 9, 2016 4:22 am

Imagine trying to build sea walls with solar powered excavators and dozers? Imagine a wind powered concrete plant? There’s no limit to the parade of useless ideas that would come from continued climate funding.

Jeremy Poynton
February 9, 2016 7:02 am

‘CSIRO Climate Update: “We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us”’
We know. The models have made that amply clear. But thanks for the confirmation.

February 9, 2016 7:12 am

“…unless you know how the climate is changing, how do you adapt to it?” – scientist quoted by Guardian

Before you have any chance of knowing how the climate is changing, you need to know how the climate changes. To keep it simple for the stumble-bum scientist and the Guardian, If climate science methodology had infected physics we would still be predicting how the sun revolves around the earth instead of having an advanced understanding of orbital physics.
We need to figure out how climate changed in the past, what all the the drivers and factors were, before trying to predict climate change for the next millennial cycle of climate.

Reply to  Alx
February 9, 2016 9:38 am

The climate is changing unpredictably. That is the nature of physically chaotic systems.
Millions of people and untold resources have already been used to try to predict the ways dice will roll, cards will fall, and lottery numbers pop up, but we still have casinos making money.
The wise ones among us accept the stochastic nature of the universe and adapt.

February 9, 2016 8:11 am

Well, I guess this really proves the point: money is behind it all.

February 9, 2016 1:39 pm

Since the science is settled, there is no need for goobermints to employ ANY climate scientists ever again.
Fire all of them.
They’ve wasted enough money.

February 9, 2016 4:20 pm

In this analogy, tha Aussie Cricket team is real science, the Lacrosse team is the GW boondoggle, and the last 3 decades of money tossed down a rat-hole of pre-determined outcome is more than enough.

Robert B
February 9, 2016 9:41 pm

“This decision cedes our place at the big table with the adults discussing what to do about climate change. From today we join the minnows on the little table on the veranda, waiting to be told what we will have to do by the grown-up countries that still have access to high-quality climate science.”
Am I missing something? Isn’t there still going to be 97% consensus even if Australian scientists are taken out of the loop? Hell, they don’t contribute they merely parrot anyway.

Reply to  Robert B
February 10, 2016 3:37 am

“This decision cedes our place at the big table with the adults discussing what to do about climate change.”
Err no chaps your expertise is mucking about with fancy thermometers not engineering and political economy and we don’t need to pay you to sit around discussing that.

Reply to  Robert B
February 10, 2016 9:18 am

Robert B,
I think that comment in particular demonstrates a very real, very bad/sad bigoted attitude among climate scialongts. Those at the top are “adults at the big table” and everyone else doesn’t even qualify as human! He called everyone else “minnows”, not even children! One group leads and dictates, the other waits and obeys.
These people don’t view “science” as a team sport where every player is important and necessary to complete a bigger picture of truth and knowledge. They view it as a heirarchy, a class system, and it reflects poorly, but I suspect accurately, on the state of the field today.
Which might indicate that the “adults” declared a “consensus” and the minnows were just expected to believe and follow along. Talk about a 1% vs 99% class war waiting to happen. Someone needs to lead the minnows in an uprising!

February 11, 2016 1:26 am

Couldn’t have put it better myself Larry the Lad-
“In fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me.”
That sure is a catastrophic climate change for you fellers.

Verified by MonsterInsights