Even the CSIRO boss is a ‘denier’ to the zealots…
Finally worked it out, then, have we?
Here are some ACM articles from years past on the subject:
- From 2012: Maurice Newman on the climate religion
- From 2011: Cardinal criticises religious climate zealots
- From 2009: Headline of the Day
Even the CSIRO boss is surprised at the vehemence of the disciples of the Church of Alarmism.
The ABC reports, through gritted teeth, no doubt:
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”.
…
“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)
Oh the ironing! It hurts! It doesn’t matter how hard you argue, pal, or how sensible your reasoning. Once you have been branded a heretic by the faith, that’s it – you’re done.
Most ‘realists’ (like me) accept the basic premise of AGW, but question the magnitude. Even so, to the high priests of the religion, we are heretics that must be burned at the stake. Or perhaps beheaded, since that is the current punishment du jour…
Welcome to the club.
Australian Climate Madness 
I’m going to have to disagree with your comment “Most ‘realists’ (like me) accept the basic premise of AGW”. I most certainly do not and it would appear the late, great Bob Carter agrees with me:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide_19.html
We can continue pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it’s not going to warm anything any further by any noticeable amount. Any warming it has contributed has already occurred. The AGW premise that more carbon dioxide = more warming is a load of crap !
To clarify, I accept that carbon dioxide is one of a number of ‘greenhouse gases’, but that the warming from an increase due to human activity is small compared to other factors contributing to natural variability.
Indeed it is! The very limited basic premise is that CO2 at certain concentrations can have a warming effect, but that effect is very mild and certainly cannot account for the warming previous to the 1970’s.
Global Citizen – welcome to planet earth::CO2 doesn’t give ”greenhouse effect” – normal / honest greenhouse has SOLID plastic or glass roof – on the other hand CO2 is only 270-500ppm = CO2 would be as fishnet as roof, or a postage stamp as roof #2: normal / honest greenhouse has solidly attached roof, on the other hand, when CO2 warms up-> instantly goes high up to higher altitude, where is colder and cooling much more efficient / after all CO2 is 2/3 made from oxygen= lying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is destructive for the society and environment. HERE IS THE TRUTH: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
http://www.drtimball.com
CO2 doesn’t give ”greenhouse effect” – normal / honest greenhouse has SOLID plastic or glass roof – on the other hand CO2 is only 270-500ppm = CO2 would be as fishnet as roof, or a postage stamp as roof #2: normal / honest greenhouse has solidly attached roof, on the other hand, when CO2 warms up-> instantly goes high up to higher altitude, where is colder and cooling much more efficient / after all CO2 is 2/3 made from oxygen= lying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is destructive for the society and environment.
Reblogged this on Climatism.
I used to believe in global warming – then like the CSIRO boss I made the mistake of trying to add a link from the Wikipedia global warming article to peak oil – it was removed almost instantaneously – I assumed a mistake – I added it back. Within a few minutes I was banned from Wikipedia by that evil scum Con-rally.
Global warming is not a rational argument. It only exists because enough people (like I was) are too lazy to look at the evidence, too stupid or too gullible.
Since then, I’ve learnt that all the changes we’ve seen are entirely and unquestionably explainable by natural variation – and only someone who is lying or doesn’t understand noise in natural systems could say it must be human. I’ve learnt that there must be massive negative feedbacks during an inter-glacial preventing further warming. And I’ve learnt that academia is very far from its own utopian view of itself. instead it is very heavily influenced by politics, it is arrogant about its own abilities, it has extremely low quality of work and allows and even quite often condones, fraudulent work (which fits its politics).
I’m all for a policy based on mitigation, as was Bob Carter, as long as CSIRO doesn’t proceed on the basis that it is getting warmer. Let’s see what they have to say if it gets cooler instead.