Climate scientists put out call for "respect"

Rank hypocrisy

Maybe they would not have lost it in the first place if they hadn’t:

  • resorted to smears and petty name calling of those who disagree (“deniers”)
  • fudged data to get their desired result (Hockey Stick)
  • avoided providing background materials for independent checking (Hockey Stick again)
  • avoided Freedom of Information requests by deleting emails (Climategate)
  • ganged up on journals that dared publish materials challenging their precious consensus (Climategate again)
  • dressed up political propaganda as impartial science (IPCC/Greenpeace, repeated occasions)

Don’t make me laugh, Anna-Maria Arabia.

UPDATE: Arabia has apparently received a “death threat” this morning – see here. I trust that it has been reported to the police.

UPDATE 2: Arabia was previously an adviser to Anthony Albanese and Kim Beazley, so there are obvious political motivations at work here.

UPDATE 3: Excellent comment on this post via Facebook:

As a real scientist I know respect must be EARNED.

These Climate pseudo-scientists are not entitled to respect. They must earn it by stopping the lies, half-truths, and deliberate politicization of their “research”.

They must perform real, verifiable work that meets the basic scientific principle that their work must be reproducible by ANY OTHER scientist who is competent in the field. They have failed that test, miserably.

Then they may begin to earn “respect”. Until then, all they deserve is contempt.


  1. If she’s joining them in their call for respect, she fails very early on by using the D word, not to mention coupling it with “climate change” which many people do not even disagree is happening.

    She is doing climate science no favours whatsoever.

  2. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Surely Climate Scientists aren’t entitled to respect until they stop producing “climate science” to order and renounce the blank cheque of Big Government.

  3. Happily to be corrected, but from memory I dont recall scientists being vocal about warming issues when the last Coalition Govt was in power.
    Funny how the treatment/attitude to Govt scientists have changed since Labour came into power in 2007.

    To quote President Eisenhower back in 1960;
    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”
    This warning came 51 years ago……

  4. Climate scientists have my respect and always have had my respect.

    Climate politicians posing as climate scientists will forever endure my withering scorn — they earned every bit of it.

  5. Now apparently Anna-Maria Arabia has received a death threat:

    I expect we’ll therefore soon hear news of the police investigation into it, following the reports of the ice-age in the underworld.

    I’m also curious as to who the 200 scientists are that are apparently converging on parliament

  6. Baldrick says:

    The Oxford English dictionary describes a scientist as “a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences”. Nowhere will you find the definition of scientist to include someone that agitates for political change.
    Scientists should stick to science and not become involved in politics. If they want to agitate for political change on a scientific issue then they lose the title of scientist and become an activist. An activist is described as “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change”.
    You can’t have it both ways!

  7. Seriously, with the latest cock up by the IPCC with the whole Greenpeace report issue, how can climate scientists around the world expect anything else but cynical attacks. (except from faithful members of the church of climatology)
    Not saying that threats of physical violence are going to solve anything, but with the holes being continually poked in the bucket of water that is the warmists position, it is only a matter of time until it will be a political issue only as the science is continually questioned and discredited.

  8. Campaigns such of these that attempt to demonise non-believers are the real affront to science and free-speech. This attempt to delegitimise dissent has no place in a free society, and politics does not belong in the noble realms of science.

  9. I am appalled that for the first time in my life, I as a retired engineer with more than adequate qualifications and over 40 years’ experience. I am not allowed to have an informed opinion on the failure of these scientists to produce the “hard” factual evidential data that their so called “settled science” papers justify their hypothesis on global warming. I along with all of the genuine people who hold the same views are not allowed without persecution on this critical carbon tax reform.

    Ms Arabia has broken one of the golden rules I was taught,

    “Science is not owned by anybody, it is the means by which scientists can progress the many magnificent discoveries that have advanced this world for centuries, BUT it must always remain open to debate and peer review by ALL those who are prepared to add their knowledge to the discovery”.

    I ask Ms Arabia to reflect on the writings of Mr Ian Plimer, Mr Garth Paltridge, Mr Bob Carter, Mr Mark Lawson and Lord Monckton who she should also be calling for respect for. The verbal abuse they receive from politicians like her former boss and his colleagues has been disgusting.

    Maybe, Ms Arabia, does that matter because this is a ONE WAY DEBATE not SCIENTIFIC at all?

  10. memoryvault says:

    If you go to FASTS website ( and check out their Board of Directors and Executive Committee, couple of interesting things turn up.

    First, there are twenty positions occupied by nineteen people.
    The same person is both Managing Director and Treasurer.
    Of the nineteen people involved, seventeen are on the public payroll (CSIRO, universities, govt departments etc).

    Of the remaining two there is young Ms Arabia, who put out the press release and actually works for FASTS as Chief Executive Officer.

    So there is only one person associated with the organisation who is not an employee, and apparently not on the public payroll.

    Which brings us to the second interesting thing. That one person is a Mr Claude Gauchat who is both Managing Director, and Treasurer, and he is listed as the Managing Director of Direct2 Pty Ltd.

    Mr Claude Gauchat seems to be something of heavyweight. Here is the blurb on him from ChemCert Australia where he is a Director:

    “Claude is a management consultant and was originally elected as a Director of ChemCert in 2001. He is a Director of direct2 Pty Ltd, a Member of the Advisory Board for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and is the immediate past President of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology.”

    “Claude is a life member of Crop Life Australia and the Animal Health Alliance of Australia. Claude holds a Bachelor of Agriculture Science, a Masters of Business Administration and is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.”

    Now what makes it all so interesting is, apart from mentions like the one above on third party websites, neither Direct2 Pty Ltd nor Mr Claude Gauchat appear to exist.

    Nothing for either of them that I can find on Google, White Pages or Yellow Pages. Direct2 Pty Ltd also fails to show on a company search at ASIC either. I wonder just who Direct2 do business with, and how potential clients reach them?


    • Direct2 Pty Limited does exist (see here), can’t comment on the rest.

      • memoryvault says:

        Yes, Direct2 Pty Limited does exist.

        However, if you care to check the rules of registering a company with ASIC “Pty Limited” is a different choice from “Pty Ltd”.

        Direct2 Pty Limited is as different (for registration purposes) from Direct2 Pty Ltd as Direct2 U Pty Ltd.

        They are not the same company, and as far as I can see, Direct2 Pty Ltd does not exist.


  11. Confusious says:

    She has got same level of climate science qualifications as those of Al Gore, Garnaut, Flannery and Jooliah. Yet another Totalitarian Leftist Labor [snip – ouch]

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      [snip – ouch] – ha ha ha. Sounds like you nailed em. Just can’t say it here!!

  12. More like they want us to respect their authoritah!!!

    Respect my Authoritah !

  13. fred nerk says:

    It seems these Public Dependants will do pretty much anything to keep their place at the trough.Here is some rain for their parade

    • gyptis444 says:

      fred, thanks for the link. Those references plus the peer-reviewed citations in NIPCC’s ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ (about to be revised and updated) are tangible proof of the blatant selection bias indulged in by IPCC. That is otherwise known as cherry picking. Is it any wonder that ‘climate science’ as done by IPCC and other AGW proponents is in a mess?

  14. bryan harris says:

    This has nothing to do with respect, and everything to do with enforcement of their views on life and the universe..

    What they are effectively saying is that they cannot accept any other viewpoint – they want only to enforce their views on the rest of us without being able to prove anything.

    “Trust me, I’m a scientist.” …is what they are saying, but I’m afraid I have no respect for that attitude, given the history of lies associated with alleged AGW.

  15. Meanwhile ABC Lateline has just reported that ANU scientists have received ‘a wave of death threats’. Gobsmacking. Clearly ‘death threats’ are the message de semaine for the warmists. ‘Hate media’ is not cutting it any more.


  1. […] Climate scientists put out call for “respect” […]

  2. […] Australian Climate Madness points out the reasons the alarmists have lost respect. […]

%d bloggers like this: