Oh Don, the smear card is the only weapon that right wing think tanks have when it comes to climate change.

The basic premise is that the majority of the worlds working climate scientist, have not just got the climate change thing wrong. They actually know their wrong, but they want the millions in grant money.

Oh the irony of it all. Have a good look at yourself Don, you argue against 'smear' and then your last sentences are nothing but!

Also, the strategy of requesting more information about a particular subject that would cost a lot of time and money are well worn out by the 'skeptics' already. Annoying aren't they?

However, if a climate scientist responding to any FOI (especially if from a blogger with only a 'personal interest') was:"My initial response, if I had to answer it, would be to say that responding to his request would cost a lot of time and money, and that it was unclear how all this would aid him in his work."

You would be hung out to dry on all the 'skeptics' sites for months. People would be calling for our taxpayer funded head!

Buy a mirror Don.

We need a dictator.

Let's face it: the ruling political class has the guns and no matter how it's called, they will use them to take our money and give it to their relatives and friends - that's how it's been for 10,000's of years and it's not going to change.

So why waste more on their pretexts, science included? Instead of handing their relatives and friends "research" positions, what if they just gave them the cash directly? just dip into our pockets at their pleasure - they do it anyway, but at least it would then be honest!

Bugsy

If someone leading the word's largest scientific body on climate change describes climate change activism as their "religion" then it is hardly irrelevant, or a “smear”, to point it out.

I am not a climate sceptic, but I am increasingly disturbed by the tactics of those who attack people who are. Ad hominem attacks, closing down debate, silencing dissenters, misrepresenting people’s arguments and opinions – this is the opposite of proper scientific values.

The losers in this process are the real scientists doing research according to accepted scientific processes and focusing on evidence not ideology. They are increasingly tarred with the same brush as the ideologues and extremists. When these latter are seen to be exaggerated and wrong in their claims people may lose faith in climate research in general.

Bugsy,

A commenter on my website pointed out the possible hypocrisy in what I was writing at the end, and indeed it would have been better had I referred to 'alleged' sexual behaviour. However, I was actually pointing to Pachauri's use of 'religion' to describe his attitude to 'climate change'. And to the fact that there has not been a word of comment on the ABC or the Fairfax press to the whole event — which is surely odd, to say the very least.

Finally, if you read the Congressman's letter, he is asking for a huge amount of work. That is not the same as my asking a scientist for a copy of his code and data, which ought to be in a couple of places. Many scientific journals insist on such availability, as a condition of publication. In my own case, all the data I used were publicly available very quickly and available to anyone who wanted to use them, and many did.

“A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for
inaction and delay and usually the first reaction of the
guilty … in fact scientific proof has never been, is not and
should not be the basis for political and legal action”

An example of (private) candor from a scientist at the tobacco company BAT . (S J Green 1980) Tobacco Explained (W.H.O)