All you in this communist bureau of propaganda - go starve!

The climate alarmists claim the "science is in". Finished. It's all done.

Therefore, there is no rational reason why we to continue to spend (waste) money on climate science.

The world is wasting $1.5 trillion per year on the 'climate industry' - for no measurable benefit of climate damages avoided. It;s totally irrational. Stop the waste!

It could be said that climate 'science' is not a science at all. We can't even rely on their day to day predictions, let alone what they think might happen in 2050 or some future date. They deal in consensus, not science.

utterly wasteful and deceitfull religous indusrty. Spend tax payer money on real issues.

The LNP are pushing for the far North of Australia to be extensively developed.
Climate change is happening and impacts on various areas within Australia it needs to be better understood. The science of identifying particular weather events with climate change is developing.
For example, the current El Nino is having quite an impact around the planet, some of the impact is quite unexpected, further research is required to understand better what strategies need to be employed to safeguard communities and infrastructure.

Before launching into me, consider:

Satellite data shows that BOM is not fiddling temperature records as suggested by Maurice Newman in the Australian. If anything satellite temperature recording is slightly higher than what has been measured by weather stations.

https://theconversation.com/the-weather-bureau-might-be-underestimating-australian-warming-heres-why-53982

Oceans are warming as shown by recent papers. One compared historic records created by the British research vessel Challenger in the 1870s with contemporary records.
Another paper used satellite data to show that Oceans are warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/18/world-oceans-warming-faster-rate-new-study-fossil-fuels?CMP=soc_567

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/uob-cco012516.php

Managing a research organisation is all about setting priorities. An easily understood way of setting research priorities is to look at attractiveness and feasibility. These are broad headings. Under them are questions like: How useful will the results be? How will they be put to such use? Who will benefit from their application? Can the research be performed successfully in practice? Does the organisation have the people, equipment etc. to do the work? What’s the competition like? How will we know when the research is finished, or at least has gone as far as it can usefully go, given the almost inevitable diminishing returns over time? And in a large multi-mission outfit, how does the sum total of all the answers for one research field stack up against all the other opportunities available within the overall brief of that outfit?

Overlaying all these questions, and more, is the vital matter of who is providing the answers. Those answers are generally not easily quantifiable. The ‘judgement’ of the decision makers, vague as that term might be, is central to getting it right, if there is indeed a ‘right’.

CSIRO’s Larry Marshall has set the cat among the pigeons alright. The field he has decided to put lower down his priority list is one beloved by the public. Never mind looking objectively at the above issues; climate change is really, really important, the research is top priority, leave it alone.

Imogen Jubb has invested much, maybe all, of her career in the subject. She is a dedicated climate change specialist and communicator with the Australian Conservation Foundation. She can certainly advocate for one side of the debate. Is she the right person to tell us whether CSIRO needs 50, 100, 350, 800 or all of its scientists working on climate change? I have my doubts.