What a blessing to see a measured, science-based repudiation of the endless hype over "tackling global warming". The planet may or may not be warming up. It often has. All on its own. It has never been scientifically demonstrated that running around in panic like chooks with our heads cut off will make a jot of difference.

I have little time for Robert Manne, but I did read <i>A Dark Victory</i> - and found it somewhat unconvincing; a waste of time.

However, this Forum article and most of the comments are evidence not of science but of wilful avoidance of science.

No wonder it was rejected when first submitted elsewhere.

The CSIRO used to be highly respected for its scientific work, and deservedly so. Sadly, politicisation of the organisation, particularly with regard to AGW, has tarnished its professional reputation -- so much so, that its governance ought to be reviewed.

Robert LePage and Bonmot

Wikipedia is a doubtful source on activist issues and it is known that it was very strongly biased towards the global warming side of th argument, at least until recently. (If you want to check this perhaps just google..)

Anyway, although there are scientists who strongly doubt the global warming story (and I know there are as I have spoken to them) this is, or should be, quite irrelevant to the debate as should be any supposed consensus.

This whole subject, in effect, is dealing with gigantic forecasting system and the analysis of forecasting systems is a business subject (its in marketing). Those marketers will tell you that the only real test of a forecasting system is whether it has made successful forecasts, not how many forecasters support it or whether it conforms to an orthodxy.

So what's been the forecasting success of these systems? This massive question has gone entirely unanswered or has been answered with complete lack of rigour, or with what are essentially back-testing exercises.

Basically the whole area has to be overhauled, the scientists who have managed to get us into this ridiculous position through their lack of udnerstanding of the subject, have to be given their mardching orders and a new lot (statisticians would do at a pinch) brought in to work through the mess.

Tim, welcome to the world of conspiracy theorists. You are arguing, in effect, that the overwhelming majority of scientists who actually work in the area of climate science, have somehow decided that:
(a) their scientific reputations do not matter, they will simply say and publish things that are not true because they are paid to do so; and
(b) they will not be found out.
The incontrovertible fact is that the world's climate is changing. Of course it has done so for billions of years and will probably do so for billions more, long after our species is extinct. The consensus, still, is that human intervention is responsible for the rate of change, and almost none of it for the better.
But let us say for a moment that all those scientists may be wrong. Is that a risk we can afford to run? How could it be argued that reducing the level of CO2 emissions is bad? Isn't the onus on skeptics such as yourself to make an argument that we should stop the research?

@ Raycom:

What politicisation?

What aspects of CSIRO's management are in need of review?

Here's a link to the latest annual report. Almost certainly, you are not familiar with it or with the work done by CSIRO - few are. Do you actually know anything about the organisation, or are you just following a trend?

I, for one, have been impressed by the work of CSIRO and disturbed by the decade-long drive away from science and concentration only on development of applications for commercial purposes. The balance, IMHO, has been lost.

But, don't hold back - read the report, visit the web site... check out some actual... y'know... facts... then perhaps return here with something meaningful.

Here's the report:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/About-CSIRO/How-we-work/Budget--Performance/Annual-Report/Annual-Report-2010-11.aspx