Agronomist says "The research is quite clear, the Earth is warming and human emissions of greenhouse gases are playing a major role".

Anyone who can make that statement is not keeping up with the research, & singing only from the anointed hymn book.

Don seeks to claim respectability via his past life where he had roles helping to select worth while science projects. However, when it comes to climate science, his recent posts reflect ramblings from a true blue denier. In a recent post, his prophet in castigating climate science was Lubos Motl whose "trustworthy views" were mere thought ramblings, with no references to scientific research backing any of his views. Don's comments in long series of posts reflected total misunderstanding of the scientific process. In Don's world, anyone can comment on climate science, and be believed. The only qualification such a person needs is to be anti climate science.

"The truth is that 'climate change' and climate science have not ever been exposed to the kind of due diligence that is customary in every other form of science, let alone in the world outside. And we all suffer as a consequence."

Very true! Sadly, ideology was the rationale for Australian governments acting so dysfunctionally. There was -- and still is -- no scientific or economic justification for spending so much money on pushing the AGW cause.

Implementing the RET was arguably the Howard Government's worst decision.

It remains to be seen whether the responsible Minister, who is a committed warmist, overcomes his conflict of interest and acts instead in the national interest by rescinding the RET altogether.

Hasbeen,

"Anyone who can make that statement is not keeping up with the research, & singing only from the anointed hymn book."

Lol!...(ya gotta love this forum for its climate wonks)

Excellent post, Don. Your experience in the research grant process and your explanation of it is interesting and informative.

Interesting comment by Jardine K Jardine too.

Unfortunately, the post has gone right of the heads of the usual suspects - those whose comments demonstrate little understanding and just a repetition of the climate doomsday mantra and ideologically motivated reasoning.

There was no intent on my part to suggest that there was some sort of conspiracy with respect to climate science (setting aside the machinations of the Climategate people). What I am suggesting is that once government had decided that Australia had to be on the Rio92 wagon, what was needed from science was support for that position. That was not hard to find, and once academies had been provided with funds to support such endeavours, there was little likelihood of any dispassionate examination of either the science or the economic policies that were to follow from its argued conclusions.

It's really hard to resile from position that have been taken up with enthusiasm, and that applies to governments no less than individuals.