This is the entirely logical outcome of the consistent claims made by so-called climate scientists that there can be no debate about climate change. If there is proof beyond doubt that, firstly, there is global warming and, secondly, it is all because of humans who continue using fossil fuels then there is no need to keep employing climate scientists.
Climate alarmists have been hoisted by their own petard and climate sceptics are having a field day.
Here is how Jo Nova reports the news.
If the science is ‘settled’ we don’t need climate scientists
Scientists are tying themselves in knots to explain why it’s appalling that there is a loss of safe, low turnover jobs to study something that is “proven”. Gee, just as well they aren’t coal miners.
Professor Penny Sackett –a former Australian Chief Scientist who now works for the Climate Change Institute at ANU.
“I am stunned by reports that CSIRO management no longer thinks measuring and understanding climate change is important, innovative or impactful. Paris did not determine whether or not climate change is happening, scientists who generate and study big data did. The big question now, which underlies all climate adaptation work, is ‘How is the climate changing?’”
So we don’t know how the climate is changing? So Penny, when did you mention that all the predictions of floods and droughts and terrible storms were uncertain?
Prof Will Steffen suddenly admits “we” don’t know the basic operation of the climate system. Professor Will Steffen is an Emeritus Professor at ANU and a Climate Councillor at the Climate Council of Australia.
“This is deeply disturbing news. The impacts of climate change are already being felt around Australia at an increasing rate, and there is more to come. We absolutely need to know more about the basic operation of the climate system — how it is changing and how best can we respond to the climate change challenge.”
Suddenly Prof Steven Sherwood (UNSW) is not so sure we understand the climate:
“Larry Marshall surely has a point about rejuvenating organisations and solving new challenges, but I worry about his statement that there is no further need post-COP21 to understand climate change since we now know it is real.”
Of course the science is not settled. Science can never be 'settled'. Those of us who are sceptical of the claims made by the climate change industry, its motives and its science, continue to challenge the so-called ‘established science’.
I went to university to study geography. In particular I was fascinated by geomorphology, the study of land formations including those under the sea. I wanted to understand why some coasts were eroding while others, just a few miles away, were accumulating, or how and when ice ages occur and what were their effects on the landscape.
Take for example the Milankovitch cycles that seek to explain the timing of ice ages. Knowledge of ice ages was only a hundred years old when, in 1976, the timing of them was explained by the Milankovich cycles. Or was it? Of course not, the theory remains open to scrutiny because the precise way the three Milankovich variations (orbit, eccentricity and obliquity) work together to regulate the timing of inter-glacial cycles isn’t fully understood.
Some generalised ‘facts’ are determined – there are ice ages – but the causes are the subject of constant examination There is much work to do on what is happening at the interface of the carbon cycle and ice sheet dynamics, processes that are in their infancy in terms of modelling, as with many recent sciences.
To extrapolate from a few recent measurements and models that the world must be warming, and not cooling as climate scientists were postulating a few decades ago, and therefore we must ‘do’ something about it, is pure speculation.
That is precisely the point about science and why it is never ‘settled’. The scientific method requires constant testing of theories against observable data.
So when 97% of ‘scientists’ (whatever that means in this context) purportedly claim the science is ‘settled’ you and I should know somebody is telling porkies.
That is why I am a climate sceptic and why I am lapping up the schadenfreude of seeing so many pseudo-scientists (for that is what people are who tell us the science is ‘settled’) lose their jobs.