Mr Morgan,
Once again the climate thread has devolved into an argument about individual's and their relative "worth" or reliability. What happened to arguing science. Instead of sticking up for the CSIRO, how about discussing the science that started this thread. Attacking the poster and defending an organisation might be a slightly interesting diversion but where's the science.
Is it really so hard to actually discuss the science raised?
Your statement implies that you believe unquestionally in anything produced by "quality" organisations. The blogger to which you refer is backing his opinion with an analysis of data. Data freely available and easily checked. Perhaps, once again, you would like to tell us just where this "blogger" has gone wrong with his analysis or where he has misinterpreted the data. And just how does "blogger" become a derogatory term? Some very big scandals in the US have been blown by bloggers and similar Internet information disseminators where the traditional press have either not been able to obtain the information or have been unwilling to print it, at least until someone one the Internet did it first. I wouldn't think it a bad thing. But at the same time I wouldn't suggest anyone accept the opinion of a blogger simply because it is written either.
Otherwise, his clearly laid out arguments that Australia has not had anything unusual in the frequency of cyclones nor droughts should rightly stand. By the way, CSIRO says that global warming may cause Australia to suffer more severe droughts but I do not believe it is currently suggesting this drought is a result of global warming.
And with respect to CSIRO, perhaps you would like to comment on its sea level global warming "proof". Obviously such an august organisation must have the information right and I am blatantly wrong. How about you show everyone why you support organisations such as the CSIRO in such absolute terms and just where I am blatantly wrong.
So that now gives you three tasks that you will choose to ignore. Drought, sea levels and cyclones for Australia. News articles, press releases or opinion pieces even from CSIRO will not cut it. You can use your own mind and set out Mr Lowe's and my faults, and support CSIRO or perhaps refer us to research that suggests the information is wrong.
And both political parties accussed the CSIRO of being biased in the same direction. It was not that the conservative party said that CSIRO was left wing and the Labor Party (sort of like the US democrats) said CSIRO where right ring. They both accussed the CSIRO of a similar bias.
Personally, I am of the view that simply because one or another party accusses an organisation of bias does not mean all that much. It is when the newspapers present the arguments and the bias really does seem to be inherent or simple observation of the organisation's actions support the allegation that I personally suspect that there may really be bias.
I certainly would not consider an organisation that both sides attack as being biased means that they are unbiased. It could mean that or it could mean that the bias is institutional or it could mean that there is even a bias against whoever is currently in power. If you define a lack of bias as being accussed of bias by a balanced number of parties, all that suggests is you take a rather simplistic view of the world. It certainly is not how I would suggest that bias be determined.
Regards
Richard
