CSIRO Gagging Climate Debate

[Allan_L]

CSIRO Gagging Climate Debate
Publication: The Australian (p5, Thu 05 Nov 2009)
Extract:
"CSIRO managers are narrowly interpreting the agency's charter to effectively ban scientists from publishing any critique of emissions trading schemes, in a decision that has sparked alarm among the organisation's climate change experts. The move comes amid a crackdown by the CSIRO on public comments by scientists in their personal capacity. The organisation began rolling out a new public comment policy three weeks ago that limits what scientists can say publicly about issues within their area of expertise."

[casstony]

Doesn't surprise me at all. The scientists could simply air their views through reputable journalists who won't divulge their sources.(so long as we have a free press ?)

[Omaroo]

We're not talking "Manhattan Project" here. Why should there be a policy at all?

[multiweb]

:lol: Just follow the money. The climate change BS is the best thing since slice bread as far as taxation goes. Gvt will musle anybody who says otherwise. The potential is right here. It's too good to be true for them. Why are cigarettes still legal when they print on their packet that it actually kills you? Do I hear the clinking noise of 80% tax there ;)

[Omaroo]

Sorry Marc... it was a rhetorical question. I suspect that there is a tinge of a$$ covering too - Wong and her people just have it ...well... wong, and probably don't want us to know just how wong because as you say there is huge money in it.

[renormalised]

That's typical...it's usually the bureaucrats which stifle everything. They're just following orders from their political masters. It's a power thing...you control the dissemination of information, you hold all the lollies. They're addicted to it, in more ways than one.

[multiweb]

Agreed. But my gutt feeling is that at the end of the day this will unfortunately still go through parliament and make it through in some form or another. It's printing free money for them, whichever side your in. I just hope it doesn't sink us economically. It's a heavy load to carry.

[PeterM]

Nothing new really, just have a read of David Bellamy's the price of dissent.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24700827-7583,00.html

Australians at least are now recognising this for what it will become, a cash grab and are putting lower and lower on their priority list - now 7th down and falling each year.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/13/2712203.htm

Still how anybody who reckons they are "in the know" can still believe this GW / CC / CO2 alarmism is beyond me.

PeterM.

[Bobbyoutback]

Well said !
Your on the money :D

Cheers Bobby.

[xelasnave]

Publishing your belief about anything is never free as with most things a price is paid;).

AND the fear etc re climate change is a money tree for many so it will grow as it is watered... as have many silly plants ...but there will be many gardners who feed their families so why not:lol::lol::lol:???
alex:):):)

[ngcles]

Hi Allan & All,

I couldn't get the link Allan posted to work without authorisation. On the assumption others might have found the same difficulty here is a link to the article in the Australian today:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26307145-11949,00.html

Leaving to one side the rights or wrongs of the climate change issue for a moment, I find it a matter of considerable concern that a CSIRO scientist must obtain permission/approval before making a comment on his own behalf touching on a subject where he/she is expert.

The paragraph in the article, assuming it properly reflects the policy reads:

"The new policy forbids scientists from making comments, even in their private capacity, if the remarks might affect "public confidence in CSIRO as a trusted adviser". If such a perception could arise, scientists are required to discuss the issue with their supervisor to "effectively manage risks"." (Emphasis added)

To me that lays down these rules:

(1) The CSIRO is right -- you cannot publicly comment otherwise in any capacity.

(2) If you work for the CSIRO and you hold an opinion that the CSIRO may be wrong apply rule 1.

(3) We must all sing off the same hymn sheet regardless of whether you might feel the words could be incorrect.

(4) If you think the words might be incorrect, speak to a supervisor who will ensure you are interpreting rules 1 and 2 correctly.


And who holds the "funding-reins" for the CSIRO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink


Best,

Les D

[DJDD]

This has been a problem for CSIRO scientists for a long time now. :mad2:
It is not a recent problem.

[bojan]

Well.. nobody is supposed to bite the feeding hand...

I do not understand what this fuss is all about.

They (CSIRO) are paying scientists to work for them, not against them, and it is not much different elsewhere (in private sector industry for example).

Each one of us has her/his own sense of integrity.. and is free to act appropriately.. IMHO.

[TrevorW]

CSIRO scientists must follow party lines or may be subject to summary execution

Agree though this is why we have and need whistleblowers

[FredSnerd]

Bojan, I think what people are saying is that its not right that the government should be putting pressure on the CSIRO scientists not to tell us their opinion about global warming.

The CSIRO is a public institution. It does not pay or employ the scientists, we do. That is, we are the hand that feeds the CSIRO scientists, not the CSIRO and accordingly their fiorst duty is to us.

[weeasle]

All you climate change deniers here an elsewhere make me sad and laugh at the same time. Have you noticed the Northern hemisphere ice cap now almost completely melts in the summer? The Siberian tundra is melting for first time in recorded history with houses collapsing who's foundations were built on that permafrost. For the first time in recorded history boats can go through the north pole.. Why not pop into google and type in ..nasa satellite images ice caps..? See the evidence in real time people. Why not checkout what csiro and other world scientific panels are saying about the possible catastrophic sea level rises about to occur. Ever occur to you deniers 90% of the worlds populations lives in coastal cities? 1 meter of sea level rise means several meters of coast dissapearing. Why not inform yourself. Sticking your head in the sand won't be an option for much longer.. Especially if you live near a seaboard..

Quoting a post here:

Doesn't surprise me at all. The scientists could simply air their views through reputable journalists who won't divulge their sources.(so long as we have a free press ?)


Haha.. Another funny comment. You would be relying on Journalists being truly independant thinkers for that to happen.. Remember the dust storm in Sydney a few weeks ago? I've posted all over the media's emails and forums including mainstream and independant asking "why are we being fed childrens stories about what made the dust red and not being told about the possible dangers of radiogenic particles from the dust - that dust storm originated from the Maralinga atomic test ground in South Australia.. Also the air current swept over many uncovered coal and uranium tailing and flyash piles (giant mounds of dirt and dust containing heavy metals and radioactive particles). ARPANSA - a federal government body whos charter is 'informing' the public concerning radioactive accidents and events didn't say 'peep'. The media didn't say 'peep'. I guess our economy is more important than our lives or health? Free press.. Funny joke. Only I'm not laughing....

[bojan]

I understand this very well. And in theory, it should be as you are saying above.
But, there are rules of the game as well. And, btw, who says that the critics of climate change are right? What if they are not?
Belief in "bad" governments and "good" whistle blowers is also not very healthy attitude.
Do not get me wrong here, I am not supporting official science without reserve..
However, I met enough nutters in my life so far on both sides.. and my experience from this was that only by playing according to the rules, we can achieve something.
Talking about something without proof will not do any good.
On the other hand, if CSIRO is wrong about something, nothing will save them from emerging truth.. if the case is properly presented.

CSIRO people (gov and whoever) are just people and of course they will try anything to have things their way.
It is on others to prevent them from doing this (if they know how).

[Coen]

Going somewhat broader than the original post (as that seems to be where the thread has gone, i.e. commenting on free speech vs specific instance).

Lots of things to balance, especially in the world of the internet and media pervasiveness where perception often equals reality for many folk, especially if not prepared to do a little reading and detective work of their own.

I would hazard to say that all institutions have fun trying to balance strong minded individuals with their associated opinions from what is an unfortunate necessity for a balanced institution line (as it were). Further, said strong minded individuals may also wish to advance a particular cause that is perhaps unhelpful at the time for whatever reason (i.e. lots of factors to be considered).

Before pitch forks come out remember a few things:
- CSIRO is an academic institution of a sort but not in the same sense as a university, therefore its structure and arrangements are not the same. Indeed I suspect universities are not necessarily the bastions of pure rational debate that they once (if ever?) were due to the various pressures they are also under.
- If you are an expert in a field, gainfully employed by a particular institution, and well published in the field in question (as opposed to reading a few papers and spending 6 months thinking about things) then surely your opinion will more than likely line up with the institutions' opinion (admittedly not guaranteed).
- While institutions such as CSIRO are partially public funded and our tax dollars do go to them, they are answerable to the public via the politically process and constitutional/legal structures not via us knocking on their door directly. In other words, the funding from the government (that we elect) comes with a certain level of strings attached.

What happens when a reporter, finding out Person X is an expert, rings them up for an opinion about a topic within which their expertise resides. Now what can happen is that X makes a statement that is then subsequently taken as the Institution's particular opinion about a topic. This leap is not automatic (except to the reporter and the public) and has the potential to place the institution in a very difficult position or may imply a commitment to some course that is not necessarily appropriate or true - leading to subsequent chasing up by the press saying why did you not do ABC? Either way the institution is on a hiding to nothing.

Here is a pragmatic view:
When you work for an institution, on their time, drawing their paycheque, well do not be surprised that they feel they have some claim over IP and some sense of needing to check what you may do or say whilst under their banner. If you do not like this, then do not draw the pay and find someone or somewhere that allows you to pursue the approach you wish. I wish you all the luck in the world in finding such a place. I would hazard to say it is your own home and you'll have to pay yourself and find reputable journals that will accept, for the author's address, personal home addresses as compared to some form of institution affiliation.

[PeterM]

"I was just following the orders of my superiors" or charter as in this case.
However you want to interpret it, whether Government, Corporate, Military right down to your local club, being effectively censored and not being able to voice an opinion on matters you do not agree with, you question or you see as out and out nonsense has got a lot of good people into hotwater over the years because they didn't speak out. Simply because they were too scared to speak their mind for fear of loss of job/income, status, demotion, ridicule, reprisal (or worse). A government body like the CSIRO should be open and transparent, if even one scientist has concerns then he should be free to speak his mind to whoever wants to listen, it is our taxes that allow CSIRO to do their research so I would expect all views of their scientists would be available. Surely the CSIRO have a disclaimer that says individual views and opinions do not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO, blimey even your local Astro club has that.
This is government agendas interfering with science, again.
PeterM.

[FredSnerd]

Bojan,

I don’t share you're adherents to the rules I’m afraid. Sometimes the rules are just simply not right or unfair because they are made for the benefit of the rule makers and not us. Why shouldn’t we have unrestrained access to the expert opinion on this subject (and some would say life and death subject). How else do we form an informed opinion on the subject unless we are properly informed. As I see it the government could only be insisting on this because it only wants us to hear what it has to say. For me I would never let them tell me what I’m allowed to hear and see and I don’t care what rule book they quote me.

[Coen]

Suggest you check CSIRO's funding model - it does have to source external funds

Legal disclaimers help the legal angle but do not help the perception angle - who has been exactly (and within context) quoted by a reporter (consistently)? Especially when said reporter has their own agenda - the sale of newspapers/media space.

One can still speak out, there are venues and means as well as journals (noting they also have the potential, as with all things, to have their own biases) but be prepared to wear the consequences.

In other words, this is the real world there is no pure absolute place for clean rational argument yet we bumble along and eventually resolve things in a mostly forward direction. Yes there are inbuilt delay loops (some really large ones at times) and the potential to miss opportunities or important time critical things.

[DJDD]

somethign like 1/3 of their funding needs to come from external sources, i.e. not the australian government.

[bojan]

Perhaps I was not clear and precise enough: by "rules" I did not mean only "rule book", I had a much broader term in mind.
What I meant was, the "human animal" behaves according to certain rules and other (humans) must play accordingly..
They will try to do anything (consciously or not) to have their way, and we must understand and accept this reality and counteract, without making the same "mistake" (if we can..) :thumbsup:

You said it yourself,

Well... we are not the rule makers, and that's the fact (sad? yes, but true).

[PeterM]

I did check the CSIROs public funding as best as I could (see below) May 2007, 2.8 billion over 4 years - an increase of 19.5% over the preceeding 4 years, largest public funding to the CSIRO in history. So regardless of what they get elsewhere they are still very reliant on your dollar. I would say we have a pretty reasonable expectation that they are open and transparent in every way and not subjected to government gagging.
http://www.csiro.au/news/FundingPackageForCSIRO.html

PeterM.

[FredSnerd]

Out of interest, whats the case for saying that we (the voters) should not have the same expert information at our disposal as the government has when it prepares its legislation. What kind of a democracy is it when the Rulers can say on an issue as monumentally important as this (which is not about defense or security etc) that there are some things that you the voters are simply not allowed to see or hear and some expert views that you are not allowed to listen to.

[Allan_L]

Funny!
I did not see any evidence of any posts denying facts.
I think everybody agrees climate change is real.
And has been happening a bit longer than "recorded history" anyway.

Lets keep the emotional name calling out of this.

(:) YES, the irony of the above post is noted in that it is calling for a restriction on your freedom of speech. But remember, we are all grown ups here, lets not degrade ourselves to act like our paid Politicians)

[xentrix]

So much for science, as an instrument used to accetain the truth.

Google David Nutt yet another recent example of politics having problems digesting scientific discourse.

[FredSnerd]

Peter I entirely agree but I would also like to add this. Whatever the funding arrangements are, ultimately if they expect to make laws that we are expected to adhere to, and which in this case affect us so vitally, then we have a right to know what information those laws are based on regardless of who paid the expert advisors. I for one want a hell of alot more from our democracy then we have been getting thus far.

[Coen]

1) Yes there is public money and it seems a large amount, I am asking the question how much in relation to the whole, not in terms of absolute dollar value. An organisation looks at the whole not any one component to the exclusion of all others.

2) Even if a particular institution were gagged, they are often not the sole source of information - otherwise there would be no debate and you'd be part of the corporate line anyway. If the voters (aka public) wants information there is all sorts out there but I suspect much of it is not in the 10s sound bite & 30s attention span people have for any particular topic they are not directly passionate about. In other words hit the books, journals and so forth and do your own homework rather than wait to be fed a line by a reporter talking to an expert, do the equivalent of talking to the expert yourself. Ring up the experts (assuming you'll not leak information to the press).

P.S. There are lots of venues:
- Freedom of Information act allows you to obtain information.
- You get to vote from time to time if you do not like what is going on (or do).
- You have a local member with whom you can raise an issue.
i.e. Our political process does have a level of transparency, perhaps not speed, but transparency.

[sheeny]

Hmmm... this does not seem to be an unusual situation to me.

Every organisation has (if they don't they should!) rules about who is authorised to release information from the organisation. Those rules apply to information gathered or developed by people in the organisation, and that is fair enough.

If some of the scientists working for the CSIRO do significant work outside the CSIRO, the CSIRO policy does not apply to that work. CSIRO information releases must be in accordance with the CSIRO's policy. This has nothing to do with free speech.:)

Now if the CSIRO is supposed to be apolitical, but is being influenced by the government of the day to be political... that's a different matter!;)

Al.

[FredSnerd]

Cohn

A few things. I was a public servant advising politicians for many years and believe me when we advised ministers etc we always had to do it in what you describe as "in the 10s sound bite & 30s attention span" mode. If we didnt our paper got sent back to be done again (they're just as dumb as us believe me). Secondly, having access to information from other sources does not really fix the problem. More often then not its more important to know what the Minister has been told, what he/she has not been told and most importantly what he/she has been told but chooses to ignore. Believe me, thats of vital importance if you're going to get to the bottome of whether the legislation your being presented with is justified or appropriate.

[Coen]

Don't disagree.

And to sheeny - fully agree.

[PeterM]

Candy coating.
For me it is simply politics interfering with science, effectively censoring.
Click on the link in Les's post and read the article in The Australian if you haven't already - "even if comments were not associated with CSIRO". If it is even half right there are real issues in the CSIRO in protecting what the charter was apparently meant to protect -academic freedoms.
PeterM.

[FredSnerd]

Hi Al

The other night I was watching Lateline and joe hockey was saying (without embarassment) that the secretary of Treasury (ken henry) was really a spokesman for the government and in no way independent of the government (hockey just said what we all know to be true now days). The public service has not been apolitical for man years (though it was when I joined 30 years ago). Now, if you want to get ahead in the PS, and especially if you want to be a secretary of a department you have to tell the government what it wants to hear and know not to tell them something when they dont want to hear it (for "plausible deniability" purposes). The only ones who are made to stick by the old rules now are us, the people. For everyone else its a free for all and frankly we would be mugs if we put up with that and not insist that we be told (esp if its about something as crucial as global warming) even if they say well thats the way it's always been done.

Cheers

[bojan]

Well.. whoever works for CSIRO and does not like this, he/she can always resign.
When noone is left behind, who will do the work???
But if they stay, that means that they agree with this. Or all is OK.
I do not see any controversy or problem here.

[weeasle]

[QUOTE=Allan_L;517586]Funny!
I did not see any evidence of any posts denying facts.
I think everybody agrees climate change is real.
And has been happening a bit longer than "recorded history" anyway.

Lets keep the emotional name calling out of this.

Allan, it is time to become emotional (I did not call any names - see further below). Our earth's ecosystem is in serious trouble. Dry intellectual discourse will not work. Average people may not get that it is quite serious - even though the scientists see the future based on the evidence, the common folk may not.

As for no evidence in the posts denying facts - I guess you missed this one:

"...
Still how anybody who reckons they are "in the know" can still believe this GW / CC / CO2 alarmism is beyond me.
..."

And I dont want to single out anyone and purposefully don't mention names in my post - I understand people have a right to their views even if I disagree (which I do)..

Peace,

Chris

[Coen]

- Link does not work for me.

- Your quote: this is what a reporter says the policy is. Is it what CSIRO says it is (officially)? (I have no idea)

[bojan]

Exactly right.

[PeterM]

[QUOTE=weeasle;517632]

You can single me out I have no problem. Climate change models on CO2....nah. Reports that are full of provisional words "likely" "more likely" "very likely" "possibly" "expected" all qualifiers for massive uncertainties throughout every report (read the IPCC s own 4th assessment report its all there) Built around computer model after computer model that excludes the (substantial) effect of the Sun on our planet, amongst many other things, until eventually the "evidence" appears to fit, nah.
Can you supply me the data for - The sea level changes in the last 100 years? What is the rate of change at the moment? What are future increases based upon? Please, this information would be very useful.
Next thing you know the alarmists will want us to believe Man never walked on the Moon.

PeterM.

[weeasle]

QUOTE=PeterM;517642][QUOTE=weeasle;517632]

Can you supply me the data for - The sea level changes in the last 100 years? What is the rate of change at the moment? What are future increases based upon? Please, this information would be very useful.

Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due partly to global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming), which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods. ... Based on an analog to the deglaciation of North America at 9,000 years before present, some scientists predict sea level rise of 1.3 metres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre) in the next century. However, models of glacial flow in the smaller present-day ice sheets show that a probable maximum value for sea level rise in the next century is 800 millimetres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimetre), based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow below the equilibrium line altitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_line_altitude) and to the sea... Hence it is very likely that these terms alone are an insufficient explanation, implying that 20th century climate change has made a contribution to 20th century sea level rise. Recent figures of human, terrestrial impoundment came too late for the 3rd Report, and would revise levels upward for much of the 20th century.... Statistical data on the human impact of sea level rise is scarce. A study in the April, 2007 issue of Environment and Urbanization reports that 634 million people live in coastal areas within 30 feet (9.1 m) of sea level. The study also reported that about two thirds of the world's cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities) with over five million people are located in these low-lying coastal areas. The IPCC report of 2007 estimated that accelerated melting of the Himalayan ice caps and the resulting rise in sea levels would likely increase the severity of flooding in the short-term during the rainy season and greatly magnify the impact of tidal storm surges during the cyclone season. A sea-level rise of just 40 cm in the Bay of Bengal would put 11 percent of the country's coastal land underwater, creating 7 to 10 million climate refugees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_refugee).


The wikipedia entry is very conservative and balanced you can read the rest yourself... It is always going to be hard for scientists to quantify the link between human induced CO2 and global temperature rise as the earth is such a gigantic complex ecosystem. However, there have been gas and temperature measurements that were performed by captains of ships dating back to before the 18th century...

Here are some more links:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/sealevel.html
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/sea_level_change_estimations_and_pr edictions

"Sea Level rise could bust IPCC estimate"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16732-sea-level-rise-could-bust-ipcc-estimate.html

[PeterM]

Yup they sure could but why should they, their view/opinion may turn out to be correct? Seems to me it is just someones clever interpretation of a charter, perhaps to gag some who maybe outspoken, dunno.
I seem to remember a guy called Galileo, saw something, had issues, bit of a disagreement with the rules/regulations of the day, the rest is history.

PeterM.

[FredSnerd]

Nice work Weeasle

[casstony]

Weeasle; while the current state of journalism pales in comparison to the respectable profession it once was, can you not think of a few decent investigative journalists worth approaching? I don't think the ABC has been completely gutted.

[weeasle]

Sure.. I was a bit acidic expressing my frustrations - I am sure there is still a free press, it is just a bit hard to find at the moment and takes a lot of work for anyone wanting to express truth.

[pgc hunter]

Kommunist Krudd at work again.

[PeterM]

Thank you, Yep seen them.
However,
Below is apparently the best scientific assessment available of ocean sea level changes (acccording to one of the IPCCs own scientists).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf

It basically gives no evidence of the massive sea level changes predicted. Well worth the read.

PeterM

[FredSnerd]

Peter, believe me I'm not trying to be funny here but that link you attached. Are you saying that it points to "NO evidence of sea level changes" OR "No evidence of massive sea level changes" because I do think those articles do point to significant evidence of sea level changes So my question is how "massive" does it have to be to cause you to be concerned.

[weeasle]

OK I must go now but I will read it later. I like a discourse based on fact and am willing to change my opinion if there is credible evidence to the contrary. I have been studying climate models since the 90's when I was at University and believe I have a fair understanding of things. I will review the link and get back to this forum later.

However, if I can't convince you of my viewpoint scientifically I just want to ask you this: With a new middle class in China and other asian nations which is now taking automobile ownership usage from thousands to Millions, do you think all that CO2, CO, and pollution has no effect? If so could you give me some credible links to show how automobile and the associated industrial pollution does not effect humans and the environment catastrophically?

Peace,

Chris

[FredSnerd]

Peter,

This link "Sea Level rise could bust IPCC estimate"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-estimate.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16732-sea-level-rise-could-bust-ipcc-estimate.html), which refers to the Climate Change Congress that met in Copenhagen recently seems particularly at odds with what you are saying.

[PeterM]

Chris, I am not here to convince you either way, using Wikipedia as a source to repond to my questions on sea level changes was rather a surprise. You may as well read the following as well. It at least names and credentials of some scientists who don't agree with man made climate change.

http://www.globalwarminghoaxblog.com/search/label/Wikipedia%20Censors%20Global%20Warm ing%20Skeptics

Have you read Heaven and Earth by Plimer? this is also well worth the read.

Now back to the astronomy for me.
PeterM.

[weeasle]

Thanks for those links Peter. I did look through them (I will probably skip Mr Plimer as your bias seems to be overcoming your own logic so I won't bother with that one).

I would like to point out that the globalwarminghoaxblog site you mention is written by Rich Kargaard and Steve Forbes. There were some very convincing looking links such as: "31,000 Scientists debunk global warming claims". However, when you get into the article it contains a "summary of the peer-reviewed research" However, when you try to click the links (there are links to eight different versions of the document) they all give 404 not found errors. Additionally these "summaries" and articles don't list the name of the author. My baloney detector is in red-alert mode.

Peter, this site has an extreme bias and is going out of its way to bend the facts to its will. It also contains ideological extremist bias and statements such as:
"... Just consider the source of the big lie: the proselytizing hypocritical high priest of the pagan environmental religion Al Gore or the other Kool-Aid drinking climateers from the left such as Learjet liberals, Hollywood high school drop-outs, billonaire elitists, the left-leaning mainstream media, the United Nations, academia, environmental radicals, socialists, other anti-capitalists and so called "researchers", "experts" and/or "scientists" whose paychecks depend upon the apparent existence of the "issue".

I encourage you to do some digging on who is behind this site and articles. Who are the authors and what is their motivation? Here is a link you might find helpful to this end:
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/04/04/steve_forbes_claims_global_warming_ is_a_myth.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Karlgaard
Rich Karlgaard is publisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publisher) of Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes) magazine since July 1, 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes
Malcolm Stevenson "Steve" Forbes, Jr. (born July 18, 1947) is the son of Malcolm Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Forbes) and the editor-in-chief of business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) magazine Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes)


Here's a nice snippet for readers here:


Quentin Hardy argued that "we better think long and hard about our behavior." He continued, saying "We've been given a garden in this world and we've been despoiling it because it's too much work to try and solve the problem."
Steve Forbes then made one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard uttered on TV: "As countries get richer, the environment gets better. We have more forests on the east coast today than we did at the time of the landing at Jamestown. Technology is our friend, not our enemy."
Elizabeth MacDonald countered by asking how the people of China would feel about Forbes' statement as they've seen pollution increase and people die from benzene that is dumped into rivers.

Peter, you haven't convinced me. As a matter of fact you have reinforced my feelings on the issue of climate change and global warming. Please don't be so naive as to believe these big money monsters who are perverting our over-centralised media and obstructing and impeding real scientists from informing the world community about this serious problem.

As Claude pointed out - checkout the New Scientist link I sent you in my earlier post, it points out that the IPCC report you cite has completely omitted the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves in its analysis.

One last point. CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CO (carbon monoxide) the main gasses emitted in automobile and other industrial pollution ARE greenhouse gasses. We don't need to debate that. As someone in the astronomy field I am sure you know that planet nearby called Venus. We know what greenhouse gasses do. You can try to distract and fool people from the real issue to support your biased position but the truth will not be suppressed for much longer. Humans are creating significant quantities of greenhouse gasses. This info is available if you want to find it. If you still want to hold onto your fantasy that humans have nothing to do with the climate change that is fine but please don't mislead others. I am particularly opinionated about this because I know some facts: 25% of the USA population dies of cancer every year (fact). The petrochemical industrial complex has much to answer for. Please use your brain Peter.

Chris

[Omaroo]

Not sure that your condescension is appreciated Chris. You have your own (complete) bias. You're not right. No-one is yet. We have no definitive answers. It's a debate about being able to identify the real reasons for warming and whether it is induced by humans, which is a long, long way from being proven, or whether it is almost entirely natural. It is not about whether warming is evident. I believe that too much green politics is at stake for us to ever know a truthful answer. I also wonder why some are arrogant enough to think that weather patterns haven't changed quickly at times throughout history anyway and that we must therefore be responsible for this one just because some think we are. Change is undeniable, the reason for its being is questionable.

[weeasle]

I am sorry if I sounded condescending towards Peter. I am sure we are all adults here. I just get my back up when I am being fed guff. I guess my point is we can debate causalities until the ice caps melt and we are underwater if you want but its hard to debate the effect the petrochemical industry is having on the world.. One has to simply look out ones window.

Peace,

Chris

[Omaroo]

Pollutive, yes Chris. It's pretty damn ugly. The root cause of temperature change - yet to draw a conclusion there I'm afraid. I'm of a firm opinion that the oceans exude far more CO2 naturally as currents move toward warmer parts than we have dissolved back into them from our own efforts. No-one is denying our "input", but that it is the "root" cause is conjecture.

It would have been interesting, in another 100 years or so, to see the result of all this panic. As much as Forbes represents big business, I gather that the media giants aren't exactly hating this now news-worthy topic either.

[FredSnerd]

I don’t see what all the fuss is about myself. Mankind has been here before. On Easter Island in fact. And 2 people, one with an axe, were standing before the last standing tree. Person 1: Do you believe all that guff they’re feeding us about the effects of deforestation. Person 2: Nah, damned Greenies. Chop err down.

[Allan_L]

Since I started the thread I will have the last say (or maybe not).

The original post was simply to bring to public attention that which many suspect:
There are respectable scientists who have contrary views who are being gagged.
I think this is important to recognise.
HOWEVER
As some have said - so what.
If you work for CSIRO you should follow their rules.
If you believe otherwise leave and publicse your views then.
If you think a conspiracy exists - whistleblower legislation exists.

OK point taken - I agree - from a certain point of view.

[weeasle]

Thanks for starting this lively discussion Allan.

Firstly an apology to PeterM. I may have gone a bit over the top in defending my views - I didn't intend to get personal in my comments and believe we are intelligent enough to distinguish the personal character from view/opinions and you seem like a good person to me. We can be passionate about where we live.. I guess that is in human nature.

We all have a right to be wrong sometimes.

This discussion taught me the value of dispassionate debate. Questioning assumptions of others is valuable. Questioning one's own assumptions is equally valuable.

The discussion about free speech got sidetracked somewhat into a CC/GW debate.

To address your point Allan, I guess organisations do have some right to influence what their employees/agents/assignees say to the public as it may reflect on that organisation. There can be a danger however that politicians or people in power may cherry-pick the answers from the scientists who support their position and ignore the views that don't fit their own agenda at the time.

I would like to see research bodies like CSIRO decoupled from political influence if possible. Our lively discussion here shows why. We are human and can get caught up in our own beliefs and passions.. That is why it is important to let scientists present what they believe are facts, even if contrary to government agendas.

The peer review process has many merits in this regard. Perhaps a balance could be struck this way? Ie. scientists could publish their opinions to peer-review bodies who could then echo sentiments borne-out by established facts. (I guess the tricky part would be establishing a truly independent peer-review body..) Otherwise, personal opinions could be expressed outside of work through free press / internet (again tricky as I guess the scientist would need to disclaim that the view expressed were their own and not the organisation who might employ them)...

Just some thoughts. Thanks again Allan et all.

Chris
:thumbsup:

[Nesti]

On my previous post "there's more politics in science than there is science".

...and any day now Cane Toads WILL start eating Fruit Flies.

[PeterM]

Chris,
It's all good.
When you believe in something passionately then you have the right to defend it. I will applaud you for that. This thread demonstrates we all have a right to free speech and our opinions.
As you note, we all have the right to be wrong sometimes.

PeterM.

[FredSnerd]

Peter,

Its one of the few rights I don't particularly like to exercise if I can avoid it. :rofl:

[Nesti]

LOL, how true!!!

[tlgerdes]

On the funding model for CSIRO

INCOME
Revenue
Revenues from Government 668 120 000
Sale of goods and rendering of services 347 877 000
Interest 5 000 000
Rents 7 387 000
Royalties 15 948 000
Other revenues 232 587 000
Total Revenues 1 276 919 000

Gains
Net gain from sale of property, plant and equipment 17 163 000
Net gain from sale of equity investments and intellectual property 8 449 000
Other fair value gain 10 817 000
Net foreign exchange gains 319 000
Total Gains 25 931 000
TOTAL INCOME 1 302 850 000

[TrevorW]

Now one too take the high ground

An individual must decide whether to be quite about an issue or ethically take a stance in light of who or what may be affected by the outcome

Ethically as an organisation ultimately serving the public has a mandate to ensure that the best interests of the public are served at all times.

Also as a public service organisation they should not be influenced in anyway by the political party of the day.

If a decision to gagg scientists is a politiical directive, then it should be ignored especially if by not doing so the people are misinformed.

[strongmanmike]

Sorry Chris, I consider you a mate, but on this you, like millions of others have have your head in the sand, butt on the fence, hedging your bets and placing 2 bob each way I am affraid :shrug:

No offence but it is dissapointing....

Mike

[sheeny]

Well said, Chris.

The other thing that is undeniable is that we (humans) are an environmental disease on the planet. Our population is out of control. Our economies are based on growth... on a planet of finite size, with finite resources... think about the consequences of that for while.:) We are responsible for countless extinctions, and the loss of biodiversity. In short we are making the planet sick... we cannot continue going the way we have been.:sadeyes:

But having looked at the evidence, it is not definitive that the current warming is human induced - that is still being debated. The fact that green scientists have found the global warming lever to extract funding is fine... we need to do it, we need to resolve what our impact really is and we need to change what we do regardless, but the media (who don't all understand the science) have a bias towards anything alarmist and the message we receive through the media is coloured/flavoured a particular way in general.

Al.

[fringe_dweller]

as already mentioned , this isnt new, i remember the coalition when in power, being accused of the same thing regarding CSIRO and GW, but with the seeming bias going the other way on same subject - pot> kettle>black

the road to hell is paved with good intentions they say

[TrevorW]

One could say

"I don't know whether climate change is occurring due to us but if we lessened the amount of pollution wouldn't logically that be a good thing regardless if it wasn't"

[FredSnerd]

Al you are certainly right about the media being alarmist to generate sales. But given what you say in the first paragraph of your post (which concludes that we are making the planet sick and just cant continue going as we are), shouldnt we proceed for the moment as though global warming is in fact human induced, until further reasearch is able to answer that question definatively for us. They're saying that it may be too late soon. So by all means continue the reaserch but in the meantime lets act as though we are to blame and do what ever is necessary (including agitating for much tighter international agreements) to reduce and enforce emission limits right away. Isnt that the logical next step if the dire picture you paint in your'ere first paragraph is correct (which I think it is).

Regards

Claude

[torana68]

Biggest problem with scientists is they all like their own personal view on subjects , wrong or otherwise, CSIRO has made some blunders in the past and some of the employees have taken it on themselves to blurt out some fairly odd (to me) views that the press love to get hold of and plaster on front pages as quotes from "CSIRO Scientists". I dont see anything wrong with CSIRO having a choice in what their employees say to the press. They should probbaly focus on helping solve our problems rather than pander to their own egos? it may surprise some but most employees cant just run about making claims and associate those to their employer without permission. Dont stifle thought, that would be a very bad thing, censor your employees comments that may cause embarrassment? yep :)

[Omaroo]

You can remain disappointed in me Mike. I'm fine with it.

[sheeny]

We are on the same page, Claude.:thumbsup: No argument here. We will have to get far more radical than carbon trading to keep the earth sustainable.

I could expand further, but I don't think this is the appropriate forum, as Mike has noted in another recent thread.:)

Al.

[FredSnerd]

Yes I agree Al

[mill]

Sorry to butt in on this topic.
But it is not growth but greed :)
The human race is in self destruction mode for a while already and nobody will do anything about it without making millions out of it (greed again).
The way it goes now, the human race will be distinct before global warming kills us off.
As usual, lots of scientists studying and modeling global warming are full of theories again (as usual), there is nothing wrong with that but use those brains for preventing it and not making stupid papers to look important (this is my personal view on this paper thingy).
These so called very smart people everywhere are using billions of dollars each year globally on loads of unimportant research (I am not saying that all research is unimportant but a lot is just bullcrap).
If those people would get paid to work on the earth and not on senseless research, wouldn't that be better?
See it like folding, the more who do it, the better it is and the faster you get results.
That is the last from me on this topic.

[torana68]

hear hear! :)

[Baron von Richthofen]

Its not just the CSIRO the reason being they don't want to be proven wrong because there is scientific evidence from respected scientist form NASA and other places to suggest that global warming is a natural event that has not been caused by man and we cannot do anything about it

[FredSnerd]

You know Vars, you speak like you know that for a fact. Which, seems to me to be quite a responsibility for you to be taking on, given the consequences if you're wrong. You might want to tone it down a bit otherwise some might think that you're just talking through your hat with no real appreciation of whats at stake, which wouldnt be the best for your credibility. Ya tink?

[avandonk]

After thirty years of working for CSIRO, I retired about five years ago. It is standard policy that commenting on Government Policy even in your area of expertise can only be done with executive approval. This is sensible otherwise the media would be 'quoting' any opinion that they 'liked'. Even if it came from the tea lady or gardener or was it a Chief of
of a whole Division.

In fact on leaving or retiring from CSIRO you are obliged to sign a confidentiality agreement. This basically means you cannot pass on ANY information you obtained while working for CSIRO. This is to stop IP (Intellectual Property) theft of information that belongs to the people of Australia.

To do things any other way would be more difficult than herding scared cats.

So there is nothing sinister going on.

I still know things I cannot even talk about as it may jeopardise future patents that belong to all of us. Once any information is in the public domain no patent can be taken out on it.

Bert

[AstralTraveller]

Bert,

What you describe is quite sensible, but I wonder whether it should apply in this case? University academics have 'academic freedom' to comment on any topic in their field of expertise without having to ask permission from the Head, Dean or VC. Given that we pay their wages I think that it is appropriate that they contribute to debate on matters of public interest. Of course if their are commercial considerations that is different. Yes, sometimes the freedom is abused (false accusations were made here a few years ago and an academic at Macquarie came out with some racist statements) but overall it is a good idea (both the individuals I'm refering no longer work for for unis - in fact I don't think they are employed at all).

Given that this 'gagging' involved a matter of public interest (the ETS) and was made by someone with qualifications in the field I think his point of view should be heard. If his opinion is flawed surely CSIRO or the govt can find another expert to debate him? Unless of course there are no experts willing to support the ETS.

[avandonk]

The policy is quite clear, to comment on a matter of raw science fact there is no need for Executive permission.

To comment on the Policy of Government in any matter needs Executive approval. As Policy is a nebulous thing that is open to interpretation and flavor of Government then any scientific comment can then be misconstrued by any uninformed partisan to suit their cause.

The major problem is how ignorant most people are when it comes to the real world complexities of Science.

To see the totally scientifically ignorant snatching irrelevant data to prove their side of the current AGW debate should give you an idea what a dog's breakfast these matters can become if handled incorrectly.

Bert

[Fossil]

Below is an email from the Chief Executive of CSIRO to staff...

"Dear colleagues,

Over recent days there has been debate about CSIRO's public comment policy. As a publically funded research agency and Statutory Authority of Government our Charter remains unchanged, the principles of which include:

* our staff are actively encouraged to debate publicly the latest science and its implications, including analysis of policy options
* we do not debate publicly the merits or otherwise of specific government or opposition policies

The Charter was developed after wide consultation with staff and the CPSU Staff Association and endorsed by the Minister and Chairman of the CSIRO Board.

All CSIRO publications are reviewed for science quality and to make sure the meet our obligations under our Charter – there are no exceptions to this principle.

In the context of discussing the policy implications of our science we cannot be a trusted advisor government, industry the community and people of Australia and at the same time publicly advocate or criticise a particular policy position of government or opposition. To maintain our independence and the integrity of our science we must not cross the line into political debate.

However it is recognised that this line can be blurred at times and that is why I encourage you to discuss these issues openly with your peers and line managers who I entrust to maintain CSIRO’s high standards. We must ensure that we our science continues to contribute to informed debate on the major challenges facing Australia and humankind.

We are an organisation with goals and values that go beyond our science. We know we will be successful when we remain a trusted advisor to the Australian people.

Regards


Megan



Dr Megan Clark
Chief Executive, CSIRO"

[Allan_L]

Fantastic Post.
Thanks Jonathan.

That truly should settle the debate here (I hope).
and restore the credibility of CSIRO and its integrity.:thumbsup:

Perhaps this whole thing was just another Media Sensationalisation!

But that's another story (or thread)

[Rod66]

Well said. But yet thats the incredible problem we have now. Because of the obfuscation by the media of any facts and the proliferation of one sided arguments by credentialled and non-credentialed experts using data that is only favourable to their cause, the population is completely polarised. Its no longer possible for the ordinary man (or woman) to disseminate the truth, hence causing immense confusion. At the very least, because there is so much confusion, you'd think the government would take a step back and try to establish a base set of irrefutable facts on which their policy is founded, but for some unfathomable reason, they are pressing on with this like its the holy grail, regardless of their "facts" being shot down in flames. One must assume therefore there is an incredible incentive for politicians, or there is something they are not telling us...

If you really want to get serious, Barnaby Joyce is putting a petition together to force the government to stop this nightmare. You can sign his petition on his web site www.barnabyjoyce.com.au (http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au)

cheers

Rod

[avandonk]

Rod as a scientist who understands the science of AGW. I find Barnaby to be an honest but ignorant and misguided fool when it comes to Global Warming.

What gave you the idea I thought otherwise?

I am sure you are correct that any financial incentive to change our ways such as an ETS could be abused by the usual suspects.

I can assure you that there is no confusion as far as the science is concerned!

It is the vested interests of oil and coal that are spending a fortune on confusing the public.

I personally do not give a damn for myself as I am sixty. It is my children and grandchildren and everyone else's whose future I fear for.

Bert

[Rod66]

Sorry Bert, I didn't mean to implicate you with Barnaby Joyce, that was more a general advertisement to all and sundry.

Misguided or not and I have no opinion on that to be honest, he is trying to stop this damn thing for various reasons, but thats fine with me as I have my own reasons which may be different to his, but he's about the only vehicle left at the moment that has any possiblity of delaying this bill. Thats why he gets my vote.

Interesting you say there is no confusion as far as the science is concerned, yet scientists the world over seem to be debating quite loudly. I'm no scientist, just an everyday guy but I can't see any fact from either side that is proven beyond doubt..the media has won this round I'm afraid..

Rod

[avandonk]

The only debate comes from the deniers who are ill informed and or totally ignorant.

Scientists are debating but only about the finer points.

Have a look where the denialist scientists are funded.

Plimer for one is a sad case as his book is all over the place.

When denialists start saying that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas they have my attention.

Unfortunately unless you have a degree in science and you have Physics and Mathematics as majors you cannot begin to sort the lies from the truths let alone the half truths!

Bert

[AstralTraveller]

I wasn't going to enter the debate but .....

As I see the reason why increased CO2 should warm the planet is beyond doubt. Even someone with a mere chemistry major can see that. (Nor is the idea new. It was first proposed in the late 19th century. In 1959 Isaac Asimov wrote an essay entitled 'No More Ice Ages?')

The models of exactly how much the planet will warm are still incomplete, and always will be. However they have come a long way since the 2D models of the early 1990s and none of the improvements have radically changed the predictions.

As someone whos job involves producing data for palaeoclimate/environment reconstruction, who works with a lot of palaeo scientists and who has an uncompleted PhD in the field (the use of multiple isotope proxies in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction) I believe the data does not unequivically prove AGW. However the data is entirely consistant with the hypothesis. It is just that the range and rate of natural change is poorly constrained. (That may change quite soon. Quaternary Science Reviews will have a special edition on the ice core records early in the new year and I believe there will be a lot of high resolution data presented there). The problem, however, is that if we wait until the data is unequivical then it will be too late to stop the AGW. I also think that everything proposed to combat AGW is a good idea anyway.

So I support measures designed to reduce our use of fossil fuel, to reduce usage of resources and recycling. Whether the ETS is the way to achieve that is out of my field, and the subject of another debate.

[FredSnerd]

It amazes me how the flat earth global warming deniers argue that it’s the politicians who are beating this whole thing up for some obscure political/economic advantage when the people who stand most to lose from initiatives to address global warming are the traditional $$$ and power men. That is, the people who since industrialisation have used every devise at their disposal to misinform and obscure any debate that might remotely affect their business/power interests (remember all those years when they argued that there was no evidence that tobacco causes cancer). What’s clear is that they have the politicians so firmly in their pockets (who only ever pay lip service to this issue) that no effective agreement will be reached at Copenhagen and we will all be made to suffer for the lies and cheap tricks of these people and the gullibility of the flat earth global warming deniers.

[Allan_L]

Thanks for your views guys.

But please remember that this thread was only about the media report of gagging of CSIRO scientists by CSIRO and not whether GW is or is caused by human contribution to CO2 count, etc..

And now that the true nature of the alleged gag has been revealed, (sse post 80 from Jonathan) I don't think there is much more to debate here.

Additionally, I am cognisant of Mike's request to avoid Religion Politics Race and GW.

So please lets not go there again. (at least in this thread)

But again, thanks for your views.

[KenGee]

Well after reading this thread, apart from being very disappointed in the level of scientific understanding that many have on this site. The most obvious thing to say is, it seems that to members are divided into two groups, those that lap up whatever the "Australian" dishes out without much thinking and those that do put a bit of thought into their views. Whatever side of this debate you are on, please educate yourself before commenting, as they say better to be thought.....
Australia is served very poorly by its media, but it get the media it deserves.

[xstream]

The starter of this thread has requested it be closed.

Poll now finished, thank you.