CSIRO Gagging Climate Debate

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Claude)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Allan_L

CSIRO `gagging climate debate'
Publication: The Australian (p5, Thu 05 Nov 2009)
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.

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-re...1-chapter5.pdf

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

PeterM

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

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

PeterM

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]

Originally Posted by 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-re...1-chapter5.pdf

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

PeterM

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 (Claude)]

Peter,

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

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by 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

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...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]

Originally Posted by 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...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.

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/..._is_a_myth.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Karlgaard
Rich Karlgaard is publisher of 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 and the editor-in-chief of business magazine 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 (Chris Malikoff)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Chris Malikoff)]

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 (Claude)]

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 (Allan)]

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

[Nesti (Mark)]

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

Chris,

......
As you note, we all have the right to be wrong sometimes.

PeterM.

Peter,

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