CSIRO Gagging Climate Debate

[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]

Originally Posted by Coen

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

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

[bojan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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..)

You said it yourself,

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

they are made for the benefit of the rule makers and not us.

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 (Claude)]

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 (Allan)]

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Al)]

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Coen

1)

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).

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]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

<snip>
... 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.

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by sheeny

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

- 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]

Originally Posted by Coen

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

Exactly right.

[PeterM]

[QUOTE=weeasle;517632]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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, 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 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, based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow below the 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 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.


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_...nd_predictions

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