CSIRO Gagging Climate Debate

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Peter,

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

LOL, how true!!!

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

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 (Michael)]

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.

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

No offence but it is dissapointing....

Mike

[sheeny (Al)]

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.

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.

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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 (Roger)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by 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

No offence but it is dissapointing....

Mike

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

[sheeny (Al)]

Originally Posted by 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

We are on the same page, Claude. 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 (Claude)]

Yes I agree Al

[mill (Martin)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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 (Roger)]

Originally Posted by mill

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?
.

hear hear!

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (David)]

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 (Jonathan)]

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"