CSIRO Gagging Climate Debate

[Allan_L (Allan)]

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 (Chris Malikoff)]

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

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

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

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 (Chris Malikoff)]

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 (Carl)]

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 (Marc)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...7-7583,00.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/2...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]

Originally Posted by multiweb

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.

Well said !
Your on the money

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???
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...-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.
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 (Claude)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Claude)]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.