CSIRO cuts: Without climate modelling, we won't be able to adapt

Updated February 05, 2016 16:28:01

A well-resourced CSIRO is crucial if we're going to adapt to climate change. But instead, the rug has been pulled out from beneath it, writes Tom Quinn.

The cuts to climate science positions at the CSIRO that were announced yesterday will directly harm our most climate-exposed industries, with flow-on impacts throughout the economy.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull must pull the organisation into line, and give it the funding necessary to do its job, so that we can end the economic vandalism that is harming our economic potential.

The CSIRO announced that up to 350 positions in the organisation will change, with the Oceans and Atmosphere and Land and Water divisions set to be hit hardest.

Chief executive Larry Marshall says the move is aimed at shifting the CSIRO's focus from climate change modelling to climate change adaption.

But it is impossible to adapt without having access to the latest modelling. The lack of accurate flood modelling that takes into account the existing changes to the climate, let alone the changes still to come, is already hampering the adaptation of our major cities drainage networks and planning for new developments.

The CSIRO's land and sea work is critical to the productivity of major industries like our agriculture sector. The early warning provided for the current El Nino year has saved countless farms from overstocking and suffering the economic and emotional toll of drought killing stock.

The aquaculture sector is dependent on modelling too, as it needs to understand how the warming of the oceans will affect our fisheries. Nationally significant fisheries like the salmon industry in Tasmania are already struggling with warming waters increasing mortality rates and disease spread. The deep understanding of the systems at work and the advanced forecasting by the CSIRO are needed for the industry to strategically adapt.

Our cities are also in the process of being redesigned and rebuilt to deal with the impacts of climate change. CSIRO modelling is critical to plan everything from water and sewerage systems, flood and heatwave safety plans for residents, and setting resilient building standards. Without it, the task of rebuilding our cities - one of Turnbull's stated priorities - will rely on shaky guess work while making 100-year infrastructure decisions.

Clearly, a well-resourced CSIRO and science sector is crucial if we're going to adapt to climate change. Yet despite this, what is the Federal Government doing?

It's engaged in an ideological crusade against science.

The CSIRO's budget was been slashed by $110 million, only partially restored recently.

University funding is already the second lowest in the OECD and a further $1.9 billion cut has been proposed.

Investment in schools has been reduced by billions of dollars.

The Bureau of Meteorology has been subjected to successive cuts of millions.

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are slated for abolishment.

This is economic lunacy that is destroying the foundations, current and future, for a strong, prosperous Australian economy.

The false war the Federal Government is waging, which pits the economy against the environment, is causing real world business losers. If Paris didn't make it clear enough, the rest of the world is moving on from outdated business models and is supporting the next generation of business.

Australia can either get with the program, and support the institutions making the future economy possible, or impoverish the next generation as the pillars of the old economy, like coal and ore exports, crumble with nothing to take their place.

There's a growing multi-trillion dollar market for sustainable and climate adaptive business models. We should be competing for a share of this global boom, not pulling the rug out from the institutions we need to show us how.

Tom Quinn is the CEO of the Future Business Council. He will be speaking on The Evolution of Business at PauseFest in Melbourne on February 8-14.

Topics: government-and-politics, federal-government, environment, alternative-energy

First posted February 05, 2016 15:06:57

Comments (136)

Comments for this story are closed.

  • ThingFish:

    05 Feb 2016 3:21:35pm

    Welcome to the ideological wars! Just like the crusades, only this time the targets are those things which have the potential to transform our future!

    Alert moderator

    • a_boy:

      05 Feb 2016 3:37:47pm

      it seems that the Howard era "History Wars" have now transmogrified into the Turnbull "Science Wars"

      The former led to endless tears for some. Where will the latter lead?

      Why do right of centre governments in Australia do this sort of thing so regularly?

      Alert moderator

      • Andrew Thomas:

        05 Feb 2016 4:36:15pm

        "Why do right of centre governments in Australia do this sort of thing so regularly?"

        Hi a-boy,

        Because they confuse ideology with pragmatism. There was a time when right of centre meant progressive (back in the 80s). However, this sect has increasingly become the laggards.

        As for Turnbull, and much to my disappointment, he appears to have become the new Tony, but with a brighter smile and better grasp of the English language. Otherwise, I am having trouble telling the difference. I seriously thought for a moment we'd be getting a government who understood how to build a twenty first century economy. How disappointing, but I guess it was the only way he could become PM in such a regressive party.

        Alert moderator

    • Greg:

      05 Feb 2016 4:06:51pm

      No ThingFish, more the case on we have analysed it to death, to quote the Left, "THE SCIENCE IS IN". Now is the time to address the issue with science rather than keep looking at the problem especially given the thousands of scientists in the world looking at the problem.

      Alert moderator

      • mt_syd:

        05 Feb 2016 4:26:25pm

        too early to say Greg.

        Your argument makes sense, as does the argument of the CSIRO CEO, but the proof will be in the pudding. If the new focus does indeed result in the science we need to adapt and reduce climate change then well and good, but if it turns out that we did need to keep the people doing the modelling, then the people calling this an unjustified attack will have been proven right.

        Alert moderator

        • David Arthur:

          05 Feb 2016 6:35:09pm

          Funny you should mention CSIRO CEO, because when announcing these cuts, he wants CSIRO to work on making a diesel fuel replacement from coal.

          Coal? If he knew any climate science at all, he'd understand that we have already used way, way too much coal, and need to stop using it completely; ideally, we'd stop using it by 1988, but we've missed our chance to do that.

          If he wants to make diesel fuel from anything, he'd make it from biomass (trees) - but to do that, he'd need to know how to grow trees - and to do that, he'd need to not decimate the Land & Water Division.

          Alert moderator

      • Jess:

        05 Feb 2016 4:35:43pm

        Yes the science is in but to suggest we don't need scientists studying it is rediculous.
        We need them to study it and work out what the impacts will be in specifics.
        We need them to do this so scientists can create mitigation stratergies. We need them to work out what the impacts are so we know where to spend money for the best effect. No point spending millions divert a river to farming land if there is no water upstream.
        We need them to know where the insects will spread to so we can mitigate that to stop the spread of disease.

        The work of a scientist doesn't end they just change what they are doing within thier specialisation.

        Alert moderator

      • Andrew Thomas:

        05 Feb 2016 4:38:43pm

        Hi Greg,

        Not sure who this "Left" organisation is (do they have a phone number, or are such groups a figment of our imagination), but otherwise you may very well have a point.

        Alert moderator

      • John51:

        05 Feb 2016 4:53:20pm

        Greg, I would have to suggest NO. The science being IN as you say is only one step. You still need to monitor the change that is going on right across our environmental systems. Air, water and land so you can understand what adapation methods and requirements are required as climate change kicks in more and more with its impacts and change.

        The Head of CSIRO said in an interview that the CSIRO is leaving that to the Universities across Australia to continue to do the primary monitoring research work, but I would suggest that is not enough. The CSIRO is the major science research organisation within Australia and I believe that it is crucial that the CSIRO still continues to act as the central reseach body that works with and coordinates the research and its findings that is going on across Australia.

        Alert moderator

      • David Arthur:

        05 Feb 2016 6:36:28pm

        "The Science is in", you say.

        Well, Copernicus told us the earth orbits the sun back in 1512; are you telling us that all the money spent on astronomy since then has been a waste?

        Alert moderator

    • Malcolm:

      05 Feb 2016 5:02:20pm

      To be fair there is merit in the CSIRO's actions which is mirrored in the world of project engineering. Projects go through a study phase, then the design and construction phases and then commissioning and handover. As the various stages are reached and completed people can become redundant and others with different skills are hired only to become redundant as their work is completed. It's a perfectly accepted and I might add natural cycle.

      After incessant argument and forced delays by the denialists governments have finally admitted the that AGW is real and are determined on a course of action to ameliorate the problem, The time for studies is now passing and the time for action is here so it is likely that some skills will not be required or that those people may be redeployed in other areas. It is easy to paint this as a final attempt at killing off the need for work on AGW by those people whose denialist and spurious arguments were designed purely to help the polluters but it is simply just a normal realigning and redeployment of the people needed to carry the effort to control AGW into its next stage. No doubt many of those people whose jobs are either lost or redefined will find employment in the much needed expansion of industries based on clean energy sources.

      Alert moderator

  • south perth ian:

    05 Feb 2016 3:28:57pm

    Hey but isn't the science "settled"....... Politicians keep telling us it is.
    I do agree that the better allocation of scarce scientific resources is to focus on adaptation rather than continued modelling.
    Much more applicable..;;))

    Alert moderator

    • Tom1:

      05 Feb 2016 5:13:48pm

      SPIan. Does adaptation include scientific means of mitigation, or just means of coping with the problem when it begins to affect our lifestyle and environment.

      I would imagine that a bit of each is required.

      Alert moderator

    • Alpo:

      05 Feb 2016 5:21:26pm

      Before adaptation, we need to revert our economy's dependence on fossil fuels. You can't adapt to the consequences of a problem, whilst keeping the causes of that problem going.

      Alert moderator

    • bonzono:

      05 Feb 2016 5:47:15pm

      If you dont know what you're adapting to, how are you doing to adapt?

      Adaption in random directions works, sure. It just takes 4 billion years.

      Alert moderator

    • Alfie:

      05 Feb 2016 6:41:57pm

      I agree. We can better utilise the CSIRO (and their funding) for something worthwhile.

      So far. they have 'proved' absolutely; that there is no tangible link between human activity and global warming, and that global warming is not actually occurring.

      Now our tax dollars can now be put to better use.

      Alert moderator

  • mike2:

    05 Feb 2016 3:31:38pm


    dont you mean there are trillions of governments money to be had by the way of subsidies to uneconomical businesses?
    i am happy to reduce pollution but i am tired of the climate changers exagerations and out right lies,,remember the death threat scandal??cost us millions in security etc and then we find out it was all lies to push there agenda and hide from questions-to trust a coward is the surest way to go down

    Alert moderator

    • bonzono:

      05 Feb 2016 5:48:14pm

      you're not qualified to assess the science. sorry.

      What the death threat scandal has to do with climate change is probably your point - LOOK OVER THERE!..

      Alert moderator

  • virgil:

    05 Feb 2016 3:33:55pm

    It's never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. Except if you're a climate scientist or are actually concerned about what sort of world we leave our kids.

    Alert moderator

    • Tabanus:

      05 Feb 2016 3:44:33pm

      Dear vergil

      What could be more exciting than getting a job in one of the booming businesses cashing in on the scare campaign.

      Business like - wait for it - the Future Business Council!

      As the science is in, those with no work to do can now make millions in private enterprise.

      I am shocked that you think these poor souls should be denied the opportunity to use their climate change skills elsewhere.

      Alert moderator

      • bonzono:

        05 Feb 2016 5:53:14pm

        Hi Tab
        I'd enjoy watching someone like you attempt to equate exactly how much money you think the oil and coal lobbies gain by pushing your kind of mantra.

        Tab, you're a mouthpiece for big oil.
        you know that, we know that.

        One of the more interesting comments from people who hold this view is the following:

        "changing out practices to be less destructive to the environment is costly, won't earn anyone any money, and will destroy jobs.....
        ....except for the people who will earn money and get jobs from it - like those evil climate change scientists who earn research grants (to be spent over a few years) somewhere in the vicinity of about 1/5th of the annual salary of a BHP CEO".

        Followed up with the implication that
        "those nasty rich scientists should stop picking on the poor destitute big oil".

        Really tab?
        would it kill you to 1. present a self-consistent argument and 2. one that is actually even generally in line with reality?

        Alert moderator

    • Sam:

      05 Feb 2016 4:14:13pm

      It is exciting times. Someone finally wants the CSIRO to work on solutions rather than dwell on "settled science". This has more to do with "Climate Extremist Ideology" than it has to do with solving the issue.

      Alert moderator

      • bonzono:

        05 Feb 2016 5:57:52pm

        Hi Sam.

        two things:
        1. Science seeks to falsify an hypothesis. This is the point of science. When the hypothesis is falsified, it must be re-tested. When the hypothesis passes the falsification test, another test must be devised to rigorously test the hypothesis .... and so on. The process continues until the hypothesis morphs into a "theory" - which is what we use to describe things like what it is that holds your butt in the chair.

        2.What is settled is that climate change is happening and that it will lead to significant environmental changes, there is a scientific (not public, sorry, you can't and should not attempt to contribute to a scientific viewpoint when you've demonstrated you actually can't) concensus that humans are likely to be responsible. - now sam, what YOU PERSONALLY think of that is irrelevant - as I said, you're not qualified to have an opinion either way. Sorry.

        Sam, if you're not a climate change scientist, feel free to babble as much as you want of course, but if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, make sure you own up to the fact you simply dont read the literature, much less possess an analytical bone in your body.

        Alert moderator

        • OUB :

          05 Feb 2016 6:45:24pm

          And the falsifiable hypothesis against which AGW claims are tested is....?

          Bonzono if you are a climate scientist god help us all. The low price you put on your credibility as shown by your regular sprays is obvious to all.

          Alert moderator

      • David Arthur:

        05 Feb 2016 6:40:52pm

        "Someone finally wants the CSIRO to work on solutions rather than dwell on "settled science"."

        So, every cent spent on astronomy since 1512 - when Copernicus told us the earth orbits the sun - has been a waste of money?

        Alert moderator

  • quadfan:

    05 Feb 2016 3:33:59pm

    The question we need to ask is who benefits from these government decisions. When we know that answer we will know who the traitors are.

    Alert moderator

    • phil:

      05 Feb 2016 5:21:10pm

      I'm fine with the CSIRO call from monitoring if climate change is happening, to how to adapt to climate change.

      after all, most scientists now accept climate change is real, so why not work out how to deal with it

      Alert moderator

  • Tabanus:

    05 Feb 2016 3:34:40pm

    I heard the head of the CSIRO today state that there was no overall cut: that staff numbers will remain the same but they would be used in areas where they were needed more.

    Does Mr Quinn say he is lying?

    I am aware of the multi-trillion dollar market for various business models relating to climate change, and having worked in a large organisation am aware of the vast profits that such "products" are expected to generate.

    But unfortunately for Mr Quinn, it is not up to the Australian taxpayer to subsidise his nice little earner. Surely he can raise the capital to satisfy such a huge demand? I mean, there is no risk any of the models could be wrong is there? "The Science is In", as the four word mantra helpfully tells us. Surely investors would be falling over themselves to get their money out of coal, iron, oil, gas etc and put it into a sure fire winner?

    Or is Mr Quinn saying that the market doubts the validity of the modelling? That things are not perhaps as clear cut as he suggests? It would be nice if he said so up front, instead of using CSIRO as a front for his begging for subsidies for his pet project. He somehow forgot to mention that he stands to benefit, as CEO of the Future Business Council, which is not, as one might assume, some gov't body or altruistic foundation, but a profit driven business consultancy.

    The ABC never seems to hesitate before giving free advertising to some businesses: ones that are "right thinking".

    I know one must strike while the iron is hot, but asking the CSIRO to provide the heat so that a business can make a profit is surely a bit much. Admit it: the public has moved on. The money has been made, time to look for another scheme.

    PS What did Paris make clear? I assume not to open your borders to Islamic terrorists, but otherwise all I can remember is a huge junket that decided nothing but to meet again in a few years and deliver a few excuses why vague promises were not kept.

    Alert moderator

    • mt_syd:

      05 Feb 2016 4:29:51pm

      you dont seem to understand the concept of a 'model'

      all models are wrong by definition

      the reason it is suggested we need to keep working on the modelling is so they can be become more accurate and more useful

      and yes, the science is in

      Alert moderator

    • tonyp:

      05 Feb 2016 4:45:53pm


      Let us examine for instance the possibility that changing climate will change rainfall patterns. Which regions will receive how much under what scenarios? What are these regions current usage? How will they need to adjust if things change?

      It is generally cheaper to know these things ahead of time than to conduct an RC a decade down the track and decide yes, things got screwed up and maybe some advanced modelling capacity would be helpful.

      Paris proved that the scientific organisations of 200 nations are convinced by the scientific evidence underlying climate change.

      Alert moderator

      • James Murphy:

        05 Feb 2016 5:39:43pm

        tonyp, Where do you get your "200" number from?

        There are 165 signatories to the UNFCC, and it has been ratified by 197 'nations' (including Europe, though that obviously isn't a nation or country)

        200 is not the same as 165, or 197. Yet again, you misrepresent the most basic facts.

        Alert moderator

      • The Biscuit Bunyip:

        05 Feb 2016 5:45:13pm

        What would those commie greeno pinko grant-grabbing, lie-through-their-teeth scientists know eh? They certainly can't teach Tabanus anything!

        Alert moderator

    • marx spots the x :

      05 Feb 2016 5:00:39pm


      "Does Mr Quinn say he is lying ?"

      No he doesn't, read the article correctly instead of taking to Tom Quinn with the prefect cane, misrepresenting him.

      As to you being "aware " I doubt that very much, if a multi trillion dollar market doe's exist, then it would represent the value and importance for corporations establishing risk assessments and future investment strategies. Insinuating corporations and organizations are having there collective glasses fogged by Tome Quinn and climate modelling ..is plainly bonkers.

      As to your assertion about fossil fuel investment,. on the back of AGL's announcement yesterday ..it's laughable. Follow the money it leads to solar and wind investment, a "nice littler earner ".

      Alert moderator

      • Tabanus:

        05 Feb 2016 5:18:48pm

        Dear marx spots the x

        The author say the scientists are needed to carry on climate change work: the CEO previously said they were not. Seems like an accusation of lying to me.

        It was not me that made the claim of the multi trillion dollar market, it was the author. Take up the issue with him.

        But I am glad you think that all the money is flowing into renewables: there is therefore no need to study climate change as it will never happen, all the nasty CO2 remaining safely underground.

        At the very least, no need to subsidise the cost of these expensive fuel sources, as they are already successful.

        Time to celebrate!

        Alert moderator

    • brl121:

      05 Feb 2016 6:12:42pm

      "Does Mr Quinn say he is lying?"
      He may not be lying about the expected eventual job numbers, but he is effectively lying about the methodology to get there! Marshall's whole announcement was an illogical farce, peppered with nonsequiturs: just what might have been expected from a venture capitalist with an American accent trying to rape and pillage like a new company director.

      In particular, the dissembling implication that "some" of the existing scientists will go into the new "applied" positions is ludicrous, as he well knows. In fact, it's odds-on that none will do so and all will be sacked. That is because such specialists are experts in their own field and likely incompetent in his desired "innovation" field. This is completely normal and expected. So, my principal objection is that longstanding world experts will be sacked with no recourse, unjustly losing job security and likely only to be able to obtain a job in their field by moving overseas, given the analogous penury in Australia's universities at present.

      Second, his gleeful announcement that the changes will provide "renewal" and a "career structure" for young scientists is risible: a career structure which will enable them to also be sacked mid-career due to some political wind change!

      Finally, I guess that the CSIRO is now being dumbed-down like many other Australian institutions. Their remit does indeed tend towards applied "research" likely to be of use to Australia, but populating the institution with short-term spivs intending to lead to mandated "innovation" is not the way to go. Fundamental research should always underpin innovation: indeed the WiFi invention arose serendipitously from astronomical research.

      Alert moderator

  • Big Ben:

    05 Feb 2016 3:34:45pm

    "But it is impossible to adapt without having access to the latest modelling."

    I've already adapted without having to get involved with any modelling. If you run out of money, that's tough. Life is like that if you can't pay your own way. Live with it.
    Begging is illegal in Australia.

    Alert moderator

    • Desert Woman:

      05 Feb 2016 4:04:48pm

      What have you adapted to Ben? Today's climate?

      Well be prepared because it will be different next month and all the months after for a long, long time.

      Assuming you have adapted to an unpredictable climate, has your local Council or state govt? Because it's a bit hard to adapt to a 3 metre flood rushing through your house because e.g. the drains had not been designed to cope with the new and increasingly torrential downpours we have now.

      It is not about you or your adaptation, it is about us and ours.

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        05 Feb 2016 4:44:49pm

        Yes exactly Desert Woman. You're welcome to build your house on stilts if you're worried about getting flooded out. The desert wouldn't be much of a desert then, would it? ;-)

        No government on the planet has ever listened to a word I said, (apart from that 'nothing but bush' joke last year), and there's not a lot of love lost between us.

        I hope they can call a special committee meeting sometime in the next 50 years specifically about how to adapt to evolutionary progress as well as I know you will.

        One good rule to adapt to is to make sure you keep all the plastic shopping bags, because they're ideal for wrapping things like clothes and treasures in (usually double bagged at opposite ends) to prevent water damage. I have almost a cubic metre packed tight after the past decade, including a good lot of beautifully coloured international plastic bags.

        Duty Free stores at Changi give away the best I have in my collection. They're tough and they're crimson.

        Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          05 Feb 2016 5:21:58pm

          I must not have been paying attention recently Ben.

          Actually I saw my desert look like that fabled 'inland sea' when I was a kid. Would be funny if it came back as a permanent (?)feature wouldn't it? While the coastal regions dried out?

          Alert moderator

        • Big Ben:

          05 Feb 2016 6:55:55pm

          My Dream for Australia is to dig a canal from the Bight to the Salt Lakes so we can claim back our Inland Sea and have seasonal rain in the desert. I wish I could have seen what you saw when you were a kid. It must have been magic.

          Have a not-too-saturated and happy weekend.

          Alert moderator

        • bonzono:

          05 Feb 2016 6:00:22pm

          Hi ben,
          indeed, if you're worried about being flooded out, it makes sense to spend money on building stilts, but not much if you dont think you're going to be flooded out.

          How do you decide? ah, you make a model.
          how do you know if the model is accurate? well, you test it with various hypotheses.
          welcome to the scientific method. It works. Pay attention.

          Alert moderator

        • Big Ben:

          05 Feb 2016 6:52:00pm

          " It works. Pay attention."

          When I was a lad I built lots of models. 1/25, and occasionally a 1/8th when I made enough money washing cars on weekends and in the holidays to afford one.

          Now I'm a big boy but. I built big cars for a while until I got over them because they smog up the planet. My models were accurate. It worked. Everything is fine.

          Let the worry-warts pay for their own psychotherapy. I pay enough in tobacco tax as it is. You're not getting any more and that's that. You should have built your models when you were a kid, with your own money. Then you might have grown up too.

          Alert moderator

    • mt_syd:

      05 Feb 2016 4:31:50pm

      looking forward to your adaption proposals when China turns into a dustbowl if we get 3 or 4 degrees warming by the end of this century

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        05 Feb 2016 4:59:42pm

        That's a tough one to answer but I'd say I'll probably have to learn some Mandarin if I'm still around at the end of the century anyway, so we'll work something out between us then.

        Alert moderator

      • Billy Bob Hall:

        05 Feb 2016 6:35:18pm

        It'll never happen Syd. On a century scale climate is very stable, much like it is today.

        Alert moderator

    • David Arthur:

      05 Feb 2016 6:45:16pm

      So Ben's already adapted without having to get involved with any modelling.

      Do you know how water availability is going to change in your part of the world, or are you already recovering fresh water from your own waste?

      Alert moderator

  • d:

    05 Feb 2016 3:42:18pm

    Too late!

    Our nation is not the clever country, we do not like the truth, our government does not like having their own agenda questioned.

    Our bright minds should seek employment somewhere else on this planet.

    Alert moderator

  • Son of Zaky:

    05 Feb 2016 3:42:58pm

    I hadn't considered an article pitched at this level of superficiality and unstructured advocacy was really going to be achieving much in the way of useful support for an organisation that I consider to be a very important part of Australia's integrated response to future events.

    That was until I called up the Future Business Council's website, and realised they were probably doing the best they could.

    For future reference Mr Quinn, a businessperson sets out their case making use of numbers; numbers explaining what is lost by not taking a course of action, numbers which cover what can be expected from the outlay, numbers which place the investment in a global context and explain what is to be gained in a broader business sense by filling the available business niche. Such a case would, no doubt, be compelling.

    The fluffy generalities and advantageous framing of the topic is normally done by the advertising department.

    I sincerely hope tickets to PauseFest are free, because any amount over zero seems a big ask for small content.

    And this from someone who happens to think taking money out of climate study is a foolish, short-sighted, and counterproductive thing to do.

    Alert moderator

    • Tabanus:

      05 Feb 2016 5:21:44pm

      Dear Son of Zaky

      With this interest in the economics of climate change, where were you when one of the leading experts on the subject was hounded from UWA by a bunch of zealots?

      Of course a government funded think tank would not allow competition from private businesses offering "consultancy" services.

      Alert moderator

      • fredn:

        05 Feb 2016 7:03:23pm

        "leading experts" What?? Lomborg?

        He has no science, climate science, or economics qualifications at all! None at all.

        Alert moderator

      • Son of Zaky:

        05 Feb 2016 7:11:37pm

        Couldn't follow this at first, but I think you're referring to Bjorn Lomborg.

        If so, a couple of points;

        Where was I? Well, seeing I have no role either officially or unofficially with UWA, I was probably somewhere else.

        For the sake of brevity, I'll allow through "a bunch of zealots" (yep, they're the only ones I've ever come across as well) designation, but point out it was a decision taken at VC level. If you're angry, take it up with that office (and perhaps explain where YOU were and why YOU weren't out fighting these "zealots" I'm supposed to be in league with whilst they were destroying civilisation as we know it).

        Lomborg is not a "leading expert" on climate change, he's a "leading expert" in saying "there's a whole lot of other problems as well - let's dilute the conversation by talking about them too". In fact, he's probably best known for being a "leading expert" in spruiking Bjorn Lomborg.

        By the way, where were you when the federal government was throwing around $4 million of taxpayer's hard-earned to hire and bankroll a bloke without even checking whether he needed the dough?

        Alert moderator

      • Desert Woman:

        05 Feb 2016 7:14:30pm

        Tabanus, Lomberg is a famous, infamous science denier. This is well documented in the scientific literature but of course, you do not read that. You only follow what the denier sites say.

        It was no coincidence that Lomberg was offered funding by Abbott's govt who, following the leader, believed the science was crap. Fortunately, somebody saw the light before the country was brought into more disrepute than we are in already.

        Heaven only knows what this latest decision will do to our standing in the councils who will judge our contributions into the future. You can believe whatever rubbish you like, but just for once, couldn't you put the country and future generations ahead of your personal and ignorant opinions?

        Alert moderator

    • Forrest Gardener:

      05 Feb 2016 5:31:39pm

      Soz, compare and contrast what you write here with what you write in response to me below.

      Coherent points of view are far more valuable than attacking both the article and people who criticise it.

      Alert moderator

  • Union Man:

    05 Feb 2016 3:47:15pm

    Quote from the article:

    "It's engaged in an ideological crusade against science."

    Sigh. Probably the wrong historical metaphor to have used here and demonstates a complete lack of understanding of the Crusades.

    I think it's time to widen Godwin's Law to include the Crusades.

    BTW, if you're thinking of replying to this comment, I suggest you read-up on the Crusades first.

    Alert moderator

    • tonyp:

      05 Feb 2016 5:00:26pm

      I've done a lot of reading about the Crusades, can you explain why you think it's a bad term in this context? Misguided ideology with very damaging large-scale effects seems to fit pretty well.

      Alert moderator

      • Union Man:

        05 Feb 2016 5:34:29pm

        "Misguided ideology with very damaging large-scale effects seems to fit pretty well."

        Conveniently missing from your pithy summary are the complicated politics of the Crusades, the economics of the times, and a plethora of other issues too long to list here (I'm cooking dinner for the kids!). None of this is applicable to the LNP Science Policy (pre or post Abbott) and it's refrence is just a rhetorical device used to invoke emotions in the readers instead of reason.

        PS - Don't let my post confuse you into thinking I agree with LNP Science Policy. I just prefer to use critical thinking when I read articles regardless of whether the argument agrees with my position.

        Alert moderator

  • Regional Australia:

    05 Feb 2016 3:48:21pm

    Bureau of Meteorology has also suffered huge cuts, based on the fact their senior management have been advised that automated systems can do job, that people do. There is however one great flaw in that statement. The people doing the change have never visited the various weather stations around the country, to see the complexity of the equipment, and you need human intervention to keep the automated systems working on a daily basis. The Bureau's role is not climate change, it is measuring the climate each day.

    They are going to shut down all but a few stations in each state, except on the coast. There are Met Bureau stations also offshore. There are daily tasks to reset manual instruments, to see the automatic ones are working within tolerance. The Met Bureau stations are set in four lines running down the continent, and each line hands over to the next line. So people say what does that mean. The current system works very well, its those observations translate into forecasts on the end of each news bulletin, and weather warnings, the airlines buy the data from the balloon flights and use it to set cruising altitude to save millions of dollars worth of fuel. As weather systems cross the continent, they will eventually affect the coastline areas. These inland stations have weather balloon launching equipment which needs daily attention to see they are operating properly. And all these standards are set to international reporting standards, so that weather reporting is uniform around the globe. The buildings that goes with equipment are in isolated geographical locations, and need air conditioning to keep instruments cool, weather balloon parts from failing before they are assembled for launch, computers that record the automated data. But if you shut them, who loads the balloons fly in fly outs, they are not there when the equipment needs regular cleaning, you lose the 9.00 am resets, and weather observations, which is an international standard for recording data for evaporation pans - wet & dry manual thermometers. What they are not talking about is how are they going to maintain the system. You can't walk away and close the doors. All these buildings need constant attention, and maintenance across a whole range of areas. The equipment can only be serviced a hand full of people with hands on experience. This is typical of our current Government, just do it, to prove a point. It is their property and their assets. Within a very short space of time, the data going into the system will be, incorrect, and some weather stations in remote locations are part of the international grid reporting system, the system will lose its credibility. It is much more complicated then your $500-00 weather station in your back yard connected to your P.C.

    Alert moderator

    • Regionalgranny:

      05 Feb 2016 4:45:45pm

      Pity parliamentary operations cannot be automated! Then we would have no need for politicians.

      Alert moderator

      • Rae:

        05 Feb 2016 5:21:24pm

        At the rate the LNP governments are selling of the "builder" generation assets and privatising services we soon won't need them anyway. There will be nothing left to manage nor service.

        I'm just grateful my parents are gone now and don't have to witness the destruction of all that effort and high taxes.

        Alert moderator

      • Geoff :

        05 Feb 2016 6:30:07pm

        Perhaps the cutbacks to the BoM mob might just have a teeny weeny little bit to do with them 'cooking the books' and making it appear warmer than it really is.

        Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      05 Feb 2016 5:28:40pm

      Sorry RA but the BOM threw their lot in with the global warming alarmist crowd so anything they suffer they deserve.

      Alert moderator

    • Forrest Gardener:

      05 Feb 2016 5:38:46pm


      The BOM shares apparently shares your concern about incorrect data. They have spent a great deal of time altering historical data. They have lost considerable credibility in doing so.

      There is an old saying that anybody who can be replaced by a computer should be.

      Alert moderator

  • Ted:

    05 Feb 2016 3:49:53pm

    The CSIRO decision to cut these staff caught me by surprise after Turnbull's utterances about innovation. I thought he had reinstated $90 million of the money they had lost, but apparently not.

    The responsible Minister (and I use the term advisedly) is Christopher Pyne. I am sure he is in favour of this but it is possible he did not order these cuts. He would have been advised of them and by not objecting has tacitly approved them. He would have told Malcolm.

    It is now quite obvious we achieved nothing when Turnbull replaced Abbott. He is completely in the hands of the rabid right including the climate deniers. Somewhere out there someone is penning a book entitled The Turnbull Experiment as one does when reporting on failed episodes in history. I suspect it will be released soon.

    Bring back Abbott. I thoroughly dislike the man but at least his lies and extreme views are on show for all to see. He won't be there for long.

    Alert moderator

    • Desert Woman:

      05 Feb 2016 4:58:28pm

      Regional and Ted, I cannot imagine anything crazier than this.

      Just two quick ones: how much do they think a good disaster is going to cost if it is not predicted in time to get people out? Disasters, not entirely natural, are already costing us a heap and that is when the lives lost are minimal.

      No Ted, no more Abbott please, ever again.

      Alert moderator

      • Ted:

        05 Feb 2016 5:14:43pm

        I did have in mind that people would be less likely to be taken in by the Abbott and would dispose of him for us at the next election. It wasn't a very serious comment.

        I am opposed to disasters. You might have misunderstood my opposition to the CSIRO cuts.

        Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          05 Feb 2016 7:25:20pm

          Ted, I think I understand your position. My comment about bringing back Abbott was because he increased the division within the country, the divisiveness, the 'them and us' attitudes that we read here everyday.

          That is our second most important problem next to climate change itself I think. I can't see Turnbull is doing anything to ameliorate it and more and more, I hear people saying it seems he is a fraud, doesn't have the courage of his convictions. Maybe people have woken up to MT.

          Alert moderator

  • Forrest Gardener:

    05 Feb 2016 3:51:27pm

    This is pretty weak stuff. The decision about which areas were to be cut was one made by CSIRO management. Where is the bleating about that management? Which other areas would you cut instead and why?

    Then there are the quality of the examples. Which farmer did NOT know that this was an el nino year? Alarmists have been screaming for over a year how rainfall will be at drought levels. It's not rocket science to look at the BOM charts. What exactly did the CSIRO add to the picture?

    Then there's this one "Nationally significant fisheries like the salmon industry in Tasmania are already struggling with warming waters increasing mortality rates and disease spread."

    Come on CSIRO, tell us exactly how much the waters in places the places where salmon farming is done like Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania have risen.

    Australia does not need the propaganda which emanates from the CSIRO. Australia does need science and industrial research. Wherever science and industrial research are, long may it be funded.

    The science is settled only now it isn't. How bizarre!

    Alert moderator

    • Son of Zaky:

      05 Feb 2016 4:46:21pm

      I've noticed it's a continuing pattern of yours to throw up all sorts of questions and challenges to others.

      Four question marks here - a fairly slow day by your standards I'd have thought.

      Could I be bold enough to suggest that with that sort of an enquiring mind you'd be better off in science?

      I doubt you'd be missed here, and you could pursue your passion for investigation. The government even offers funding to the best and brightest of Australia's curious minds - as a taxpayer I'd be delighted to contribute to your funding.

      Science needs people who can knuckle down and become obsessed by something rather than flighty types who wouldn't know monomania even if it bit them on the arse.

      Alert moderator

      • Forrest Gardener:

        05 Feb 2016 5:08:23pm

        Soz, read what you wrote above.

        You decried the article because you "hadn't considered an article pitched at this level of superficiality and unstructured advocacy was really going to be achieving much ..."

        Then turn your mind to the issues I raise rather than simply posting abuse. Or maybe post something clever. Or not as you wish.

        Alert moderator

      • ThingFish:

        05 Feb 2016 5:14:08pm

        You shouldn't be so hard on Forrest, Zaky...

        He and his friends spend their days scouring the net for snippets of news that might support their denialist position, which I guess is where the salmon thing came from from. The cold snap in Perth got them all fired up last month but they have had to let than one drop given the forecast for the coming week and all the warnings from the AMA et al.

        The pickings are slim and are only going to get thinner on the ground as time passes. You should feel sorry for Forrest and his friends.

        Alert moderator

    • tonyp:

      05 Feb 2016 4:52:58pm

      That we are going to get reamed by climate change is settled. The most efficient way to deploy our various resources to mitigate this process remains open.

      The thing that cheers me up of course is that I don't have grandkids so in that sense it's other peoples' problem.

      Alert moderator

    • bonzono:

      05 Feb 2016 6:05:14pm

      "The science is settled only now it isn't. How bizarre"

      FG, you should refer to your nearest high school science student for a description of the scientific method.

      I concur with SoZ. you won't be missed, we've seen your kind before - 1600's I think, or was it 1200's? possibly both.

      Anyhow, we dont have bubonic plauge any more - even though the science wasn't settled at the time.

      Alert moderator

    • Codger:

      05 Feb 2016 6:09:00pm

      Here's a question for you Forrest.

      What is the difference between a rise in sea level and a rise in sea temperature?

      Alert moderator

    • Reinhard:

      05 Feb 2016 6:37:15pm

      The irony is obviously lost on you because you are asking the kind of question that the CSIRO's Oceans and Atmosphere and Land and Water division can answer, that is for now..

      Alert moderator

  • the west:

    05 Feb 2016 3:53:24pm

    Ok, everyone wants a robust CSIRO and centres of research excellence in scientific fields.

    Where exactly should funding come from to restore the $110m?

    Hospitals and health, schools, roads, security, military, protective services???

    Commonwealth or States and GST it is all tax revenue that has to be wisely positioned for the best outcomes.

    OK, now nominate where, and don't say raising taxes.

    Alert moderator

    • Ted:

      05 Feb 2016 4:14:22pm

      Ok, abolish the misused superannuation concessions costing $30 billion. Or ask the multinationals to pay some tax - not all of it but just a little bit as a sign of good faith.

      Don't put up GST but if you do, peel a little off to cover this.

      Alert moderator

      • Realist1:

        05 Feb 2016 4:37:30pm


        Yes lets scrap those and increase our pension costs..

        maybe we could get Flannery to pay back all his mone for wasting our money on desal plants we don't need

        Alert moderator

        • Ted:

          05 Feb 2016 5:20:51pm

          I wasn't suggesting reducing superannuation that is genuinely used for retirement. I was referring to those who don't use it for retirement income but use it instead for tax avoidance.

          My wife and I once attended a symposium on how to do this but we didn't want to be involved.

          Alert moderator

        • bonzono:

          05 Feb 2016 6:06:32pm

          or the $10M rainmaking machine that Turnbull purchased..

          guess what,.. it doesnt work.

          And this man purports to being receptive to science. what a bunch of fools!

          Alert moderator

    • Samb:

      05 Feb 2016 4:32:32pm

      How about re-purpose the $250M a year they keep doling out for school chaplains that nobody seems to want.

      Theres double your $110M + change.

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        05 Feb 2016 6:14:30pm

        Better to ditch that crazy paid parental leave and stop encouraging the women to overpopulate the planet. It magnifies our undeveloping excesses and sets a lousy example the developing ones.

        It's hypocritical to have PPL and not love the warm weather.

        Alert moderator

    • Malcolm:

      05 Feb 2016 4:50:49pm

      Well one could suggest overhauling the scam of negative gearing but that would upset the rentiers. Or getting a small percentage of the tax that is avoided by multinationals - why Apple alone could, if it paid a fair proportion of its local earnings, could fund several CSIROs and a few hospitals in perpetuity but the government won't take them on.

      Alert moderator

    • Andrew C:

      05 Feb 2016 5:35:08pm

      Why not raise taxes on the wealthy?

      But lets play by your rules for a second. You could simply reallocate funding from media advisors and spin doctors to the CSIRO. That would give you more than enough money.

      Or you could change the pharmaceutical benefits scheme so that generics are allowed sooner and to prevent ever greening.

      Or you could restrict politician entitlements, including travel entitlements. You could withdraw government funding from coal mining or logging industries. Or you could re-introduce the requirement that ships in Australian waters pay Australian wages, thus increasing Australia's income tax take (because they would actually employ Australians).

      You could cancel the politicians free bar. You could put the cap back on university placements so that we aren't pumping out a massive oversupply of graduates in various professions, in the meantime we would save money on the number of enrolments.

      You could close the loophole allowing polls to claim daily allowances for "renting" in Canberra, and then staying in a house owned by your husband/wife. You could cancel Nauru and that whole program, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.

      You could abolish trusts and see the tax come flooding (without raising them at all).

      I could go on.

      Alert moderator

  • tsj:

    05 Feb 2016 3:57:27pm

    I totally agree and repeat Mr. Quinn's well put summary:
    It makes no sense at all to be diminishing what should be a burgeoning sector going forward. Any intelligent government would know this, and would be doing everything they can, to future proof not only the environment, but also the economy.
    'Innovation' is more than just a word, Mr. Turnbull. It requires intelligent action too.

    Alert moderator

    • phil:

      05 Feb 2016 5:30:51pm

      Or else we let others spend millions on the models, then buy on the ones that work for hundred of thousands of dollars.

      I'm typing that on a piece of equipment that wasn't designed in this country. And I'm fine with that

      Alert moderator

  • A. Giblin:

    05 Feb 2016 4:03:07pm

    It is good to see a comment on climate change. It is hard to believe there are so many deniers. Abbott thinks wind turbines are "unsightly" and "dangerous to health". When the Defense White Paper first appeared over two years ago it stated that the greatest threat was not terrorism but climate change, since this would hinder them in finding where disasters had occurred and providing assistance to those in floods, landslides, sinkholes, fires etc. He then admitted that Defense and ASIO had been monitored and the documents had been redacted for security reason Did he think that these to bodies intended to invade Australia?
    Turnbull is cutting funding to the CSIRO and this will severely interfere with their research

    Alert moderator

    • a happy little debunker:

      05 Feb 2016 4:48:43pm

      Except Turnbull is not cutting funding to the CSIRO - he's gifting them an extra $90 Billion - as a part of his innovation package.

      You can deny that - all you like.

      Alert moderator

      • Reinhard:

        05 Feb 2016 5:26:09pm

        That is no "gift" it is targeted funding that will all go to commercial research with nothing for agricultural or climate science.
        $75 million is specifically for Data61, an industrial and technology research arm.

        Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      05 Feb 2016 5:17:01pm

      "It is hard to believe there are so many deniers."

      Yes it is hard to believe if you had listened to the climate scientists.

      Alert moderator

  • Inhabitant:

    05 Feb 2016 4:10:40pm

    Unable to adapt ??

    Humans are the consummate adapters , is there anywhere on dry land we don't live?

    If the author really thinks we can predict what will happen and what we will need , to be able carry on he's deluded , flying cars for everyone?, the paperless office perhaps....

    Don't worry about it, it will happen then we will happen , as always

    Alert moderator

    • mt_syd:

      05 Feb 2016 4:33:50pm

      one good way of adapting to new information is to change behaviour so that bad things dont happen

      another approach is to bury your head in the sand

      Alert moderator

    • Charles:

      05 Feb 2016 4:58:31pm

      Excellent point, in fact humans survived through the last ice age with no technological developments to help them at all with the possible exception of being able to light fires and use primitive stone tools they had made.

      For us, some slight warming would be just the same as as someone living in Melbourne going to live in Albury. It wouldn't be the same, but it wouldn't be that different.

      Alert moderator

    • tonyp:

      05 Feb 2016 4:58:39pm

      I keep pointing this out. The last time the oceans were 5 degrees warmer than 1850 levels 50% of the species on the face of the planet died. That warming took place over 30,000 years. We are on track to get to the same degree of warm in 250 years or 100 times faster with severely isolated and reduced environments due to human agriculture. In the last 50 years of that our global population is predicted to grow by 50%.

      Don't worry about it we'll adapt sounds pretty thin actually. There is no reason humans can't go extinct. We're not special. To listen to some quite reputable scientists we're already extinct we just don't know it. This is not an issue to take casually.

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        05 Feb 2016 5:41:27pm

        "We're not special."

        We just think we are. We keep on producing more petrol burning cars and trucks, more electronic goods, more white goods.

        Outside in the back yard of these flats, there is something like rust on the hills hoist when I have to wash my linen and towels, because nobody else out of twelve flats bothers to use it anymore, even on a bright, bright sunshiny day like this.

        I use a little foldup line on my verandah out the front for clothes, but once a month I launder the sheets (vegetarians don't have such pongy BO) and I have to get a hose and a brush and go out and wash down the line before I hang the sheets and pillow-cases because not only am I the only one I know who *washes by hand to stop global warming, I'm the only one out of twelve flats who doesn't have a goddamn electric clothes dryer guzzling up electricity three times a week! Forsooth! Somebody call the carbon police!

        If we want to continue to abuse our privileged life on this planet as First-World citizens in undeveloping nations, then we will eventually get on the wrong side of Nature and pay the fine - our lives or those of others not so fit to survive. It's a natural balancing mechanism.

        *electric whitegoods cause unnecessary carbon emissions when we have good strong arms to do the tumbling by hand, and it builds the deltoids and triceps, and gives the back a good workout.

        Alert moderator

      • Samuel:

        05 Feb 2016 6:35:18pm

        Humans will most certainly survive.

        When dinosaurs were alive the world was much warmer, but humans survived by living in cool caves, all with primitive technology. Now we have vast pool of knowledge to solve any problem.

        I would not lose any sleep over global warming.

        Alert moderator

  • GreyBags:

    05 Feb 2016 4:13:34pm

    They truly are incompetent fools who think that silencing anyone that doesn't chant the mantras of The Cult of The Invisible Hand can magically make problems go away and rewrite the laws of physics, make bad economics good and kicking people while they are down will become an act of compassion.

    Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      05 Feb 2016 5:13:10pm

      Oh GreyBags you are talking about the Government I thought you were talking about climate scientists.

      Alert moderator

  • bobrox:

    05 Feb 2016 4:16:20pm

    Reducing climate observation while attempting to mitigate climate change is a bit like trying to drive over the alps while deaf and blindfolded.
    If you don't observe and record the present you have no comparison point for what happens in the future.
    Now we also have the weather bureau cutting the number of employees (meteorologists) in rural areas, presumably replacing them with automatic observation equipment.
    It seems that the Abbott agenda has had a minor cosmetic makeover while charging on in the background. Although now instead of just shooting the messenger they are also intent on destroying the equipment that confirmed the message and no doubt then pretending that there never was a message.
    The rust bucket that was the Abbott government got a paint job and became the Turnbull government. Problem is, the paint is flaking and the rust is back as bad as ever.

    Alert moderator

    • a happy little debunker:

      05 Feb 2016 4:53:10pm

      They already have a solution for that - it's called modelling.

      True is doesn't work and does not relate to the real world measurements - but they used this as the basis for 'settling the science' - now is the time for required adaption.

      Unless you think they were wrong.

      In which case you'd be a denier.

      Are you?

      Alert moderator

      • bonzono:

        05 Feb 2016 6:14:55pm


        I'm frankly astonished at the number of posters here who just have no grasp at all of how the scientific method works.....

        "Unless you think they were wrong.
        In which case you'd be a denier."

        No model is ever assumed to be 100% correct, even the ones that are. This is because the fundamental premise in the scientific method is that all models (i.e. hypotheses) must be testable and tested, ad nauseum if possible. Of course that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and we can justifiably be a bit lax on the testing when we discover that it's surviving everything we have at it, and the model is working pretty well.

        There is a difference between "the science is settled" and "we can predict with 100% accuracy". Any high school science kid can tell you the difference, but it has to do with the precision of the models. Indeed, we don't even have a precise measurement of gravity at this point, and nor will we ever, but certainly the science is settled - that doesn't mean there is nothing to be gained from knowing the gravitational constant to infinite precision, but there is probably a law of diminishing returns in that case, that we are very, very far from achieving in the case of climate science.

        I'm glad to help contribute to our understanding of the scientific method.

        Alert moderator

  • Orion:

    05 Feb 2016 4:20:14pm

    Unfortunately Mr Quinn, like most commentators on this topic, has a misguided understanding of what climate modelling is, how it is done and by whom, and what its limitations are. It does not and cannot do what he appears to think it does, for a number of reasons but principally because of the exponentially accumulated error in climate forecasting, due to the chaotic nature of climate data.

    Forecasts are done using averaged data over multiple computer runs often using multiple models but chaotic data has no meaningful average. You can calculate an average value for a variable in a chaotic distribution mathematically but that value has no meaning in the physical world and predictions based on these averages are unreliable. The uncertainty range is larger than the predicted variation. Even the IPCC admits this, that's why their pronouncements are couched in probabilistic terms, and why they invariably disagree with real world measurements.

    Alert moderator

  • LiberalAtheist:

    05 Feb 2016 4:22:46pm

    If the author has issues with the decisions made by the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, about the future direction and focus of the CSIRO, perhaps next time he can apply for the job when it becomes availble. Assuming he has the required experience.

    Dr Marshall's background ideally suits a change of focus for our chief scientific organisation. A scientist by training and a tech innovator, he wants the CSIRO to become "Australia's national innovation agency", with "science at its centre". He has also made it quite clear that he is expecting staffing levels to be the same after the two year process or reinvention. As an organisation with low staff turnover, the changes Dr Marshall is implementing are likely to result in an influx of new ideas, new staff, and opportunities for young scientists and innovators.

    As for the "crusade against science" the author asserts the government is waging - this seems to reflect his political views, not the reality.

    - CSIRO funding was cut by $112m under Abbott, true, but $90m was reinstated by PM Turnbull, with an additional $76m from July for Data61, the largest data innovation group in Australia. The CSIRO also gets a cut of the $730m cancer drug licensing deal announced this week. With further innovation and research, we can expect more returns like that from the governments investment into the organisation.

    - The $1.9b cut to University funding is proposed, and up for discussion. There have been no cuts to 2016 funding.

    - Total Commonwealth funding for schools is increasing every year under the budget (by over $4b to 2018-19). I assume the author is talking about not funding Gonski, which is somehow a "cut" even as total Education spending increases by over 25% over that time.

    - he forgot to mention the $1b Innovation package.

    So yes, try to blame the government for the CSIRO's reinvention and renewal, but I, for one, look forward to seeing what the boffins can come up with under new leadership, a renewed focus, and some fresh ideas.

    Alert moderator

    • chriscomment:

      05 Feb 2016 5:39:56pm

      I think that you are not understanding the difference between research/development and innovation. Larry Marshall demonstrated that last night on TV. WiFi comes from R&D and the use of WiFi is innovation. Innovation has to do with things to sell. This is the commercialisation of CSIRO. Next we will want to privatise it! Under this model we would have never invented things that we are famous for like WiFi. Like our Universities we want them to become profit centres. Sounds good short term but a disaster long term. We hope that when other countries invent stuff, they will let us have access to innovate with it. Corporations can innovate and their business is to make money. CSIRO is supposed to be R&D to underpin the invention that precedes innovation. Our Governments are plagued with shortermism.

      Alert moderator

      • LiberalAtheist:

        05 Feb 2016 6:57:57pm

        My main issue with your comment is your assertion that the "CSIRO is supposed to be...". Says who?

        The CSIRO can be many things, it doesn't have to fit within the narrow range of your focus. I would suggest you take a look at their Strategy 2020 document for some idea as to where Dr Marshall wants to take the organisation. Sounds good to me.

        Alert moderator

    • tonyp:

      05 Feb 2016 6:07:15pm

      Then I fervently hope you live until 2080.

      Alert moderator

  • IanM:

    05 Feb 2016 4:25:38pm

    I thought the science was settled. Why would we be spending money on settled science?

    You can't have it both ways. Either the science is settled and there's no need to spend more money, or the science isn't settled and we do need to spend more money. Which is it?

    Alert moderator

    • tonyp:

      05 Feb 2016 5:04:29pm

      The fact we're going to get reamed by climate change is settled. How to deploy our resources to mitigate this process is an open question.

      Alert moderator

    • Big Ben:

      05 Feb 2016 5:21:45pm


      Alert moderator

    • bonzono:

      05 Feb 2016 6:20:11pm

      hi ian,
      to answer your question, refer to the nearest high school science student who can help inform you what the scientific method is, how it works and what "the science is settled" really means.

      (hint, it does not mean infinite accuracy, it means most of the dominant processes are thought to be generally understood).

      As I am for anyone else making exactly this kind of post in this bulletin, I await an yours, and a generally collective comprehension of one of the most basic and critical processes in modern though: the scientific method.

      Alert moderator

      • Big Ben:

        05 Feb 2016 6:37:10pm

        It's NEVER settled. It's falsifiable by definition. That's why every man and his dog wants more funding. It won't settle anything.

        Alert moderator

  • Realist1:

    05 Feb 2016 4:32:06pm

    That's is so funny, the modelling has never been right so get rid of them.

    So adaption about time... mitigation is an unmitigated disaster

    Alert moderator

  • Jack II:

    05 Feb 2016 4:37:38pm

    Well, if it's getting warmer, they won't need the rug, wiil they?

    Alert moderator

  • Reinhard:

    05 Feb 2016 4:37:48pm

    It is sad that it has come to this, our most prestigious scientific establishment being forced to cut corners and beg for scraps. Whatever happened to Turnbull's promise to be agile and innovative and not insult our intelligence?
    It turns out that was all empty rhetoric and it is the latent short termism of our political system has led to such overriding complacency in a critical policy area. The current govt under Abbott thought it could just kick the can further down the road and pretend to be doing something about it, and Turnbull has simply carried on Abbott "work" while we are rapidly running out of road. Turnbull's grandstanding in Paris was a master class in self-aggrandisement with no substance, trying to fiddle the numbers with their wasteful reverse auctions and using dodgy carbon sequestration numbers to make their emission reduction targets look better.
    We must act now to save our climate science from the Liberal Luddites, we need to focus on real action to combat climate change and expand our alternative energy sources as a means to reduce our carbon emissions. We cannot allow this govt to continue to use the lazy way out of simply fudging the numbers, while they destroy independent research agencies that would dare to contradict their lies.

    Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      05 Feb 2016 5:07:15pm


      Well Reinhard they brought it all on themselves with their alarmist predictions that did not come true.

      Alert moderator

    • LiberalAtheist:

      05 Feb 2016 5:16:42pm

      From the CSIRO chief executive's release, yesterday -

      "we're setting up an Innovation fund which can help accelerate the uptake of much-needed technologies for example in energy generation and storage in a low emission economy."

      Is that the sort of focus you were looking for?

      Let me guess, you say a headline that said "Funding removed from climate science" and rather than actually read it, or do some research, you let your Labor bias jump to the conclusion that the government was to blame for.....something.....that it's a conspiracy by climate change deniers....and....and....you're angry about it.

      Alert moderator

    • Reinhard:

      05 Feb 2016 6:58:38pm

      Evan the usual misinformed and baseless smear, name one CSIRO prediction that did not come true

      LiberalAtheist - you appear misguided, funding has been removed from climate science and the "focus" of the CSIRO is being shifted away from scientific research and towards commercial innovation.
      That "Innovation fund" is just another scam like their "Emissions reduction fund" that is paying polluters while their emissions continue to rise..

      Alert moderator

  • TheDefektor:

    05 Feb 2016 4:52:07pm

    Change the flag Australia, as you've already changed your coat of arms.

    The emu has long ago been sacked as the right hand arms bearer. To be replaced by an ostrich. The left side coat of arms bearer, Skippy, keeps staring blankly into space as he has always done as though nothing has happenned.

    Alert moderator

  • awake:

    05 Feb 2016 4:54:09pm

    So its these pesky scientist again making a noise about science and global warming or anything else the right wing do not want to hear.

    How bloody pathetic. Never mind the quality feel the width.

    How can this Government possible continue in this vein? Where are their minds, never mind intelligence. God help us if there is one.

    Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      05 Feb 2016 5:02:19pm

      Why should the government be spending a heap of money on science that is settled when there is a whole universe of science to discover out there.

      Alert moderator

    • Rae:

      05 Feb 2016 5:33:56pm

      Their minds are fully occupied trying to stay in power and make the most out of the next property deal.

      Alert moderator

  • EVAN:

    05 Feb 2016 4:58:58pm

    And again thank you.

    "The early warning provided for the current El Nino year has saved countless farms"

    Yes the El Nino year that was forecast for about 5years before it actually arrived.

    When your models can forecast next Saturdays lotto numbers maybe we can take it seriously.Hell anyone can hindcast last weeks numbers.

    Alert moderator

    • Reinhard:

      05 Feb 2016 5:35:15pm

      Evan has it ever crossed your mind that the warming climate might be making such predictions even harder?
      The El Nino / La Nina cycle is driven by the varying water temps of the central and eastern pacific, if you study temperature gradients and the heat capacity of water you might understand why El Nino is so unpredictable

      Alert moderator

      • EVAN:

        05 Feb 2016 6:48:05pm

        "Evan has it ever crossed your mind that the warming climate might be making such predictions even harder?"

        No not once.

        " if you study temperature gradients and the heat capacity of water you might understand why El Nino is so unpredictable "

        So the predictions are so unpredictable?.Yes that makes sense.

        So last years prediction was just a lucky guess.

        Alert moderator

        • Reinhard:

          05 Feb 2016 7:00:02pm

          As ever you have oversimplified the argument, for your own benefit perhaps?

          Alert moderator

    • bonzono:

      05 Feb 2016 6:21:35pm

      Hi evan,
      very quick question so I know how to parse the quality of your comment..

      Have you ever heard of regression analysis? Check it out.


      Alert moderator

  • chriscomment:

    05 Feb 2016 5:03:14pm

    To compete in a globalised world, you have got to be 'cheap' or 'clever'. We are a long way past cheap and unfortunately we are not looking too clever. I can see from a number of the posts that many of us keep our heads firmly planted in the sand. You cannot make adaptive changes without monitoring results to see what works and what doesn't. I would not have thought that was rocket science.

    Alert moderator

  • John Hogan:

    05 Feb 2016 5:21:42pm

    This is where the year really starts. For better or worse, we will start seeing the true colours of our government. For decades Australian businesses have often proven to be been unable to see the value of local innovation and it's gone to smarter people overseas. For them, this is just an economic zone and fear rules their decisions. Now their party is attempting to complete the actions that give the ultimate lie to their current words about innovation. Actions vs words.

    But it's more than that. Politics tends to reduce the horizons of it's practitioners to something approaching election cycles. Business tends to engender similar attention spans, unless there are inherent reasons to plan further. These are important parts of our lives with serious, practical reasons for but they rarely result in people who make serious decisions on the scale of human generations and human lives. In the smart world of adults that I thought I had entered, it was understood that these aspects of life are there to allow organisations like CSIRO to do the long term work for our kids and those we'll never see. Encouraging entrepreneurship is fine. It's actually more than fine. But for the very most part we end up with businesses and the limiting factors they bring. CSIRO is one of the most trusted organisations in this countries for more than one reason: we know they're working on our behalves but we also know that they're standing on our shoulders and looking further ahead than we can see.

    Maybe I've only got a limited number of tracks in my mind. Probably. But I once sat feeding a crying baby in the early hours and had the realisation that I was now just the booster rocket for someone who was heading for an orbit that I might never see. It was humbling but exciting. Plus some sort of forward nostalgia or something. Without specifically knowing this, I must think of the CSIRO as holding a similarly important place that goes well beyond what I can know. That's because I started thinking this way when I heard those fools were at it again. The CSIRO and what they can achieve are worth a thousand liberal parties. They should have been expanding every year. Not fearing further cuts. I really thought more of Turnbull. This is weak, dumb, sad. His name is now associated with this. And didn't the Labor party cut them when they last had the chance?

    Alert moderator

  • LiberalAtheist:

    05 Feb 2016 5:26:11pm

    Yes, those pesky scientists, like the Chief Executive of the CSIRO, who is hoping to reinvent the organisation for the 21st century.

    Or do you mean the ones that have been working there since the last century, that maybe can't adapt to new technologies, are unable to innovate, and that could be replaced with an injection of youth and some new ideas? I imagine those ones would be hitting the press with a lot of doom and gloom scenarios.

    Did you happen to notice the CEO make mention that the 350 jobs affected are not being cut, they are just changing. Any of those 350 people that are able to adapt, that welcome a change in focus, or look forward to the chance to develop new skills, will more than likely be kept on and redeployed.

    Those that want to sit there doing climate modelling until retirement, regardless of its use, will likely choose to take the voluntary redundancies I am sure will be on offer.

    Alert moderator

    • Alpo:

      05 Feb 2016 6:57:44pm

      Climate science is not the only one that uses modelling, yet it's the only one targeted... If you don't see the "cunning plan" of this government of denialists, it's only because you refuse to see it.

      Alert moderator

  • Tory Boy:

    05 Feb 2016 5:40:19pm

    I thought this was a black and white thing; the climate is screwed and we need to fix it. How much more modelling do we need to do unless there is doubt about what is happening?

    I love the CSIRO, I love science, but in the absence of unlimited resources continued spending on something most people in this forum accept as gospel seems a little wasteful and a focus on new technologies and industries will yield a better investment return.

    Alert moderator

  • Rossc:

    05 Feb 2016 6:12:16pm

    The only thing more surprising than the decision was the facile justification put by CEO Marsh. I wonder what Macquarie uni thinks of him now?

    Alert moderator

  • Geoff :

    05 Feb 2016 6:25:04pm

    Great to see the CSIRO brought back to Earth. The panic that research academics created about an historically brief temperature rise has seen countless millions gobbled up by their cosy little empires. Sadly, to keep funding streams rolling in, their conclusions always predicted an apocalypse. There was no future in CSIRO for researchers who wouldn't play along with the funding game. Now we have a leader who is making this august body serve society, not itself.

    Alert moderator

    • Alpo:

      05 Feb 2016 6:53:54pm

      "The panic that research academics created about an historically brief temperature rise".... The temperature raise has been going on since about 1600 (for "natural" causes) but it has accelerated since the 1950s and especially the 1970s due to human industrial activities. The fantasy "18-year long hiatus" just includes natural fluctuations, but the long-term trend is relentless warming, with the 1998 maximum (the denialists' preferred year to start the fantasy 18-year long "hiatus") having been beaten in 2005 (= end of the "hiatus"), this new record was then beaten in 2010, which was then beaten in 2014, which was squashed in 2015.... can you see the acceleration?
      No? I will show you: 1998-2005= 7 years between record maxima; 2005-2010 = 5 years; 2010-2014 = 4 years; 2014-2015 = 1 year..... record annual average temperatures are getting hotter more frequently....

      Alert moderator

      • Geoff :

        05 Feb 2016 7:11:47pm

        Remember Bob Carter? He was sacked for offering up a reasoned argument which contradicted the global warmers. What beats me is the treatment of 'deniers' as heretics. In another age they would be burned at the stake by the mob of fanatical, rabid ratbags who have an entrenched, blinkered view and then go looking for research to back it up. (and get more funding).

        Alert moderator

        • Reinhard:

          05 Feb 2016 7:26:14pm

          Carter was not sacked, JCU decided not to extend his unpaid adjunct professorial status

          Alert moderator

  • saline:

    05 Feb 2016 7:16:54pm

    The bottom line with this government is that they don't want to know about climate change and they don't want to employ anyone who wants to tell them about it. It's the ostrich syndrome.

    Their supporters want to unload their coal. If the government knows the facts about the encroaching problems of climate change, and goes ahead with coal sales and other risky investments, then they're culpable.

    Turnbull should ask the farmers, they know what climate change is doing now, they know there's worse to come. What's more, they want whatever information that they can get from the Bureau of Meteorology, which has also suffered cuts. What bird brains they are.

    In my books, that makes them ignorant. But I've always thought they were an ignorant lot.

    Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed.