CSIRO climate researcher resigns rather than be censored

From news.com.au it seems bullying those who have an unpopular opinion about climate issues isn’t limited to the Climategate actors.

Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report ‘censorship’

SCIENTIST Clive Spash has resigned from the CSIRO and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body following the censorship of his controversial report into emissions trading.

csiro-logo

Logo and photo from csiro.au

Dr Spash has lashed out at the organisation which he said promoted self-censorship among its scientists with its unfair publication guidelines.

He said he was stunned at the treatment he received at the hands of CSIRO management, including boss Megan Clark, and believed he was not alone.

“I’ve been treated extremely poorly,” he said. “There needs to be a Senate inquiry.

“The way the publication policy and the charter are being interpreted will encourage self-censorship.

“It’s obviously happened before at the CSIRO – and there’s issues currently.”

Last month, Dr Spash accused the organisation of gagging him and his report – The Brave New World of Carbon Trading – and restricting its publication.

The report is critical of cap and trade schemes, like the one the federal government is seeking to introduce, as well as big compensation to polluters.

Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.

The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.

But it provoked accusations the CSIRO was censoring research harmful to the Government.

Under intense pressure, Dr Clark publicly released the report on November 26 but warned Dr Spash would be punished for his behaviour and his refusal to amend it.

“I believe that internationally peer-reviewed science should be published or, if Dr Clark wishes to have her own opinion, then she should publish her own opinion,” Dr Spash said, who has been on sick leave.

“I’ve been to the doctor under extreme stress.”

He had been ordered not to speak to the media while working for the CSIRO, which originally headhunted him for the job.

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “CSIRO climate researcher resigns rather than be censored

  1. When a person of standing resigns for cause, it is the most powerful action he can take and the strongest message he can send.
    Extreme stress indeed.
    Yet another brave voice to add to the choir.

  2. After checking out his pedigree on the CSIRO site (cached from Google – looks like maybe it’s been removed?), he sounds like one of Dr. Hansen’s soul-mates, especially with that direct tax on carbon approach.
    As for being muzzled, oh please; the employer sets the terms; don’t like the terms? Quit and you’ll be free to speak your mind in any direction you choose.

  3. Lord Mandelson,British Business Secretary,this morning on radio4 :’ We will have a low carbon economy and society.’ I wouldn’t bet against him.

  4. The CSIRO has seen better days. Personally I was amazed by the discussion the between the Late John Daly and a couple of chaps from this once bold and progressive organisation. The lads were obviously having a moment from the movie “Liar Liar” with regards to the height datum the tide marker represented. The scene was “This Pen is Blue”, the only difference in my opinion was that Jim Carrey could not mis-represent the facts.
    All the best in a new career Dr. Splash, at least you have your dignity.

  5. Here in Oz, SBS One, the climate fanatics channel, actually reported tonight on the CRU email scandal. They did their best to put a brave face on it, but Inhofe demanding an inquiry has apparently got governments worried,”two weeks out “from Carbohagen. Time to investigate CSIRO 😉

  6. Not surprising with the rubbish that comes out of the CSIRO . There’s obviously lots of gagging for political purposes. Probably true of most government departments.
    Perhaps we shall also see some resignations from Penny Wong’s Department of Hot Air soon ?
    Where’s Clive’s report ?

  7. Leon Brozyna (23:46:04) : I’m with you Leon. While he’s being paid he works as directed. Don’t like it, quit and have your say.
    Anyway he’s hardly a “climate researcher”, he’s an economist doing a little carpetbagging while riding the climate gravy train. My sympathy meter appears to be firmly stuck on zero.

  8. Dr Spash was not censored. His report was published. The key observation from News Ltd reporting was this:

    Dr Spash accused his employer of gagging him after it refused to formally release his report under the CSIRO banner earlier this month.

    The issue was whether he could identify CSIRO with the report.
    Dr Spash is not a climate researcher – he is an economist who writes on public policy. He wrote a paper on a matter which is currently actively being debated in the Parliament, criticising on policy grounds the legislation which his Minister is advocating. I am a firm supporter of the freedom of CSIRO scientists to publish science without political interference, but acknowledge that this was a policy paper that CSIRO just couldn’t put its name to.

  9. Leon Brozyna at 23:46 you said…”As for being muzzled, oh please; the employer sets the terms; don’t like the terms? Quit and you’ll be free to speak your mind in any direction you choose”.
    The CSIRO is NOT just any old employer, it is PUBLICLY FUNDED and as such must adhere to a totally different set of criteria than a private company. Otherwise there is a chance organozations like the CSIRO may become politicised. (as is amply demonstrated by the recent shananigans)

  10. Way to go Clive. Shame about the trash bureaucracy that has led to this, but trust me you will find that life is way better as a private consultant (I am). The hours are much better, you can play golf when you want to and learn the guitar in the quite times, unless you already know how…in which case learn to play the BLUES.

  11. I hate to rain on anyone’s parade here, but Leon Brozyna has it exactly right. Dr Spash may have been criticisng Government policy, but I think his position would be that the Carbon Trading Scheme will not be effective enough in reducing CO2, and that STRONGER measures should be taken. As for being a beacon of scientific objectivity, I suggest putting the terms “clive spash” and “post normal science” into google, and see what pops out.
    CSIRO undeniably has problems, but this is not in the mould of the whistle blower at CRU.

  12. Don’t assume that this story is about suppression of a climate skeptic. Spash is about as warmist as they come. His paper says he wants a stronger regulatory approach, not an emissions trading scheme.
    Also don’t assume that climate change is the issue here. It’s about CSIRO policy on scientists making public comment about current government policy.

  13. The paradigm has sifted. Now it’s permissible again for climate scientists to openly and publicly dissent from the “consensus” herd mentality of adherence to the one way view of belief that ignores counter evidence and counter points of view. Once again a brave soul makes a splash in the media (sorry, couldn’t resist) with the facts of suppression of his career and scientific based point of view, even if it’s partly political. Keep it up Clive Splash.
    The more people stand up for themselves the less the cult of control can make itself powerful.
    I’m unclear however if he means to tax actual “carbon” pollution such as that that comes from “coal plants” in the form of “carbon soot particles” or if he means to tax “carbon dioxide”, does anyone know? It’s unfortunate that people aren’t clear on the huge difference in these two molecules.
    CO2 is life. C can be pollution, it also is essential for life as it makes up a major part of the cells of living things on Earth. Let’s have no more of this carbon pollution nonsense. Let’s clean up REAL carbon molecule pollution such as polluting smoke stacks in China rather than letting them continue to pollute under Carbon (Dioxide) Cap and Trade.
    On the difference between CO2 and Carbon: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/06/29/let%E2%80%99s-have-no-more-of-this-carbon-pollution-nonsense
    pwl

  14. Leon Brozyna (23:46:04) “As for being muzzled […]”
    Perhaps there is a legal defense fund? The alarmists won’t be happy if their intimidation tools start getting dismantled in public, due to their own double-standards.

  15. It’s not just in science that this happens.
    Try and work in public sector consultancy in the UK and you’d find the same thing happening.
    Sadly.

  16. The View from the White House (-and who’s the “denier” now?)
    Gibbs: Despite research dispute, “climate change is happening”
    The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat. Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed, and the White House nonetheless believes “climate change is happening.” “I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore,” he said during Monday’s press briefing.
    Climate change skeptics have asserted over the past week that the publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails and documents once housed in the University of East Anglia’s computer system refutes most modern global warming evidence. The documents, unearthed by a blogger who hacked into Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) private system, have since touched off an international debate over the veracity of those scientists’ works.
    But the dispute is proving especially troublesome for the Obama administration as it prepares to head to Copenhagen next week for a climate change summit — a forum the president will attend.
    Not only has the White House faced criticism from the left for offering too few concessions ahead of the meet, it is now fielding dissatisfaction from the right for participating in a summit sponsored in part by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — one of the research organs touched by the CRU spat.
    “I think there’s no real scientific basis for the dispute of this,” responded Gibbs to questions about those scientists’ credibility.
    Nevertheless, congressional Republicans this week hope to ramp up their criticism of both global warming policy and the science that informs it.
    Most vocal seems to be Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe demanded on Friday a hearing into the IPCC’s research to determine whether it “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not. This thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with,” he told reporters, noting it was “interesting” the e-mails surfaced before the Copenhagen summit.

  17. Is anyone serious on this blog saying that CSIRO’s boss is not as political as they get?
    ETS or Carbon Tax, that is an economic argument hence a political argument. The paper was an economic paper against ETS.
    A carbon tax can be spent in recurrent spending as science changes, ETS is a world government tax.
    I am interested in neither tax myself, I think it can come out of revenues with discussions on power techs as they become feasible.
    But warmers hitting warmers. Me I am a bloke who saw the decline (plateau) while Boffins were discussing science.
    The policy of disclosure or publishing must be decided.

  18. “Dr A Burns (00:31:26) :
    Not surprising with the rubbish that comes out of the CSIRO .”
    Like the wireless internet access standards we all enjoy today?

  19. not so long ago i was at a conversational farming conference and sat next to two people who had said they used to work with the CSIRO, they quickly added “back when it was a credible organization”

  20. spash is a victim of grievously unethical practices for certain. welcome to the cult. he is a cult member though – he’s still advocating a solution for ‘warming’. it’s just not the solution that oceania, oops, i mean the australian government is advocating & therefore he must be punished. csiro originally wanted him for a reason. now they’ve eaten one of their own for deviating an iota from the party line.
    the entire organization is a scientific rubber stamp. it should be disbanded.

  21. This from BBC starts at 18:35:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p1mvf/The_World_Tonight_02_12_2009/
    Its a dead giveaway notice how M Mann says he really has nothing to do with what Jones did/said etc and later completely defends what they (All the climate science institutions involved) did and said. He states the same agenda as Jones… my reading anyway. The BBC should not even be interviewing him at this stage. Qudos to the BBC for starting to give this some hearing.

  22. Bloomberg financial (Uk SKY channel 502) Have just announce a week long investigation in to this matter. The advert suggests a fair debate. But i have a very strong feeling, that by Monday, they will be way too late.

  23. Viktor (00:57:29) :
    “Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.”
    Yeah, let’s not go overboard in praising this guy.
    __________
    I agree Viktor – a carbon tax is only slightly less stupid than “Cap’n’Trade.
    Both are regressive taxes that hurt the economy and especially the poor.
    Even if the science alleging global warming was correct, adaptation strategies would be far superior. And the science is not correct – it greatly exaggerates the impact of CO2 on climate – so no such CO2 abatement strategies are justified.

  24. Re this whole saga: What people should ask: has the weather changed since I was a child (say 20 to 60 years). re temperatures hot days, cold days, rain, cold winter, hot summers etc and the answer would probably be no for most. Ask any meteorologist in your area. In the end this is what counts and people will notice eventually.. no change really….

  25. Does anyone know whether any scientist of the last ten years or so failed to get tenure due to paucity of publication and failed to publish due to climate scientologists like Mann and Phil Jones keeping his submissions out of the journals for reasons other than scientific merits?

  26. There is no doubt Steve McIntyre is the real hero of this whole saga…with his meticulous analisys of disclosed and undisclosed ring tree data from Mann and Briffa and temp data from other sources. This from a man that has no pro-AGW or anti-AGW views who just wanted the truth. The other hero of Course is Watts and surface data analysis and who used a very efficient site to propagate this truth. It would seem that due to these people (and many others of course), in the end the truth will win. I doubt if climategate will go away…

  27. from a man that has no pro-AGW or anti-AGW views

    At least you can’t accuse him either way, but I’m pretty sure he DOES have a view, at least in private. Not very post-normal I know.

  28. Robert (23:43:02) :
    My taxes support that organisation and I want to be able to see that report.
    I and my fellow taxpayer paid for it.

  29. The search for truth has never been disserved through the publishing of research even when it disagrees with me. Where things go wrong is when some pretext is used to suppress it.
    I cannot think of a time when an economic analysis of cap and trade – on one side or the other – is more on point. This occurred just before a major in-country proposal and directly in front of Copenhagen. If not now, when?
    If, then, any remote connection with “politics” prevents its publication, then in this environment any paper that touches on any aspect of climate science or the economics of it could be withheld. Less severe but still troubling would be the devaluation of publishing as “unofficial.”
    CSIRO was created to inform just this type of debate.
    Clearly, Dr. Spash believes that he and others fell under political influence disguised as a policy with a stated purpose just the opposite – that old Orwellian thing again.
    If one stands for something, one must stand for it regardless of finding or result.
    And the question, I guess, is whether we are willing to walk the walk or just to talk the talk.

  30. Yeh, get on board with Dr. Hansen. Good decision. Lotsa traction there. Ya should be able to go places. Rising star and all that. Good luck with that.
    You can’t fix stupid but it sure is fun watching someone try. Who’s holding up the popcorn?

  31. Like a cold front in the night — And the clouds parted and the reason we never seem to see any peer review papers which contradict the religious orthodoxy of fraud, becomes crystal clear.
    Truth will always win out, the element that is not knowable is how long will it take.

  32. “He had been ordered not to speak to the media while working for the CSIRO, which originally headhunted him for the job.”
    I suspect there are a lot of resumes being mailed these days.

  33. Phil W
    You are being conned by Black. Black is an alarmist reporter with all the science knowledge of a walrus. He is merely sending out a confusing signal in order to confuse the less savvy among us. You would do well to ignore him and his colleagues. The BBC has long since the declared the science settled and will not be changing its view any time soon.
    THE BBC IS NO LONGER AN IMPARTIEL REPORTER, IGNORE IT.

  34. Spash, like Hansen, is a fool, in that they both actually believe their governments are realling going to shut down their economies to save the planet, and have simply picked up the wrong tool by accident.
    The EU has only been in favour of ETS because they know it doesn’t work and amounts to a gigantic exercise in paper pushing. The only exception has been Britain, but every community needs it’s village idiot.
    How the French and Germans must have laughed when all their coded messages were taken literally by the British who then dutifully climbed out of the trenches and began marching towards the guns. I wonder how long it will be before Britain looks over its shoulder and notices that everyone else is still in the trenches.

  35. Walt Meier has been silent. From: http://nsidc.org/research/bios/meier.html
    Recent Highlights and Upcoming Expeditions [top]
    October 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was named to receive the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, along with former Vice President Al Gore. Meier contributed to the most recent IPCC report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
    Walt what say you? Can we have your work or do we have to do a FOI request?
    Waiting…….?

  36. James Delingpole is going head to head with Monbiot tonight – any killer facts that he can use to debunk the usual claims?
    He’s been given the petition of 31k scientists who disagree/some stuff on ice growth.
    Sure he’d appreciated anything re the code fiddling. He’s on in at 1800 GMT

  37. PhilW (06:17:11) :
    “The BBC is starting to crack………..”
    Not really, if you examine the article, two points emerge. Firstly, as the comments are the official statement of Saudi Arabia, the BBC could not possible have not reported it.
    Secondly, they quickly follow the statement with counter quotes from warmists just to remind everybody that Saudi Arabia is a “denialist petroleum economy” whose actions are “regressing to type”. And of course, everybody knows the science is settled.

  38. Zephyr is on the right track. Spash is most certainly a True Believer, not a skeptic at all. But it’s very, *very* revealing that most of the warmmonger camp, certainly the governmental and Algor components, won’t even admit that which certain True Believers know as well as we do: carbon trading is a joke. Even if one believes like Spash and Hanson that manmade carbon emissions do drive climate, cap-n-trade schemes won’t do diddly about it.
    They will however generate $$$$$$$$$$ for governments and rent-seekers (like Algor). And so dissent must be crushed.

  39. Seems to me that we have a case of a hot earther chafing at being leaned on by a hot earther bureaucrat. Is CSIRO corrupt? Probably. Is the herr Dr. Professor Spash misguided? Seemingly. Is the censoring behavior reprehensible and potentially illegal? You bet, and I think that is the issue here.

  40. I have no sympathy for this guy. Anybody who plays the “stress” card in public is an *ssclown. His apparent allegiance to the Hansen/Greenpeace/wacko fringe only confirms it.

  41. Be careful when analizing these resignations. Dr.Piers Corbyn just said:
    “Prof Phil Jones has ‘stood aside’ (1st Dec) as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (‘CRU’) of the University of East Anglia while an ‘independent’ review of ClimateGate is carried out.
    “This is a token intended to enable a coverup of the shameful suppression of differing science and the hiding of data on world cooling by those in charge of this data”

  42. Leon Brozyna (23:46:04) As for being muzzled, oh please; the employer sets the terms; don’t like the terms? Quit and you’ll be free to speak your mind in any direction you choose.

    For a private employer, and perhaps for government employers in the more “liberal” nations, but in the good-ole right-of-center U.S. the employer cannot set the terms for public speech if the employer is government. To allow such would make a travesty of the idea of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

  43. Direct carbon tax or carbon trading, let them argue amongst themselves, in the meantime the truth will out.

  44. Mike D. (01:04:16) :
    Rats leaving the sinking ship. Nothing more. Ga’day, Dr. Splash.
    Yep, however it appears the S.S.Copenhagen got hit by the Iceberg before leaving the
    dock.There’s a Rat conga line forming on the Hauser…..

  45. PhilW (06:17:11) :
    Crikey!

    “It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change,” he told BBC News.

    Takbir … Allahu Akbar.
    تَكْبِير … الله أكبر

  46. A major social democratic newspaper in Norway, Dagsavisen, now actually gas a decent and cool article about ClimateGate, congratulations Dagsavisen! It’s now time to focus on the real problems we have, the abundance toxic contaminants world wide, the rain forest, the endangered animals, birds and fish. You can read a translation to English below, well done Dagsavisen:
    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.dagsavisen.no/meninger/article456118.ece
    The importance of Climate Gate
    It was initially unlikely that Congress would give the green light for emissions trading. “Climate Gate” has put the matter completely dead. United States will not ratify any agreement from Copenhagen or negotiations next year.There is no political support among voters.
    Climate Gate is the name of science scandal in the wake of a leak from the climate unit to a British university. The so-called CRU-data set is one of the IPCC’s most important data sets, and the CRU has long been the subject of requests for public view. It is common that researchers share data so other scientists can verify the result. Crus main researcher, Phil Jones, has long been the subject of criticism because he has refused to share raw data for many years.
    Jones last and most desperate, attempt to block the public view was when he claimed that he had “lost” the data in the summer. University he works for has meanwhile prepared for having to give up information that was the subject of inquiries. Finally, there were some at the university who lost patience with the delay methods. The prepared data package was leaked to journalists at the BBC and posted on a file sharing server in Russia two months ago.
    The package of data files containing the incriminating e-mails in which scientists discuss how they have manipulated data sets to make them fit better with the desired conclusions and strategies for how they can force the journal editors to refuse to publish research from people they disagree with. In addition, there are a number of incriminating files such asprogramming code with explanatory text about how the data has been manipulated and a number of other things that make the CRU data now looks very credible out. There are nearly 200 megabytes of data and U.S. media have barely begun to dig into the files.
    The contents of Climate Gate files is not a surprise to researchers in the field, but one thing is that “everyone” on the inside know about something, another thing is when senators can present the documents in Congress. Senator Inhofe, who is minority leader in the environmental committee, has already requested a hearing on Climate Gate. Commenting on the Wall Street Journal said Inhofe that 95 percent of clean nail in the coffin of emissions trading was in the coffin before the Climate Gate, now he felt that the last nail was clean inside. Inhofe is considered one of the most powerful greenhouse politicians in the United States.
    It is long since the climate stopped being about science. The moment a scientific theme stepped into the political arena so changes the whole character of the theme itself. The scientists who believe that there is no catastrophic warming have no difficulty in building this, and they are happy to share their data. The problem is that politicians have defined a new political project, and the researchers’ only role is to legitimize the project. The scientists who do not participate in the game are ignored, both by politicians, media, and when research funding to be allocated.
    Phil Jones has alone received almost 130 million in research funding over the past 20 years, and there is no doubt that superstars like Michael Mann has the same impressive numbers. They showed that if they managed to continue to produce shocking warming numbers, then the research funding to continue to flow. Globe has not cooperated. The last decade has seen a leveling off because of the La Nino / El Nino-fluctuations, while the CRU their graphs are steeper every time they run.
    On the basis of the CRU data samples politicians in the world to adopt various measures that ultimately is rationing of energy. Most people know that it is disastrous for the standard of living. Australian parliamentarians have rejected this bright in a political drama this week. American politicians are not willing to risk valgtap of implementing the largest tax increase in American history, the voters know that their temperature is the same regardless of how much tax they pay.
    Lene Johansen handles media for the American think tank Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow at climate meeting in Copenhagen.

  47. Tennex (04:34:50) :
    Off Topic sorry guys but.
    I know there is a response to this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/langswitch_lang/sw/ some where.

    You are looking for a reference to the “peer-reviewed” literature, no doubt. I don’t have one. Answer steps one at a a time.
    Concede the first three points.
    Step 4: “Lessons from simple toy models”– Presumably meaning that less outgoing radiation means a warmer surface, but bring in other factors (clouds, advection, convection), and as a general rule this statement looks too simple.
    Step 5: “Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.”
    This is about three times larger than some estimates (Stefan-Boltzmann for instance), and this is what a large portion of the debate revolves around, isn’t it? Settled? I doubt it. I see a few respondents on the thread are gamely prying away at this step.
    Step 6:”Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number” Compared to what? Is it significant in terms of climate, extreme weather events, insurance losses, impacts on the economy, impacts on the polar bear, or letting bureacrats run every minute detail of one’s life? How big a problem is this in reality? This is the biggest unsettled issue in the swirling debate.
    The blogger wishes to boil the whole debate down to three steps over which there is little quarrel, followed by three iffy steps over which there is no proof, but only his ex-cathedra pronouncements.
    I did have to smile when I read the responses on that site (RC), though. Most could have a smiley emoticon in accompaniment, and they are all so polite–not like the adult world at all.

  48. Stephen Shorland (23:51:03) said:

    Lord Mandelson,British Business Secretary,this morning on radio4 :’ We will have a low carbon economy and society.’ I wouldn’t bet against him.

    “low carbon economy and society” is newspeak for “third-world economy and society.”

  49. Slightly OT
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
    Hope the link works.
    Witness the full might of the governemnt propaganda machine (BBC) swinging in behind the Copenhagen crap. Especially the history of climate article, equally crap! We have them running scared. Do they seriously believe that people reading this rubbish will not notice that the names given within the article, are the same ones that produced the Hockey Stick in the first place, & which is part of the scandall being swept under the carpet by HMG & the AGW establishment, as I type. Remember, constant unrelenting reinforcement of the propaganda, oh how Goebels would be so proud of his “children”, they’ve learned so much from him, after all it was he who right up to the bitter end was making public proclamations of the impending defeat of the Allies, when the people could see the opposite. Richard Sharpe has it right on the nose, this is the Marxist Socialists dream ticket, it’s what the Club of Rome & the Sierra Club have wanted & worked for all their existance, they just didn’t know how to achieve it until the Global Warming scare came along! The end of the world is nye, WAGTD!
    BBC local lunchtime News did its bit for the propaganda, with “experts” & school children (it is sickening the depths they have plumeted to) regurgitating the mantra, parrot fashion.
    May you Hide the Decline!
    AtB

  50. PhilW (06:17:11) :
    The BBC is starting to crack………..
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm
    ———
    The first delicious irony is that scepticism gains media acknowledgement not because of an open-minded reading of the argument but because of an exaggerated claim made by a diplomat with an obvious agenda.
    The second is that the report neglects to point out that Hansen is a nutty extreme warmer and so it winds up suggesting that there’s a prominent sceptic at NASA.

  51. The flagship program for discuss scientific matters in the Australian Gov’s ABC network is the radio program called The Science Show. Its host through its entire history openly and boldly promotes Alarmism, however over the years he has given sceptics some airplay. On last Saturday’s program I heard no mention of Climategate. Today I loaded this message at their website…
    Climategate:
    Climate science is the public profile of science at the moment. We are told that we should do what the consensus of the ‘scientists’ say. After a week when the very legitimacy of what they have been saying has been brought into question by evidence of abuse of scientific practice to generate this consensus, including peer review, I was surprised that I heard no mention of it in the Science show. (I am a regular listener but I did not hear all the program. Perhaps I missed it?)
    This scientific scandal was in the background during the biggest upheavals in an Australian policical party since the 1950s. And it threatens the most ambitious planned colaboration of world governments since the establishment of the United Nations – it threatens it at its very scientific foundation.
    Anyway, it has now been mentioned in the Australian parliament, discussed in the US Senate, the key figures (Jones and Mann) are under investigation by their respective universities, and it is spreading to our CSIRO. In the light of this not-insignificant impact, I do hope this week that the Science Show spends some time discussing what has happened and the possible implications.
    For the argument that climategate will impact on the credibility of science generally, see this Wall Street Journal article/video, which scopes out to the big picture and the 400 year long reputation of scientists as the seekers of truth:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

  52. Alan the Brit (08:40:31) :
    “…BBC local lunchtime News did its bit for the propaganda, with “experts” & school children (it is sickening the depths they have plumeted to) regurgitating the mantra, parrot fashion.”
    …At least they weren’t forced to sing the “Global Warming Song”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This is from the New York Post
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/net_result_sure_beats_nut_revolt_qafIP4m2M9TAty2eLxyz5M
    Climate-cult con is hard to ‘bear’
    November 30, 2009
    When did global warming turn into a forced religion? My daughter came home from school recently with a spring in her step and a song on her lips. With no foreshadowing — or time to call an exorcist — out came this chilling refrain:
    ” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . ”
    By the time her father and I removed our jaws from the floor, we had learned that:
    A) All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents.
    B) Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees.
    C) There was no deprogramming session on the menu. And no arguing allowed.
    The international “Climategate” scandal is now moving into its third week. And reaction from folks on the scientific and political left — or is that redundant? — who treat global warming as a cult in which naysayers must be crushed has been depressing:
    Total denial
    The scandal began when someone hacked into the server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, and uncovered a cache of messages between leading warming gurus. These e-mails revealed guys deeply frustrated by planetary temperatures that, stubbornly, had refused to rise in some time. Were they afraid of losing their scientific juice? Or their funding?
    So, as the e-mails prove, the scientists did something about it. They cooked the books to exaggerate global warming.
    Of course! How can you scare the bejeezus out of little kids and small animals if you can’t make the mercury move a millimeter? Simple. You lie.
    But while one rival scientist predicted the shocking revelations would blast a “mushroom cloud” over theories of climate change, that has not come to pass. The Obama administration’s “climate adviser,” Carol Browner, totally ignored the smoking e-mails, and attributed the scandal to “a very small group of people who continue to say this isn’t a real problem, that we don’t need to do anything.”
    “What am I going to do?” asked Browner. “Side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientists?” — who’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists.”
    No less an authority than The New York Times sought to explain away the most damning e-mail, sent by scientist Phil Jones, who said he employed a “trick” to make temps appear higher than they were. The paper quoted Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University as saying he often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem. “And not something secret.”
    Is anyone home?
    Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where “experts” from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat. Children were the targets of a book co-written by the producer of Al Gore’s star-making vehicle, “An Inconvenient Truth” — a fantastical view of global warming that should have been called a fiction, not a documentary. Producer Laurie David told Publisher’s Weekly that she wrote the kids’ book, “Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” because “kids also are the Number 1 influence on their parents, so if you want to reach the parents, go to the kids.” She knows of which she speaks.
    It may come to pass that global warming is real. Or not. But your children won’t get the truth from Al Gore, the president or the scientific community. Or sadly, from school.
    Neither will you.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  53. from what I remembered hearing re GM Crops the CSIRO now takes funding from business. and has shares in successful outcomes…
    the TGA is also private funding.
    FSANZ is also suspect, no funds from govt to test food whatever..
    industry source? and data accepted. not ONE GM food has been refused.
    WHO? I wonder assisted in this one?
    and I hazard a guess theres a kickback IF his model was used..to the CSIRO as their Intellectual property.
    again so like the GM and Pharmas methods.
    Pay a uni, edit and ignore bad (ie true but unpalatable data) call it commercial in confidence, with hold methods and even the so called proven data.
    Voila a new food , drug, or whatever hits the consumer market.
    aspirin or carbon?
    different dog, same leg action.:-)
    oh and ABC has a queensland uni? or csiro? chap on saying reefs in danger.
    what again…since when? has ythere not been some bloody issue.
    ok farm chem IS a problem, bloody Carbon isnt.

  54. NOW that the emails and computer code are out there i hope you sue them for zillions ,they are using the very same tactics which show collusions ,We really respct your stance standing up for the truth ,good on you true scientist,looks to me csiro are in this up to their necks going on the fake claims they are making .

  55. What effect will a tax on carbon have? Not what most expect. Poor perople drive gas guzzlers because they cannot afford a new car. So, a tax on fuel (carbon) will simply make it harder for them to afford a new car. The poor people will end up paying more tax. Rich people however can afford a new car, so they will escape most of the tax on carbon. Hansen is rich, so he likes this idea.
    It makes just as much sense to tax people directly for being poor and give this money to rich people. In this way people will be encouraged to no longer be poor. They will have incentive to become rich. Over time this tax will get rid of the problem of having poor people and we will only have rich people.
    As silly as this sounds, this is exactly how most tax incentive programs work. Look at Africa and the great harm done there over the decades by the “Aid” programs handed out by governments. A tax on carbon will be just as effective. Pollution and jobs will move from rich to poor countries. The pollution will return carried by wind and water, but the jobs will not.

Comments are closed.