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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The only thing that would amaze me is if this revelation would amaze anyone.
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.
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.
I’m sure the internal machinations of the CSIRO would rival the NSW Labour Party.
Regards
Michael
Lord Mandelson,British Business Secretary,this morning on radio4 :’ We will have a low carbon economy and society.’ I wouldn’t bet against him.
Well, I’m a tiny bit amazed, but I get less amazed every day.
yup
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.
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 😉
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 ?
It seems that this may be THE smoking gun
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt
articles explaining why
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-scientific-tragedy-of-clim
also a last post in “North” issue CA
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.
Just came across this transcript, on the ABC of all places. Gives a pretty solid run down with good questions and good responses.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
“Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.”
Yeah, let’s not go overboard in praising this guy.
Dr Spash was not censored. His report was published. The key observation from News Ltd reporting was this:
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.
Rats leaving the sinking ship. Nothing more. Ga’day, Dr. Splash.
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)
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.
Not a word about it in the news on the ABC.
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.
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.
First mention of Climategate by the MSM in the US was last night, on a *comedy* show.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Flatest+(FOXNews.com+-+Latest+Headlines)
Cue the Alphabet Soup Damage Control Team.
No film at eleven.
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
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.
Threads about CSIRO on Climate Audit attracted many interesting comments last year. For example:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3270
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3271
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3392