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.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank You Kevin Kilty
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.
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 .
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.