Australian Government To Axe $5 Billion Of Climate Funding – Lydia Bradbury, Liberty Voice
The funding for all government programs related to climate change is set to shrink at an alarming rate, going from $5.75 billion this year to a scant $500 million in the next four years.
The fallout from the new government’s budget is still being seen in Australia, but it is already obvious that climate change is a loser when it comes to funding. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has long been skeptical of global warming and the science behind it, but with his new-found legislative power it seems as though he is looking at making that viewpoint into law. According to critics, there is no longer even the pretense of working towards limiting the effects of climate change as the government works to protect the interests of fossil fuel producers and businesses. Whether or not there is a real connection between big business interest and the new budget, Abbott and his cabinet have taken the axe to climate change research and are poised to fundamentally damage all scientific research in Australia in the process.
The funding for all government programs related to climate change is set to shrink at an alarming rate, going from $5.75 billion this year to a scant $500 million in the next four years. Additionally, the Emissions Reduction Fund which is meant to help lower greenhouse gas emissions in Australia is going to be reduced to only $1.14 billion. This was devastating news after Environment Minister Greg Hunt had gone on record promising to provide $2.55 billion to fund the program. Nevertheless, it is not only climate change programs that are feeling the pinch of the Abbott budget.
The Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia’s national science agency, will have $111 million worth of funding slashed over the next four years, which will affect an uncertain number of programs and a loss of tenth of the CSIRO workforce.
The outlook is bleak from the standpoint of scientists and researchers in Australia, many of whom will probably leave the country in order to find work elsewhere.
Read the entire story here: http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/climate-change-research-axed-in-australia/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It has always been noted that when you pay for something, a lot of that thing becomes available. If this had been money spent on “aliens among us”, we would have had at least 30 different species of same identified in the research. But further investigation would be warranted according to papers about same.
What, does Australia really believe that there is Australian climate science, as opposed to American climate science, New Zealand climate science? Exactly why do they believe they need local climate science research?
Its hard to see a positive here but maybe like many professionals who have lost their jobs their could upgrade their skills. Like an entry level statistical course – Steve McM? Or how about ethics – maybe Peter Gleick is available.
On another thread some months ago, I asked where are all these unfit-for-any-purpose scientists in the 100s of thousands going to go when their industry collapses (for those cliscis that think collapse means 800 years as in the collapse of the West Antarctica glaciers in a recent paper, I was thinking only a year or two – it is happening quicker than we thought). Can anyone here provide an estimate of the number of climate scientists and the many more undergrads and grads? Can we estimate from the number of papers? Is there a trade association listing? I wonder if we include also the employment in the “alternative energy” sector how many – few million?
At 2013’s Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference, the biggest mining industry conference globally, I met a young lady who was working on her bachelor’s degree and she interviewed me on possible career choices. She said she was studying geology with the climate science option. We exchanged a couple of emails and I told her to get out of the climate science option and into mining exploration or mining geology, that the world is overrun with climate scientists who, before too long, would be unemployed. She never replied – I guess I made her mad. I don’t have the heart to send her a link to this article.
I take no credit for my prescience. It was 100% probability that this was going to happen. It may take a while, but I’m predicting that, since Australian policy gave so much of a boost to this stuff in the EU and US, the axing by Australia will similarly encourage, first the most sensible of governments (Germany, Canada, Japan…) and then, in chain reaction, the rest of the gangue. Pardon the pun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangue
Gordon,
Maybe they can try to find a market for bad music videos.
(Warning…potty-mouthed “scientists”.)
“5 Billion Dollars is an insanely large budget for a country the size of Australia to put into just one area of science.”
Indeed, and it wasn’t put into science as such – that was mostly the subsidies paid to renewable energy companies.
Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:23 am
You’re a sharp guy, Richard. This line is from a song that may be before your time.
The line is this; “They’re already here.”
Name that tune.
J.Martin.
Yes me too, same message
SEAL THE BORDERS!………
…most of them were mot “climate scientists” in the first place
mot = not
In the immortal words of Xander Harris,
“Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill”
In other news: Massive Gravy Train Derails
Ha, ha. Follow the money, as they always say. And if their a’int no more money, there a’int no more warming…..
Any questions mate.
(;
We turn to the UK. Now who would you rather look at, all the major parties and their worthless, intermittent, on- and off-shore wind turbines… or Nigel Farage?
“a scant $500 million”
In my opinion there is nothing scant about $500 million. That enormous hand out is paid for from Australian taxes, to the detriment of other areas where that money could be spent.
How ungrateful can you get?
It would be far better to keep the budget intact and then fund better science.
For example: fund better observation networks. Fund updating the proxies. Fund all the science that skeptics say we need..
In short, If one believes that the government buys science and buys the results it wants,
and if one believes that scientists are only in it for the gold, then fund them to support sceptical
findings.
L
Pamela Gray says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:22 am
Paul! My first taste of Shiraz was of Australian origin and I was ecstatic to the point of…well…er…let’s just say I liked it.
Pamela
The french and the spanish make a nice syrah and one blended with cabinet.
David Ball
Judy Collins ‘Bring on the Clowns, don’t worry, they’re already here”
Albert Hall, London, 1969 – Judy Collins live in that incredible setting. What a memory!
Steven Mosher says:
May 18, 2014 at 1:23 pm
It would be far better to keep the budget intact and then fund better science.
No it wouldn’t. Far better to put more and more of the scientists, that did not cry shame, on the dole with the other shamsters.
The cuts are mostly to ARENA (Australian Renewable ENergy Agency)
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australia-dumps-clean-energy-in-favour-of-asphalt-economy-60115
and to some CSIRO research programs, not all of which are climate related,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-15/climate-research-csiro-funding-cuts/5452626
The bulk of the cuts to the ARENA budget are for future projects which had not even started yet, including, ironically proposals from the mining companies to cut their CO2 emissions.
Cuts to university based programs are relatively light.
There is absolutely nothing but rank hypocrisy stopping ridiculous shills like Mosher from writing cheques directly to whatever gadfly “scientists” they think need funding; but you keep your filthy paws off of my money. Unlike climate “scientists” & their overpaid noisemakers, I get paid to turn less valuable things into more valuable things, & if someone doesn’t want the more valuable thing that I can create, I don’t cry for handouts.
Stark : “Unlike climate “scientists” & their overpaid noisemakers, I get paid to turn less valuable things into more valuable things, & if someone doesn’t want the more valuable thing that I can create, I don’t cry for handouts.”
Actually the people most likely to lose jobs are those like you. The bulk of the cuts are in subsidies to renewable energy companies, so it will be the manufacturers and installers of solar panels and the like who go, so the losers are their engineers and technicians.
> Steven Mosher says: May 18, 2014 at 1:23 pm It would be far better to keep the budget intact and then fund better science.
Sorry Steven, but actions have consequences. Bad actions have bad consequences. The hacks have caused all science and scientists to be painted with the same brush and the public does not like what they have been forced to pay for. Why should they trust scientists who have abused their trust for decades and vindictively stifled the objections of the good scientists ?
I wonder why there are so many of these in so many cultures ?
a) hoisted with his own petard
b) what goes around comes around
c) karma sucks
d) as you sow, so shall you reap
e) sow the wind, reap the whirlwind
f) like the taste of their own medicine
g) actions have consequences
h) Do to others as you would have them do to you
etc
Perhaps the members of the warmist cult should listen and learn rather than being all “settled”.
Q: What do you call a bunch of warmist climate scientists buried up to the necks in concrete?
.
.
.
.
.
A: A shortage of concrete!
John M, the next version of the We Are Climate Scientists video will have lots of pole dancing…and epic scenes of mass exodus (for the men).
Mosher translation: “It would be far better PROFITABLE to keep the HYSTERICAL EMERGENCY LEVEL budget intact and then EMERGENCY LEVEL fund better PRO-ALARM science, SUCH AS MY OWN DATA-DICED HOCKEY STICK, DAMMIT.”