Aussie CSIRO: Massive cuts to Government Climate Jobs

csiro-logo

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that 350 research jobs are to be cut at the government CSIRO.

Climate science to be gutted as CSIRO swings jobs axe

Fears that some of Australia’s most important climate research institutions will be gutted under a Turnbull government have been realised with deep job cuts for scientists to be announced to staff later today.

Fairfax Media has learnt that as many as 110 positions in the Oceans and Atmosphere division will go, with a similarly sharp reduction in the Land and Water division.

Total job cuts would be about 350 staff over two years, the CSIRO confirmed in an email to staff, with the Data61 and Manufacturing divisions also hit.

The cuts were flagged in November, just a week before the Paris climate summit began, with key divisions told to prepare lists of job cuts or to find new ways to raise revenue.

Advertisement

Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist said before the announcement.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-will-be-all-gone-as-csiro-swings-jobs-axe-scientists-say-20160203-gml7jy.html

The announcement seems to leave open the possibility that jobs will be retained, if scientists can convince private businesses to fund their research positions. Given intense hostility and accusations of bias directed towards some climate scientists who accept funding from private sources, it remains to be seen whether any CSIRO climate scientists will pursue this option.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
186 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
charles nelson
February 3, 2016 7:25 pm

About ‘bloody’ time!

Trebla
Reply to  charles nelson
February 3, 2016 8:00 pm

This make sence. Since the science is settled, what’s to study?

Reply to  Trebla
February 3, 2016 8:09 pm

Spot on, Trebla! But I’ll wager that not one of the MSM journos will make a similar comment.

Reply to  Trebla
February 3, 2016 10:15 pm

…. not to mention the fact that they came up with the solution for everything in Paris.

li d
Reply to  Trebla
February 3, 2016 10:44 pm

This has to be the stupidest
comment ive ever seen at
this blog site.

Auto
Reply to  Trebla
February 4, 2016 1:04 pm

li = 51?
phil is in California. They struggle with / (slashes), making /sarc practically unviable in such an atmosphere . . .
Auto – yeah, OK – /Sarc.

Brian H
Reply to  Trebla
February 4, 2016 4:27 pm

makes sense

mike
Reply to  charles nelson
February 3, 2016 10:24 pm

Hope they draw the Akademik Shokalskiy tab out of their budget before it all disapppears…

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  mike
February 4, 2016 1:31 am

I can’t put this news in context. Is this cut in CSIRO budgets aimed specifically at the climate establishment or is there general cost cutting in Australian Govt positions as income from primary resources-such as coal- diminishes, due to lack of demand from places like China?
tonyb

Aynsley Kellow
Reply to  mike
February 4, 2016 2:14 am

: The overall budget of CSIRO was cut in the last budget (May 2015). This is an internal reallocation of priorities in response to a smaller budget envelope. The CEO has flagged a shift of resources to things like adaptation and energy efficiency.

markl
February 3, 2016 7:31 pm

Can’t say this is bad news. Maybe it will be cause for some to become whistle blowers in retribution.

kokoda
Reply to  markl
February 3, 2016 7:57 pm

Interesting thought.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  kokoda
February 4, 2016 7:32 am

What if private industry coalitions were to fund both sides equally and present the entire picture to the public? The science could then be practiced unbiased without monetary influence.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  markl
February 3, 2016 11:16 pm

Great thought markl. We sure could use a few dozen or more whistleblowers showing how and why the adjustments and homogenizations were done–good case for some legal action against some of the national climate data manglers and conspirators.

DougUK
Reply to  markl
February 4, 2016 12:55 am

Very interesting food for thought indeed Markl. People “go with the flow” when their pay packet depends on their so doing.
Remove the financial incentive to “put up and shut up” and things could get very interesting indeed.

Reply to  markl
February 5, 2016 9:30 am

Maybe it will be cause for some to become whistle blowers in retribution.
Could be, you can’t burn a bridge that fell in the river.

Chip Javert
February 3, 2016 7:36 pm

Wow! All these job cuts…and they’re directly related to global warming.
It’s worse than we thought.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Chip Javert
February 4, 2016 5:22 am

350 out of 4832 positions. It is a tiny start for Australia.
Next up, USA in about a year…

Analitik
February 3, 2016 7:37 pm

Hopefully the data and manufacturing departments can find some commercial sponsorship.
Of course the green industry should be able to fund all 200 odd climate scientists since the 3rd way is such a successful business model (along with the subsidies they recieve)

Mjw
Reply to  Analitik
February 4, 2016 2:03 am

Shouldn’t that read:
Data manufacturing industry.

Zenreverend
February 3, 2016 7:38 pm

Wow, I didn’t think they’d actually have the guts to do this. Kudos!
And of course the climate guys from CSIRO won’t seek private partnerships, even though that’s supposedly one of the core tenets of that organisation – partly to ensure that their final research products are relevant and applicable to those sponsors who operate in the real world – doing so would expose their practices and products to the real world. And I doubt private companies would stump up money for products and ‘research’ consistently demonstrated wrong….

Reply to  Zenreverend
February 3, 2016 9:33 pm

I am not sure . It could also mean that the government is the only mouthpiece for “Climate Change” and we know where that goes!

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Zenreverend
February 4, 2016 9:39 am

Odd, isn’t it, how people who shell out their own hard-earned coin expect a useful return on their investment?

Mike
February 3, 2016 7:41 pm

“Given intense hostility and accusations of bias directed towards some climate scientists who accept funding from private sources, it remains to be seen whether any CSIRO climate scientists will pursue this option.”
I think it’s already been shown that most of these climate scientist will follow the money, wherever that leads them.

jayhd
Reply to  Mike
February 4, 2016 3:23 pm

Mike, you are assuming, of course, that these “climate scientists” are capable of doing real science. Sans government subsidies, private industry usually requires its research people to really know what they are doing instead of getting by with BS.

Reply to  jayhd
February 4, 2016 4:54 pm

Jobs in the fertilizer industry? Spreading fertilizer on the crop fields.

Alf
February 3, 2016 7:41 pm

The first climate refugees? Maybe Canada will take them.

Analitik
Reply to  Alf
February 3, 2016 7:47 pm

Nah, New Zealand

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Analitik
February 4, 2016 9:44 am

Nah, Tuvalu!

Auto
Reply to  Analitik
February 4, 2016 1:07 pm

Frau Merkel’s Germany was in the market for refugees a few months ago.
Maybe less so today.
Maybe Moonbeam’s California will pay them megabucks for better adjustments of data . . .
Auto

Reply to  Analitik
February 4, 2016 6:14 pm

Our DSIR was gutted years ago. NIWA has about 600 people all up; no way could they absorb all these people.

RD
Reply to  Alf
February 9, 2016 10:06 am

Well said ALF!

February 3, 2016 7:42 pm

Happy days….

Curious George
February 3, 2016 7:48 pm

You sure can do your research – just find a sponsor.

February 3, 2016 7:49 pm

Well done, Turnbull. I am amazed that this has happened after the vilification of Tony Abbott, but maybe their policies do not differ as much as we thought!

Editor
Reply to  mikelowe2013
February 3, 2016 8:20 pm

According to this report (http://www.windaction.org/posts/43612-malcolm-turnbull-refuses-to-back-clean-energy-finance-corporation#.VrLPneat9m1), Malcolm Turnbull “was forced to pledge to retain the current Direct Action climate plan in order to win support from conservative and climate-sceptic colleagues“. My suspicion is that in order to become Prime Minister he was forced to agree to maintain a lot more of Tony Abbott’s policies than just that one – but I have no proof.

Tom Harley
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 3, 2016 11:02 pm

The Direct Action Plan is a good one, but for the wrong reasons. It’s the first time since Telstra was privatized, that real environmental rehabilitation was funded and is ongoing. I am about to start the first rehab in the West Kimberley in a long time with Abbott’s Green Army program, a real rehabilitation.effort, http://pindanpost.com/2015/12/31/broomes-green-army-greening-the-kimberley-2/
Now we just need the rest of the Green subsidies to be returned for real environmental practices and not a non-existing global warming agenda.

Leigh
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 4, 2016 5:04 am

MJ, I’d trust this sheep in wolf’s clothing about as far as I’d could kick him.
He’s a lawyer,banker, politician and a global warmist. I’m thinking along the lines he agreed to pull his head in till after the election so as not to panic those who voted Abbott in.
He and his sommersaulting amigo in Hunt have already returned funding to windmills and flagged an emissions trading scheme that millions of Australians rejected at the last election.
The headline here was “Turnbul guts CSIRO with 300 job cuts”.
300 out of over 5000 thousand is hardly “gutting” another over populated beureucrecy.

eyesonu
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 4, 2016 10:57 am

Leigh,
“…. The headline here was “Turnbul guts CSIRO with 300 job cuts”.
300 out of over 5000 thousand is hardly “gutting” another over populated beureucrecy…..”
Is he only eliminating the new comers that may be or are skeptics/realists? I’m not buying ‘moon cheese’ today.

Brian H
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 4, 2016 4:32 pm

Leigh;
bureaucracy

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 4, 2016 4:58 pm

There’s actually 5,000,000. climate scientists in Australia?

toorightmate
February 3, 2016 7:50 pm

One senior scientist said, “Climate will be gone …”
It wont be warmer, it wont be colder.
It will be gone. No climate at all!!!!!!

Charlie
Reply to  toorightmate
February 4, 2016 2:35 am

A genuine climate denier, then.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Charlie
February 4, 2016 6:37 am

That may well be the first one I’ve ever heard of.

Auto
Reply to  Charlie
February 4, 2016 1:17 pm

tooright
Be careful – they’ll have you in a Zoo – or the IPCC – if you aren’t careful.
Send me all your ID – including credit cards, with PINs – and you disappear up country for a decade or so – you’ll be safe if you avoid using your mobile phone, computers, email, bus passes, bleepers, and almost anything else invented after about 1850.
If you meet Lord Lucan – old geezer in his 80s, with a posh accent – don’t dob him in for the reward – they’ll catch you!
Auto
looking forward to living out your life, on your money.
Mods – Am I in Nigeria? No.
So -/Sarc. Purely for clarification, of course

Lewis P Buckingham
February 3, 2016 7:54 pm

This would appear to be inevitable.
Once the politicians accept that the ‘science is settled’ on AGW then there is no real reason to study it.
The scientists that promoted this false narrative have been hoisted on their own petard.
What is so sad is that climate changes are not understood.
Typically Fairfax blames ‘denialist dinosaurs’.
What is clear is that the least manipulable way of accessing data is via distance satellite.
Where the data is vulnerable to unrealistic data manipulation, the ground stations will become neglected and closed down.
I note that the Antarctic research vessel is shown in the op ed.
Is this a false flag?
Tragically for Australia, the old joke weather forecast ‘there is no weather today’ may come true.
We may have to rely on the US, Russians, Chinese and French for Australian raw data and analysis.
Perhaps next time funding is less scarce,Australians will study Climate as a science, rather than Models of climate as a science,when the CSIRO department can be re built.

Analitik
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
February 3, 2016 8:08 pm

Very perceptive.
From the email sent out by CSIRO’s chief executive Larry Marshall to inform staff
“Our climate models are among the best in the world and our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change. That question has been answered”
http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gmlesz/csirojobcuts.docx

Zenreverend
Reply to  Analitik
February 3, 2016 9:33 pm

Still a fair waste of money though. Who didn’t realise that the climate changes….?

William
Reply to  Analitik
February 3, 2016 10:47 pm

So they tortured their models until they got the answers they wanted?

Tom Harley
Reply to  Analitik
February 3, 2016 11:04 pm

“honed those models” … that’s a good joke that one!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Analitik
February 4, 2016 4:21 am

thanks for that.
Radio blurb earlier today I heard the same idiotic statement
we have proven climate change…
wtf? almost spat my coffee!
and now we need to find means n tech to adapt.
if the climateconmen can prove they can fiddle figures in the IT dept instead..theyll relocate the jobs
so the overpaid useless gits can keep milking the public purse till retirement age.

dp
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
February 3, 2016 8:15 pm

So no matter if climate change is right or wrong CSIRO staff are headed to the door. Too bad it’s for the wrong reason – I would rather see them booted for compelling lack of merit in their deliverables.

chip Javert
Reply to  dp
February 4, 2016 10:37 am

dp
Exactly what “deliverables” would that be?
What’s wrong with just tossing them for lack of scientific ethics and scaring little kids (and more than a few underpowered adults)?

clipe
February 3, 2016 7:54 pm

They thought they’d always have Paris.
It turns out Paris is their Copenhagen/Kyoto/ etc

601nan
February 3, 2016 8:06 pm

Wait a minute!
“if [State, i.e. Government employed] scientists can convince private businesses to fund their research positions.
Why should a Government provide a “consultant” with an office, internet connection and telephone (and a toilet [not to forget that a “toilet” can with the right makeshift plumage can become a shower stall … ha ha] down the hall) payed by taxpayer monies?
Got’a lov Auz!
Ha ha

David Sivyer, Narrogin WA
Reply to  601nan
February 3, 2016 9:01 pm

Ahhh, good ol’ Peter Garrett; one time Environment Minister under Rudd’s (first) Labor Government. Lassoed into politics but sort of betrayed his Green credentials. C’est la vie, non?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  601nan
February 3, 2016 11:00 pm

The Aussie citizen who rarely registered to vote and was never fined apparently.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 4, 2016 6:12 pm

Being fined for not voting is quite rare. “It is at the discretion of the Divisional Returning Officer for each electorate to determine what is a valid and sufficient reason for not voting.” A friend claimed that his excuse of being hungover on the day was accepted.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 5, 2016 1:38 pm

It’s probably a very good reason. One needs their faculties about them when voting for who will lead government. It’s not a trivial decision. I would have accepted it too.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 5, 2016 7:00 pm

“The Pompous Git
February 4, 2016 at 6:12 pm”
Issuing the fine isn’t rare. PAYING it IS rare. No matter, it’s still law. And the law in Aus is an ass.

Mike McMillan
February 3, 2016 8:15 pm

Dommage.

spaatch
February 3, 2016 8:17 pm

Now that AGW has been proven by CSIRO scientists it makes sense to instead have them focus on science that will help us adapt to a warmer World where we will have to cope with heatwaves increasing in intensity and frequency and more high fire danger days.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  spaatch
February 4, 2016 6:39 am

Ha Ha Ha Ha

janama
February 3, 2016 8:30 pm

Can’t they just get a share of all the oil company funding the skeptics get?

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  janama
February 4, 2016 5:58 am

With oil at $30 per barrel there isn’t much funding from oil companies around these days for anyone. Most of the people I know in the UK offices of BP are expecting to be laid off and they are useful development engineers.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Keith Willshaw
February 4, 2016 9:07 am

Why don’t they just create some scare so that governments all agree to cut back oil production thus cutting supply and boosting the price – that will go straight to their bottom line!

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Keith Willshaw
February 4, 2016 9:50 am

@Scottish
Difficult, to say the least. Most of the overage is US fracking and Saudi Arabia and Russia going pedal-to-the-metal on production. Cranking down the North Sea tap won’t do squat.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 4, 2016 9:52 am

Has Australia explored its own off-shore shallow waters for oil and gas deposits?
Or is that eco-illogically forbidden due to the Great Barrier Reef “completely encircling” the continent’s political mindset? 8<)

TG
February 3, 2016 8:39 pm

No problem, Canada’s new green dream team leader Justin Trudeau’s liberal government will hire them all +++++ green lunatics. Why not?
Canada sent 383 delegates to the Paris, more than ANY other nation on earth!!!

Russell
Reply to  TG
February 4, 2016 1:41 am

Including This Loon was also invited :Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist, lawyer, leader of the … Hug a Tree Gang. Paid for by our tax money, thanks Justin.

George Tetley
Reply to  Russell
February 4, 2016 3:54 am

Elizabeth May….and then again Elizabeth May not…it depends which way the wind is blowing !

February 3, 2016 8:40 pm

Nice logo for CSIRO: Australia behind bars.

Reply to  mosomoso
February 3, 2016 10:27 pm

Well right….it did evolve from a penal colony…

Reply to  Ben D
February 3, 2016 10:29 pm

The CSIRO started as a scientific and research body. Look at the tossers now.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben D
February 3, 2016 11:07 pm

The CSIRO was once called CSRO and in 1935 worked with a Brisbane sugar company and the Queensland state govn’t to introduce the cane toad to control pest beetles in cane plantations. At that time the CSRO wanted to import the European toad for another pest problem in other states. And look at what happened. One of the most notorious environmental disasters in the world.

Reply to  Ben D
February 3, 2016 11:18 pm

“The CSIRO was once called CSRO and in 1935 worked with a Brisbane sugar company and the Queensland state govn’t to introduce the cane toad to control pest beetles in cane plantations.”
We’ve been through this before. Completely false, including the CSRO bit.

gnome
Reply to  Ben D
February 4, 2016 1:30 am

Exactly right Nick Stokes. It started out as CSIR (Council for scientific and industrial research) not CRSO. The “industrial” bit always underpinned their rationale for existence.
As to the cane toad- I have a dog, and live in paralysis tick country. I have picked up ticks in town, parks and suburbs, but never in the canefields. More power to the cane toad!
(I can’t help laughing at an animal that has so few natural enemies that it comes out for a look when I rumble by with the wheelbarrow, instead of ducking for cover.)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben D
February 4, 2016 1:55 am

Nick I may have got the name wrong, but when I find the link to the history, specifically in 1935 and the cane toad, I will post it. But, apart from the name, what I say is true.

Reply to  Ben D
February 4, 2016 2:17 am

Patrick,
To save you time, you’ve made the same untrue comment, including the CSRO assertion, at least seven times at WUWT. I challenged it here and here, but it seems to have no effect.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben D
February 4, 2016 2:41 am

I said the CSRO (Or whatever) “worked” with the sugar company and the Queensland govn’t to introduce the cane toad. At the same time wanting to introduce the European toad. I am not making this stuff up! Reginald William was the main instigator.
Wow! Nick, that second link, which was accurate at the time I posted, is now “disappeared”. I wonder why?

Katherine
Reply to  Ben D
February 4, 2016 4:26 pm

Hmm… According to this article
http://theconversation.com/everyone-agreed-cane-toads-would-be-a-winner-for-australia-19881
it was Reg Mungomery, a Queensland government entomologist, who actually brought over the cane toads, but the move was endorsed by CSIR. I don’t see any mention of a Reginald William.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Ben D
February 4, 2016 7:13 pm

“the move was endorsed by CSIR”
Patrick says baldly:
“The CSIRO was once called CSRO and in 1935 worked with a Brisbane sugar company and the Queensland state govn’t to introduce the cane toad”
The article in the Conversation is written by Turvey, who also wrote a book about it, and seems to have a bee in his bonnet. But he doesn’t claim that CSIR even knew about the plan in advance. His claim of “endorsed” is based on a remark made by Rivett some time later, which he took to indicate approval. I think that remark is quite ambiguous, and he gives no context. But in any case, it is quite false to say that CSIR “worked with” anyone to introduce the Toad.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben D
February 4, 2016 9:17 pm

I can’t find the link for some reason but I am sure I have posted it here on WUWT before and I can’t find it here either.
The link Katherine says: February 4, 2016 at 4:26 pm is the only one I can find. The link to a doncument I posted before is more complete than that link where it lists all those who were involved in the introduction.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben D
February 5, 2016 4:06 pm

“Katherine
February 4, 2016 at 4:26 pm
…it was Reg Mungomery”
Reg W. Mungomery. W for William. In articles I have read he is refer to by both names (Rightly or wrongly).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben D
February 5, 2016 4:09 pm

“Nick Stokes
February 4, 2016 at 7:13 pm
But in any case, it is quite false to say that CSIR “worked with” anyone to introduce the Toad.”
Nick, as usual, you are wrong. When I find that document I will post it for you. The, now, CSIRO were involved in the cane toad fiasco.

jmorpuss
February 3, 2016 9:06 pm
Patrick MJD
February 3, 2016 9:28 pm

CSRIO is not the first Govn’t agency to shed eomlpoyees. ServiceFirst (Albeit a NSW Govn’t agency) made most of it’s employees redundant and outsourced to UniSys.

Clive Bond
February 3, 2016 9:31 pm

The following is a trancript of the speech given by Art Raiche at a protest in Canberra against the Labor government’s 23% carbon tax. Rache had served the CSIRO for 35 years, the last 15 as Chief Research Scientist.

Clive Bond
Reply to  Clive Bond
February 3, 2016 9:39 pm

Sorry, unable to post URL. Raiche gave the CSIRO a fearsome pasting re politicisation and beauracracy.

Clive Bond
Reply to  Clive Bond
February 4, 2016 2:04 am

Thanks AB, that’s the one,(this is my third attempt to acknowledge hope it gets thru)

Val
February 3, 2016 10:01 pm

In concession to Green blackmail, the Turnbull government just threw a Billion dollars at the UN cartel of 3rd world questionable characters – to save the earth, of course. Now, to pay for that political fluff, the same government will axe hundreds of Australians who were allegedly working.. to save the earth.
Bolt should love it!

Zenreverend
Reply to  Val
February 3, 2016 10:33 pm

I thought that amount would come from within Australia’s foreign aid budget?
And that it would stay in the ‘Indo-Pacific region’ (ie our near neighbours) to help with adaptation.
The way I remember reading about it a few weeks back, it actually seemed money not completely wasted for a change…

Clive Bond
Reply to  Val
February 3, 2016 10:55 pm

Thanks AB that’s it. Well done. Clive

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Val
February 3, 2016 10:57 pm

I believe Bolt has had his program on Channel 10 axed, largely,over his sceptical views on climate change.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Val
February 3, 2016 11:09 pm

Turnbull has announced an election will be held within 6 months. I reckon he will hint at some kind of “proice ohn cahbon” to win swinging voters and appease the green shirts.

February 3, 2016 10:20 pm

Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it! and commented:
I did not realise that there are 350 jobs that one Australian agency alone dependent upon climate science research. There must be thousands of these jobs dependent upon climate alarmism.

February 3, 2016 10:44 pm

“… with key divisions told to prepare lists of job cuts or to find new ways to raise revenue…”

Meaning, they weren’t earning their keep before.
“No climate”? Why are so many other ‘scientists’ earning their pay in private business and analyzing historical trends combined with satellite tracking and actually forecasting real weather?
Is it really so hard to us their alleged climate skills to produce products businesses and industry will pay for?
Also, can we suggest some cuts at several Australian Universities? These University quacks are climate trough feeders who are not honestly earning their keep.

William
February 3, 2016 10:52 pm

Now they can start on the BOM?
Can’t wait.

Pamela Gray
February 3, 2016 11:01 pm

“The cuts were flagged in November, just a week before the Paris climate summit began, with key divisions told to prepare lists of job cuts or to find new ways to raise revenue.”
Enter the koala bear, stage left.

li d
February 3, 2016 11:15 pm

[snip – mod]

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 3, 2016 11:44 pm

Couldn’t they all just be redeployed into some other CSIRO division that manufactures a completely ineffective vaccine against a mundane ailment that the government then buys with taxpayer $$$’s and distributes to the general population for free?

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 4, 2016 4:29 am

they already got that dept 😉
seems you can’t vaccinate against stupid.
just FOR it

February 3, 2016 11:51 pm

Look ma, the Koala has no clothes!

February 3, 2016 11:55 pm

Logic of a situation of their own making.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, claiming
the science ‘s settled, no need for more research
funded from the long suffering public purse.

mikewaite
February 4, 2016 12:30 am

You do realise surely that these employees will depart (if it actually happens which i doubt) with enormous redundancy payments. Then in 6 months time , with a new Govt and/or new minister they will be rehired to their old positions.
That is what happens, with depressing regularity from the taxpayers’ viewpoint ,in the UK civil service and NHS organisations , I doubt that the practice is any different in Australia.

Chris in Hervey Bay
February 4, 2016 12:36 am

No problem for the redundant scientists from the CSIRO.
Swing over to the skeptic side and collect your cheque from BIG OIL, like the rest of us.

commieBob
February 4, 2016 12:42 am

It was today revealed that the work was set to shrink as the national scientific flagship switches resources to income-producing projects.

However, staff were assured the overall number of positions would not be cut and within two years the CSIRO would have the same job complement as now.
link

At this point in time a lot of climate research is probably a waste of money. Climate science and renewable energy haven’t moved that much in spite of billions of dollars of research. Yes, we have had a lot of incremental improvements in energy technology but no breakthroughs. Climate science is a corrupt festering cesspool. The money can be spent better elsewhere.
Breakthroughs happen when conditions are right. An example is supercomputers. In 1900 we could have spent the entire GDP on trying to build the equivalent of a supercomputer and we would not have succeeded. Supercomputers required solid state electronics and that wouldn’t have happened for another fifty years. Nobody in 1900 was saying: “we need semiconductors”. We needed a breakthrough and we didn’t know what it would be.
Renewable energy requires energy storage and that will require a breakthrough and we can’t predict what that breakthrough will be.
Trying to focus CSIRO on income producing projects is short sighted. We need curiosity driven research and a search for novelty. Government should do/fund research that private industry won’t do. That’s the only way way we will get the breakthroughs that we need. Why Greatness Cannot be Planned

Michael
Reply to  commieBob
February 4, 2016 2:32 am

Renewable Energy requires a break in the fundamental laws of physics to be viable. Energy storage doesn’t fix it- it requires reliable high energy density from a low energy density unreliable source.

Robert
Reply to  Michael
February 4, 2016 11:15 am

Right on, Michael. Storage does not make solar or wind more affordable. It makes them more expensive. Simply do the math.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  commieBob
February 4, 2016 9:21 am

“At this point in time a lot of climate research is probably a waste of money. Climate science and renewable energy haven’t moved that much in spite of billions of dollars of research.”
That’s not entirely true. Progress is being made. We’ve seen a great improvement of our knowledge of the relationship of solar activity and climate. We have far more understanding of the issues of site selection and deployment for climate measurements also urban/rural heating. There’s a growing consensus forming around the “lapse rate” mechanism for greenhouse warming (sadly missing on this blog). We now have a great deal more understanding of climate models, natural variation and I think my own “Caterpillar theory” of tectonic plate heating and cooling a s feedback mechanism is key to the ice-age cycle.
So there is steady progress being made – albeit I agree almost none of it was funded by that “billions of dollars”.

joel
Reply to  commieBob
February 4, 2016 10:36 am

You are right. Bell Labs did great work. Just curious and smart guys investigating stuff.

Brian H
Reply to  commieBob
February 4, 2016 4:44 pm

Here it is: LPPhysics.com .

Lewis P Buckingham
February 4, 2016 12:56 am

Shifting focus of our impact, we want to innovate rather than just innovate, take invention off the lab bench.
From measuring climate change we are trying to mitigate climate change.
Innovation for mitigation.
We are focussed on answering what we are going to do about it
Invest in how we adapt to severe weather events
We spent a decade pioneering this area
We are a lone voice in the wilderness
Most of the unis in the world are good at climate[models].
Put emphasis on how we navigate climate change.
We use science to predict how to grow higher value crops to export.
how do we increase the amount of renewable energy [without damaging the environment].
deeper collaboration with 41 unis.
The above is a precis of the CEO of the CSIRO s interview on the ABC just finished the seven thirty report.

Dennis
February 4, 2016 1:28 am

Quite a few years ago, a buddy of mine working in the nuclear research division of CSIRO told me the lively discussion regarding AGW that had been taking place via email between a number of CSIRO scientists and analysts ended up being shut down by the CSIRO bigwigs.
He suspected it was an attempt to stifle debate, which wouldn’t surprise me, but, having been involved in such discussions myself when I used to feel the facts might need my help, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were just trying to make sure people didn’t forget to do their jobs.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Dennis
February 4, 2016 10:00 am

“All right lads, let’s get back to work now, shall we?” I can see that. Not all unfavorable outcomes require evil motivations.

nc
February 4, 2016 1:32 am

David Suzuki coming to Australia. Bet any talks he gives will be much more carefully managed so he does not get another slap down.
This is what he is attending https://www.womadelaide.com.au/ Any ideas on his fee?

Russell
Reply to  nc
February 4, 2016 1:48 am

Why does Canada have all the Nuts. David Suzuki,Elizabeth May, Justin.

commieBob
Reply to  Russell
February 4, 2016 3:27 am

You forgot Maurice Strong, the ring leader.

Russell
Reply to  Russell
February 4, 2016 3:36 am

Maurice Strong: RIP He ate the UN’s world health organisation dietary goals. Which kills people. Please Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ

ferdberple
Reply to  Russell
February 4, 2016 4:16 am

because you need to be crazy to live here in winter.

Russell
Reply to  Russell
February 4, 2016 4:48 am

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/live-expectations-high-as-trudeau-and-notley-meet-in-Edmonton; The 700 Million will go to SOLLAR Panels just watch. Be careful what you wish for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley speak to media after ……also
Kathleen Wynne

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  Russell
February 4, 2016 6:35 am

Does David Suzuki have a death wish? Didn’t he get shown up as ignorant on an earlier visit to Australia?
Ian M

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Russell
February 5, 2016 3:19 am

Ah, a Canadian thread. Sorry, I cannot answer your question, it’s a disturbing observation. Here in Ottawa, we are having a mercifully mild winter; no one is complaining about the lack of cold.

February 4, 2016 1:42 am

“Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist said before the announcement.
This is excellent news for all Australians as it will mean an end to all those droughts, floods, wildfires, and heat waves that have so pestered us in the past. And it all has been achieved with a notable saving to the cost of government employment. This is what I call a win-win situation.

jpatrick
February 4, 2016 2:31 am

CSIRO. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research. Maybe “Climate” shouldn’t be part of this institute’s mission anyway.

Alex
Reply to  jpatrick
February 4, 2016 3:26 am

The organisation is too massive. The research of everything with tiny departments that did little and just picked up money along the way. It should be totally broken up, then it would become productive and useful.

ferdberple
Reply to  jpatrick
February 4, 2016 4:18 am

CSIRO. Climate Science Idiots Research Organization.

EternalOptimist
February 4, 2016 2:33 am

What will happen if all the other climate scientists in the world come out on strike in support of the ‘CSIRO 350’ ?
Where will we be then ?

Mike Jowsey
Reply to  EternalOptimist
February 4, 2016 3:30 am

without a climate for the strike duration?

Zenreverend
Reply to  EternalOptimist
February 4, 2016 4:38 am

…taking rapid strides forwards?

Gamecock
February 4, 2016 4:17 am

‘Fears that some of Australia’s most important climate research institutions will be gutted’
Plural. One would seem sufficient, if not excessive.

rogerknights
February 4, 2016 4:47 am

The annual cost of these 350, assuming average salaries of $60,000, is $21,000,000. Big Green could afford to fund them without too much of a strain. Maybe BG could use supporting them as a rationale to donate to it part of its fund-raising drives.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  rogerknights
February 4, 2016 5:29 am

Roger, obviously you are familiar with US rates of pay, but here in AU you can easily double your $60,000. No one would work for the CSIRO at under $120,000PA, except, maybe the cleaners !

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
February 5, 2016 1:01 pm

My nephew while he was working at CSIRO to attain his PhD earned a lot less than $60,000 p.a. He lost a lot of weight.

A C Osborn
February 4, 2016 4:56 am

Love it. Lying has cost them their jobs for all the wrong reasons, but hey who cares?

Reply to  A C Osborn
February 11, 2016 9:35 pm

Maybe. Sometimes you can lose your job for knowing something. Depending on your point of view, are you sure the right people are losing their jobs? Some people could be starting to question. Oh, we have to get rid of them.

Steve from Rockwood
February 4, 2016 5:00 am

If you read Dr. Marshall’s comments he seems to be suggesting many of the current CSIRO senior scientists need to go. Because why would you get rid of senior scientists just to make a career path for junior scientists, unless the latter showed more promise than the former?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/climate-science-on-chopping-block-as-csiro-braces-for-shake-up/7139224

confusedphoton
February 4, 2016 5:07 am

I hope other countries follow this lead! Lets get back to sanity!
Although I bet they will get good payoffs/redundancy and retain their gold plated pensions.

February 4, 2016 5:10 am

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Hopefully, through government funding cuts and a shift to a commercial model, the only “climate [that] will be all gone…” is the climate of global warming alarmism and fear mongering.
For too long, so many of our most revered scientific and learning institutions have become the breeding grounds for the great global warming scare – cultivated by ideology and activism, and nourished by an unlimited diet of unregulated taxpayer billions.
With ‘environmentalists’ in control of our institutions, a culture of one-way science has been allowed to flourish through the forces of ‘monopolistic funding’, whereby government money is directed into “man-made” global warming research, whilst studies and funding into “natural” climate change are non-existent.
This oneway flow of money ultimately skews and distorts the science that is output.
Joanne Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”
The systemic failure self-perpetuates :
* Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
* How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
* “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935
The oneway flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/climate-money-monopoly-science-jonova-judith-curry-ipcc-update/

Hugh
February 4, 2016 5:29 am

This may sound strange but I am wondering if the death of Prof Bob Carter is a factor here .
It is not hard to imagine that there may have been a push for special arrangements involving
government representation . Which in turn may have provoked influential people to watch
some of the videos Prof Carter produced.
Sadly that is probably wishful thinking .

Dr. Dave
February 4, 2016 6:16 am

Hmmm… 350 “scientists” hitting the job market with no demonstrated ability to do anything but political science. Many of these newly unemployed will likely need to change professions. Their inability to follow let alone understand how the scientific method works will soon become apparent to those naive enough to hire them.

chip Javert
Reply to  Dr. Dave
February 4, 2016 10:49 am

well, assuming they can’t do statistics either, they all immediately qualify as PhD psychologists.

Dr. Dave
Reply to  chip Javert
February 5, 2016 6:32 am

or cartoonists…

Resourceguy
February 4, 2016 6:20 am

So it was budgetary allocation that drove the climate noise and volume-based hype, much like budgetary allocation drives unwanted ethanol volumes in the U.S.

ossqss
February 4, 2016 6:35 am

I suspect there will be a whistle blowers convention very soon.

MikeN
February 4, 2016 7:04 am

So Turnbull is going to keep the carbon tax and fire the scientists? Sounds like he is saying to them MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2016 7:11 am

The end is nigh. For the Climatist Industry, that is.

Resourceguy
February 4, 2016 7:30 am

It was always about a new revenue source and twisted science and PR progroms to cement it. After the campaign is over, the useful idiots must be purged.

February 4, 2016 7:33 am

From their back ground work, the way they do the work, seems this 350 are highly qualified to run for office and chair a committee on taxing carbon and selling carbon credits.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  fobdangerclose
February 4, 2016 9:33 am

LOL

Sweet Old Bob
February 4, 2016 8:12 am

3.6% cut per year for two years……oh noes ! It’s the end of the world ! The sky has fallen !
Yeah , right . I will believe it when I see it . More like an excuse to get rid of any suspected sceptics .

tadchem
February 4, 2016 8:17 am

How long could they afford to pay for people to not get anything done?

chip Javert
Reply to  tadchem
February 4, 2016 10:51 am

You’re missing a key point: “they” don’t pay anybody anything; taxpayers (i.e.: not “they”) do.

February 4, 2016 9:20 am

This kind of reminds me of the joke:
Q: What do you call 500 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start!

JimB
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
February 4, 2016 9:39 am

Now, wait a minute. I know that Shakespeare once wrote “First we’ll kill all the lawyers”, but that was in furtherance of lawlessness. Without lawyers you will have no rights at all.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  JimB
February 4, 2016 10:07 am

No, without lawyers you won’t burn $200/hr in a fruitless effort to enforce your “rights”. If my rights are “God-given” and “inalienable”, there’s something very wrong with a system that requires a narrow specialist to secure what’s already mine!

Reply to  JimB
February 5, 2016 1:13 pm

There are five explicit individual rights in the Australian Constitution. These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117). Any other rights are scattered through common law, and Acts passed by the Commonwealth Parliament or State or Territory Parliaments.
So in order to save “$200/hr” you’d better forget about earning and get studying. Shouldn’t take much more than a decade if you’re smart enough.

toorightmate
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
February 4, 2016 12:12 pm

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.

Mumbles McGuirck
February 4, 2016 9:30 am

“Total job cuts would be about 350 staff over two years”
So this was 350,org’s secret plan all along!

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
February 4, 2016 9:36 am

The 350 is either an ironic coincidence – or someone in the government press department has a sense of humour.

Adrian O
February 4, 2016 9:59 am

I believe in second chances.
Even if they faked temps, they should be allowed (under supervision) to monitor the temps of fryers in a fast food joint.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Adrian O
February 4, 2016 10:51 am

Aren’t you being just a bit optimistic – fast food joints have standards to keep. I suggest they would be better suited to a career compiling the “facts” for electioneering leaflets … sorry on reflection that what they were doing!

Don K
February 4, 2016 10:01 am

Research on the gravest threat in the history of mankind gutted in order to advance other priorities? You can’t make this stuff up.
(It’s gonna be a loooooonnnnng century I fear).

chip Javert
Reply to  Don K
February 4, 2016 10:57 am

don k
You might want to get inside so the “sky is falling” stuff doesn’t hurt you

Don K
Reply to  chip Javert
February 4, 2016 1:22 pm

It’s OK. The sky is only modeled.
… And if it starts to fall, we can just tweak a few parameters and make another run.
… Unless, of course there is no funding for the simulation computers.
My point was that if you believe in CAGW, cutting funding for CAGW research is quite a peculiar notion. How many other, even more peculiar notions do you suppose those folks have. Do you think that some of them might have real-world consequences?

toorightmate
Reply to  Don K
February 4, 2016 12:10 pm

IK am betting the “K” stands for Kee”.

Resourceguy
February 4, 2016 10:53 am

Mission accomplished……..in the Zika virus, engineered or not.

rocdoctom
February 4, 2016 11:14 am

Easy to lie and obfuscate with taxpayer dollars; less so with private/industry dollars as they expect real results.

Lewis P Buckingham
February 4, 2016 12:09 pm

According to the CEO of the CSIRO on last night’s 7.30 report the number of employees in the CSIRO will not change, the climate area employees will then,presumably, be offered ‘innovative’ positions elsewhere in the rest of the organisation.
So no one need be sacked.

James Francisco
February 4, 2016 3:05 pm

I’m not sure this reduction is really a good thing because surely the 350 will be the less enthuastic foot draggers. The remaining will surely get the message and prove their value by pumping out more alarmist propaganda.

James Francisco
Reply to  James Francisco
February 5, 2016 2:16 pm

On the other hand, maybe it is an easy out for the smart ones to get out while the getting is good.

February 4, 2016 3:58 pm

Send them to Centrelink. The $10,000 a year Newstart allowance is a much better value for money option than the $100,000 a year plus it cost to employ them to make stuff up about the weather!

Alx
February 4, 2016 4:29 pm

Who knew that global warming would endanger the population of climate scientists instead of polar bears.

Aert Driessen
February 4, 2016 4:39 pm

Great comments thread, warms the cockles of my heart. The perfect follow-through would be to now focus on the BoM and then clean out academia-land.

ironicman
Reply to  Aert Driessen
February 4, 2016 4:50 pm

The previous green/left governments joined BoM and the CSIRO at the hip, its essential that they be separated if sanity is to return to these organisations.
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/about-us/
In the meantime we demand an audit to see how the terrestrial data has become corrupted.

Aert Driessen
February 4, 2016 4:54 pm

Must keep the momentum going by now cleaning up the BoM and then the zombies at ANU, UNSW, MelbUni, UWA, why not the lot.

Brian H
February 4, 2016 7:24 pm

‘some of Australia’s most important climate research institutions’ That is an empty set.

ironicman
February 4, 2016 7:42 pm

BoM personal are being replaced by bots, with the adjustments set in warm concrete.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/bureau-of-meteorology-to-axe-staff-from-all-regional-stations-except-cairns/448845

Rrrsabout
February 4, 2016 10:12 pm

Considering the damage they have done, are doing and would have done to manufacturing in Australia , I say good riddance.

Robert of Ottawa
February 5, 2016 2:59 am

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/05/senior-csiro-scientist-derides-chief-executives-claim-climate-change-is-answered
“Who is he to declare that climate change is answered?
You did, enjoy your cooling career.

Robert of Ottawa
February 5, 2016 3:02 am

From the same article
We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us,
The pogey line, that’s what.

February 5, 2016 7:30 am

” … or to find new ways to raise revenue.”
Carbon Tax!!!

RD
February 9, 2016 10:10 am

Surprising, but welcome I think. Anyone miss the ship of fools? That was fun!

John of Cloverdale WA Australia
February 10, 2016 3:22 pm
Ed Zuiderwijk
February 11, 2016 8:37 am

It surely is a catastrophic day for catastrophyc global warming.

%d bloggers like this: