Aussie CSIRO: Massive cuts to Government Climate Jobs


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.

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

Read more:

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.

186 thoughts on “Aussie CSIRO: Massive cuts to Government Climate Jobs

      • 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?


      • @climatereason: 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.

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

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  2. Wow! All these job cuts…and they’re directly related to global warming.

    It’s worse than we thought.

  3. 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)

  4. 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….

  5. “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.

    • 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.

  6. 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!

    • According to this report (, 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.

      • 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,
        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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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!

        looking forward to living out your life, on your money.
        Mods – Am I in Nigeria? No.
        So -/Sarc. Purely for clarification, of course

  8. 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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)?

  9. 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

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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.

  10. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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!

      • @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.

      • 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<)

  11. 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!!!

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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.)

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • “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.

      • 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.

      • “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).

      • “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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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!

    • 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…

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

    • 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.

  15. “… 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.

  16. “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.

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

    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

    • 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.

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

    • “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”.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

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

  24. “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.

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

    • 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.

  26. 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 ?

  27. ‘Fears that some of Australia’s most important climate research institutions will be gutted’

    Plural. One would seem sufficient, if not excessive.

  28. 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.

    • 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 !

    • 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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 .

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

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

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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 .

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

    • 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.

      • 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!

      • 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.

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

  39. 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.

    • 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!

  40. 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).

      • 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?

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

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

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

  44. 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!

  45. 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.

    • 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.

      In the meantime we demand an audit to see how the terrestrial data has become corrupted.

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

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

  48. From the same article

    We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us,

    The pogey line, that’s what.

Comments are closed.