Howard Bamsey is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Special Envoy on Climate Change. He gave a speech to a CEDA debate this week on the post-Copenhagen situation. He is reported as having said (free 21-day trial registration required)
I think the term sceptics is often used to describe those who oppose the straight reading of the science. I understand why they like to use that term about themselves. I personally do not use it. I don’t believe it fits them. I think that sceptics are people who are the heroes of science. Every scientist is a sceptic at heart. The sorts of people who are fostering some of the fundamental questioning of climate science are not sceptics at all. [They are people] who bring an effort of will to a reading of science, not an open mind and not a proper sceptical one.
Unluckily for him, he was debating my good friend Tim Wilson who pointed out, quite politely I’m told, that it wasn’t the place of public servants to be making those sorts of arguments.
The fact that the Government is now directing its departmental resources to attack people who are critical of the process … is actually quite mind-boggling.
It seems Bamsey conceded the point and that it wasn’t the role of the Department of Climate Change
to make political comment …, and if you heard me doing that then I apologise and withdraw it.
Our friends in Canberra have been getting ahead of themselves and its good to see that at least one of them recognised that he’d stepped over the line and apologised.
This briefing signed by Climate Change departmental deputy secretary Blair Comley is a political document http://climatechange.gov.au/minister/wong/2010/media-releases/February/~/media/Files/minister/wong/2010/media-releases/february/mr20100204.ashx
A department should not be producing such briefings – it is into the political dimension
Samuel J
26 Feb 10 at 6:57 am
We have a dept. of climate change? Really?
Bamsey should be another one on the list of public servants the Libs should be rid of in winning government.
Anyone with that attitude should not be in the position.
JC
26 Feb 10 at 7:06 am
JC – a bit harsh. The guy is a public servant not an angel. He realised his mistake and apologised.
Sinclair Davidson
26 Feb 10 at 10:02 am
Samuel you either did not live in Australia during the Fraser/Hawke/Keating/Howard years when the public service regularly did this or you are showing you usual understanding.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
26 Feb 10 at 10:07 am
Sinc:
It’s nice that he apologized. However he displayed some serious attitude issues that I think are pretty serious and just shouldn’t be swept away with an apology.
He clearly is confused with where his job ends and his advocacy begins and perhaps having someone there without those question marks would improve things. He also seems time away gather his thoughts and pursue another career, as there’s no harm in doing so.
JC
26 Feb 10 at 10:08 am
Homer:
I’m invoking Homer’s razor on your last comment. Continued references to the past will immediately receive a Homer’s razor citation.
JC
26 Feb 10 at 10:10 am
While we should be sensitive to public servants being too politically involved (a trend that Howard and Rudd have pushed), I don’t see how attacking the claim of skeptics to that label, or critiquing their understanding of the issues is political. That the climate is changing isn’t a partisan issue, (Tony Abbott agrees & even has a policy to address it). But even if it was, those reported comments only discuss the types of analysis involved. Nothing to do with policy.
It’s no different to say glenn stevens dismissing those who want to return to the gold standard can’t also claim to support free-markets. It’s a discussion about language and understanding of the details.
We rule that out, and might as well mute all public servants in public entirely (which i guess is an option)
Andrew Carr
26 Feb 10 at 10:14 am
Andrew – I’m thinking of going the other way. Rather than maintian the fiction that we have a fourth level of government, an ‘independent’ civil service (the three levels we’ve got already, executive, legislature and judiciary). Why not go down the path of assuming that the civil service is under the control of the executive (which it actually is) and treat them as such.
Sinclair Davidson
26 Feb 10 at 10:27 am
Perhaps Sinc that is accepting reality but it comes at a cost.
There would probably be a purge of the senior levels whenever there is a change in government, as happens in the US and governments are less likely to hear good advice that they don’t want to hear.
ken nielsen
26 Feb 10 at 10:34 am
Forrest wasn’t here when for example Hawke got treasury to critique fightback.
Treasury never ever critiqued a single program under Howard?
Catallaxian crackpots have very selective memories
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
26 Feb 10 at 10:37 am
ken – I find the argument that politicians would fire advisors for not telling them what they want to hear a bit problematic. I don’t doubt that it could and does happen. But fundamentally, good leaders want people around them who will challenge their perspectives and opinions.
What you describe (and others too) is a variation of the dictatorship problem.
Sinclair Davidson
26 Feb 10 at 10:47 am
Andrew, the problem with Bamsey’s characterisation of sceptics is that it completely avoids that fact that a great many sceptics (Douglass, Christy, Spencer, Pielke Sr, Koutsoyannias, etc.) are themselves senior scientists preferring to concentrate as so many alarmists do on the likes of Bolt, etc. In other words, a great many people are hiding behind the skirts of ‘the science’ pretending that the views of climate scientists are monolithic; they aren’t. What climategate exposed was the lengths a small clique of senior climate scientists went to to persuade policy-makers and the public that it was.
dover_beach
26 Feb 10 at 10:51 am
Rather than maintian the fiction that we have a fourth level of government, an ‘independent’ civil service (the three levels we’ve got already, executive, legislature and judiciary). Why not go down the path of assuming that the civil service is under the control of the executive (which it actually is) and treat them as such.
I think this is simply true. The public service are agents of the executive; imagining that they could be in some manner independent was and is simply fanciful.
dover_beach
26 Feb 10 at 10:55 am
Yes, but leaders do tend to surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear.
On the other side, I knew of a very senior businessman who expected his people to argue with him. If he made a mistake he would say “You allowed me to be stupid. Your job is to stop me doing stupid things” He made it difficult to argue with him so only the strong survived.
I can’t imagine an Australian politician working that way.
ken n
26 Feb 10 at 10:57 am
But fundamentally, good leaders want people around them who will challenge their perspectives and opinions.
Study on teachers: on surveys teachers said they preferred students who challenged them and went against the grain but when observed in the classroom teachers favoured those students who toed the line.
Same is true of those who assert they want challenging people around them. It will vary in degree but the idea that just because people say that is what they want will reflect how they behave is a delusion.
That touches on something the neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga has studied in depth: we provide explanations for our behavior that are often fabrications. Do we really know why we behave the way we do or are we just spinning yarns?
John H.
26 Feb 10 at 11:02 am
Yes, but leaders do tend to surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear.
I don’t think that challenges Sinc’s point, Ken. He’s saying simply that public servants are the agents of the executive. I think you’re assuming that he’s also suggesting that we should be adopting a US-style attitude to senior public servants which I think is a related though different argument. I acknowledge the first without preferring the second.
dover_beach
26 Feb 10 at 11:25 am
I think you’re right Sinclair. Though Rudd does seem to have worked well with a lot of Howard hold overs. And the real problem is less at the top where Dept. Secs/Special Envoys generally need to support the governments program in order to do their job, but much lower down, where it risks having ideological agreement earning you promotion rather than talent/hard work. That was a problem under the Coalition’s 3rd & 4th terms, and a significant one as there’s simply too many to replace each time the government changes.
As for staffers, there’s some good books out in the last few years (No, Prime Minister and Power without Responsibility) which show that different politicians like different staff make ups. Keating seems to have enjoyed his inner-office arguing, while Howard preferred to source dissent from outside/family rather than in his office. If Niki Savva’s book is anything to go by, Costello didn’t much like argument but got it anyway from his staff.
Andrew Carr
26 Feb 10 at 12:35 pm