The CSIRO once had a proud record for quality research in basic and applied science. In rural research this involved productive partnerships with universities and the state departments of agriculture. Times change. Politics intrudes, also content-free managers. Valuable traditions fade away.
The climate scam could be the last nail in the coffin of the scientific credibity of the CSIRO. A scathing report is available on line, prepared by Malcolm Roberts of the Galileo Movement, at the invitation of Steve Austin, host on ABC-Radio 612. The author is apparently a hyperactive investigator: among other things he has conducted a forensic examination of the performance of Australia’s leading academic climate scientists and activists.
The report notes some of the features of the IPCC and other aspects of the climate movement including the role of Al Gore, then proceeds to a detailed examination of the CSIRO contribution. That looks important and ok to me, however at this stage I am not buying into the allegations about the role of the international banking fraternity in the climate scam.
The author has given me permission to post the Executive Summary however I won’t do that, it is easy enough to hit the link and get into the report directly.
A bit of context
CSIRO’s misrepresentations are so alarming that before presenting my analysis it’s necessary to provide context. The pain of discovering the truth about an Aussie science icon is deeply disturbing. CSIRO developed a justifiably proud reputation over many decades and contains many fine, dedicated scientists and people across disciplines. Why though does CSIRO corrupt science? Why does CSIRO’s executive management contradict empirical scientific evidence? What does it reveal about Australian national governance?
Methodically using solid data, sound analysis and considered judgment to analyse CSIRO identifies core issues. Understanding gives birth to solutions that provide hope and reassurance. We can convert despair to celebration of the human spirit and use this huge opportunity to secure a far wealthier and fairer future in Australia.
A Jo Nova Update
Most geoscientists and engineers are sceptics.
WA Opposition leader wants a bit each way.
Mark McGowan , the West Australian Labor leader hoping to win the election in March and become Premier of WA, announced that he doesn’t like the Carbon Tax. But apparently he does like emissions trading, showing that he’s as keen as anyone to help large financial institutions reap nice profits for little risk, and no benefit.
History shows that you can corrupt an entire country via bad leadership. The rock-solid CSIRO we used to trust has been trashed, perhaps not entirely, but, like the ABC, it will require a thorough fumigation. Like the ABC it may need to be disbanded and re-formed with a new culture, since the existing one appears to be a victim of the Long March.
blogstrop
11 Feb 13 at 8:17 pm
We’re getting what we (via the Gubbermint) are paying for. Cash for comment. CSIRO is broken and until it is free to direct its funding to the areas where it wants to (and not to suit the political ends of the kakistocrats in power), then it’ll remain broken.
Cold-Hands
11 Feb 13 at 8:31 pm
The CSIRO is rooted. Bunndle it up with the ABC and sell it to Graeme Wood.
Steve of Ferny Hills
11 Feb 13 at 8:46 pm
As an example the recent paper Gleckler et al 2012 includes John Church of CSIRO as a coauthor.
They found that sea surface temperatures rose 0.125 C in 50 years due to mankind. The ABC got quite excited about this.
But if anthropogenic warming is only 0.125 C in five decades we don’t have much to fear. It fits the low sensitivity hypothesis like a glove.
But you wouldn’t have gotten this message from the paper or the ABC.
Bruce of Newcastle
11 Feb 13 at 8:47 pm
I think I am uncomfortable with anyone who starts prating on about
When all he needs to do is look at the numbers. It stops looking like a disinterested investigation and becomes more like an unhinged rant.
Entropy
11 Feb 13 at 8:56 pm
It’s not just the CSIRO that have lost all credibility. It’s science itself.
It will probably be decades before the phrase ‘Scientists report that …’ is taken seriously again.
jupes
11 Feb 13 at 9:13 pm
The corruption of science and media knows no boundaries. After WWII in Germany there was denazification, and in Japan a similar exercise was instituted. Will Australia need such a cleansing?
stackja
11 Feb 13 at 9:53 pm
Opportunity Cost, ouch, scary to think about that.
Harold
11 Feb 13 at 11:02 pm
I’m surprised you guys at the Cat have never covered the work Sophie Mirabella is doing in exposing the toxic workplace culture at CSIRO.
She and her Coalition colleagues have had the chiefs of the organisation on the run for well over a year now, to the point that they’ve had to shift from issuing complete denials about their problems to announcing an independent inquiry into their own basic organisational practices.
The most recent (long) admission/statement from the CSIRO can be found here:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/About-CSIRO/How-we-work/Reinforcing-CSIRO-values/CSIRO-resolves-to-strengthen-values-and-culture.aspx
Even media like the SMH and the ABC have been regularly covering the growing list of revelations Mirabella and co have exposed.
Desmond
11 Feb 13 at 11:50 pm
As an undergrad Chemical Engineer, I worked at CSIRO one summer in the early 90s. I currently work for an ex CSIRO scientist who with his then business partner and the blessing of the CSIRO, created a successful startup business. It’s only one of two to ever come out of the organisation.
During my time at this business I’ve been directly involved in R&D and have lead projects that have involved former CSIRO scientists we used as consultants to do the lab work we’re not able to conduct. These scientists were discarded by the CSIRO piece by piece until they were eventually disbanded. This particular devision was world renowned, developed numerous commercial products that were inavative and world class. Despite all this and nearly 75 years of accumulated research, they were lock, stock and barrel thrown to the four winds . Literally.
Given that this is not just isolated to one division, I’m not surprised that this once great institution has gravitated towards the climate change gravy train with such gusto. The travesty is that it’s reputation has been badly damaged in the process.
Rohan
12 Feb 13 at 7:32 am
C.S.I.R.O.?
An acronym which stands for:
Crap
Science
Inspired by
Religious
Organizations.
Repent (and pay taxes) and be saved!
Up The Workers!
12 Feb 13 at 9:33 am
“When all he needs to do is look at the numbers. It stops looking like a disinterested investigation and becomes more like an unhinged rant.”
I waded into the ‘report’. I suspect you’re right.
The word ‘evidence’ devoid of adjective appears 20 times. The phrase “empirical scientific evidence” appears 72 times – it’s eerily reminiscent of Bird.
That’s basically all the report entails, descriptions of Roberts asking lots of people for evidence, getting it, and then dismissing it:
The appendices are more of the same, except with added references to his fellow crackpots like “UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr. Gray” (his capitalisation, exact phrase used in that appendix four times).
And you know the guy’s a bit of a sad figure when he twice writes “My educational qualifications are similar to those of the UN IPCC Chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri”, and even then he’s wrong.
Jarrah
12 Feb 13 at 10:36 am
Quote from the report on line (pdf):
(end of ch.2)
Sadly, it is the basis of the Abbott LNP climate policies as well.
Though many have berated me for claiming I will vote informal at the 2013 election, I see no other way to protest against ALL the traitorous politicians who push the UN-IPCC Agenda 21, hiding behind the alarmist global warming fraud.
handjive
12 Feb 13 at 12:07 pm