skippy. wrote on Jul 21
st, 2011 at 9:13am:
kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 21
st, 2011 at 9:05am:
Oh dear skippy and astro goose.
CSIRO and the Clive Spash controversy
Recently CSIRO was in the news for allegedly suppressing the publication of a research paper that was critical of government policy on climate change.
In his paper, the author, Clive Spash, basically argues that an emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gases is not a good idea. CSIRO management asked Clive to withdraw the paper after it had already been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal.
The controversy made quite a splash in the media, particularly in the Australian newspaper (e.g. see here, here) and was reported around the world, with CSIRO copping a lot of flack.
Reading the available material, it seems to me that the story is a bit more nuanced than came across in the media.
The heart of the issue is CSIRO's Policy on Public Comment by CSIRO Staff. The policy basically says it encourages public statements by CSIRO researchers, subject to some constraints. The critical constraint in this case is "Policy Statement 3. CSIRO staff should not advocate, defend or publicly canvass the merits of government or opposition policies (including policies of previous Commonwealth governments, or State or local or foreign governments)."
In explaining this policy, the document says:
As representatives of CSIRO, staff should avoid making direct comment for or against government or opposition policy. In this respect, CSIRO policy may differ from some Australian universities; CSIRO differs in that it is a Commonwealth Government agency. This gives CSIRO the advantage that it can participate directly in the internal policy development processes of government.
As Commonwealth officials CSIRO employees are bound by the Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees and Related Matters – November 1989. These guidelines state that Commonwealth officials:
Should not advocate, defend or canvass the merits of government policies (including policies of previous Commonwealth governments, or State or foreign governments).
Now, there is something that I didn't hear in the media. The constraint is not specific to CSIRO - it applies to all Commonwealth employees. CSIRO staff may be researchers, but they are still Commonwealth employees
Read more.
http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/pd/pd0162.htm
Where does it say clive is a climate change confusionalist??? just because he may be critical of policy does not in any way suggest he is a climate change confusionalist, lovey.
When you read my post for the FIRST TIME you'll see I'm asking for climate change confusionalists that are qualified scientists, keep up with the program, sweety.
A few observations -
1) Climate Change is real.
2) Human impact on Climate Change is a fact, the debate is how much impact.
3) One can believe that Climate Change is real, but not accept certain government policies will successfully negate our human impact &/or those factors impacting the natural cycle.
I do not believe the current Carbon Tax, nor an ETS will successfully negate either our human or the natural changes, which are impacting our Climate.
4) I do accept that Climate Change is real and there are enormous amounts of information to confirm we are heading toward another Warming Peak, which will most likely be followed by another Ice Age.
5) I do accept the scientific arguments that say human input is impacting the Climate and that it is likely to be forcing us towards future Climatic parameters that would not otherwise have happened.
6) I do not accept the argument often put about our input being very low, is absolutely erroneous. It is all about maintaining a balance and if that balance is lost, then there will be ramifications.
7) For those who say, we've been in this position before and we have thrived, perhaps you may want to research just how close to extinction we came in the last Ice Age.
You may also like to look at the fact that the enormous growth in human populations has mainly happened over the 200 years, in conjunction with a massive growth in "Fossil Fuels", which has been the primary driver of Population & Economic growth, but also of Climate Change.
Those "Fossil Fuels" are finite, they are now Peaking and in the decades ahead the Decline of those "Fossil Fuels", will again induce massive changes in Population levels/growth, Economics & in the Climate.
For all of that, I believe that we owe it to future generations, to at least try to maintain the Climate band suitable to human survival and that not withstanding some other very pressing issues, Climate Change is the greastest single issue we now face!
Forum
Pages: 
Monckton and Dennis - Dennis squished, next (Read 12829 times)
