Climate Change- CSIRO

josko

josko

Hi all,

I had the pleasure of attending the No Carbon Tax Rally down at Canberra on Tuesday.

Loads of fun..Angry Anderson sung a tune and the Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd impersonators were hilarious...especially when Kevin turned around to walk off stage and there was a (fake of course) knife sticking out of his back....:p

The most interesting speaker was a man who had been employed by the CSIRO for 35 years.

Dr Art Raiche, retired CSIRO Chief Research Scientist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-IYJUDskds

(Skip to 8mins into it for the best bits if u haven't got time:))


He talked of the days when the CSIRO was a world class organisation and worked for Australia, Agriculture and Industry.

The original Scientists of the CSIRO were the best of their day and the CSIRO was a non-Government organisation working with quality science and how useful it was to Australia. (research)

In the 80's, I noticed we were under increasing pressure to become more "Business like" and the doors were opened to "Management Consultation."

Layer upon layer of management was created, some intersecting others.

You think that your tax dollars went towards research but alot of it was devoted to letting them play their management games.... the CSIRO was sent to fancy business schools in the US and Europe and they didn't learn one thing...

Managment learned how to bring the most senior climate scientist under their control. It was OK to think independantly...as long as Management approved of it.

We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publically discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy.

If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.

We had now become a Government Enterprise. We were told by the Chairperson that we Scientists no longer worked for Australia, we had to learn that we worked for the CSIRO.
Click to expand...

And people wonder why this topic has impassioned me so much.:mad:

Regards JO
 
I have a friend who used to be a senior scientist at CSIRO...
From what I have heard, I think he would agree with Dr Raiche on the CSIRO.
He moved on a number of years ago for similar reasons.

But he would disagree with him on the scientific basis of climate change. (not sure what his views are on the carbon tax, but he certainly believes in the research related to climate change)

I think its a really difficult time to be a scientist at the moment. There is so much criticism from both sides of the climate change debate, and de-valuation of their research/work. I think if people were dissecting my profession in the same way, I would feel very angry!!

on both sides of the debate, there are vested interests, with big money and big agendas. I dont feel like anything I hear is really independent or unbiased, and so far I havent heard from anyone who really answers my questions.

Too much propoganda and not enough facts. (from both sides)
 
I don't think scientists for the most part have it wrong anyway around climate change.

It is the cost v benifit of moving unilaterally which is the issue. Scientists should not be expected to understand this side of things and I am sick of people saying scientist A thinks we must move now or in this case scientist B thinks we should not.

What authority do they have to speak about economic reform such as this? They have no sodding idea about the effects on future GDP or trade competitiveness etc. Sure Tim Flannery might say our oceans might rise by 1m but I could not give a sod if it costs us billions more to prevent this than just go with the flow and using our vast coal reserves prepare / build for it.

We do not seem to know this and the little understanding I have of the economic models used makes me nervous that too much has been spent on the science and not enough studies on the cost / benifit done. given the scientific report was released to the public before the price was set but the economic modelling not released till the 11th hour I can sure tell which part they consider themselves weakest on...
 
josko has "Realist" under his username, yet seems to probably think climate change isn't real.
Bit of irony for you there!
 
Well sorry, names ending in "o" are generally male.
"Once again"?

The gender of the person posting was really the point that I hinged my post on, wasn't it?
 
spludgey said:
Well sorry, names ending in "o" are generally male.
"Once again"?

The gender of the person posting was really the point that I hinged my post on, wasn't it?
Click to expand...

nope.

the assumption of those two factors can pretty much determine a portion of your thinking process of information presented to you at face value.
 
In spite of the instructions to only agree with the government, occasionally something slips through that would embarrass them if the media would publish it.

The last CSIRO statement from the weather station on the NW coast of Tassie does state that the Southern Hemisphere is a CO2 sink for the Northern Hemisphere.

Which means of course that no matter what industries we drive overseas with draconian taxes, when the product is made in the Northern Hemi then shipped back here the CO2 still drifts back here anyway :confused:
 
Aaron Sice said:
nope.

the assumption of those two factors can pretty much determine a portion of your thinking process of information presented to you at face value.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the null argument!

What exactly is your point except for the fact that I made a small mistake?

By the way you didn't capitalise your words at the start of the sentence. You probably appreciate me pointing this out.

Macca said:
The last CSIRO statement from the weather station on the NW coast of Tassie does state that the Southern Hemisphere is a CO2 sink for the Northern Hemisphere.

Which means of course that no matter what industries we drive overseas with draconian taxes, when the product is made in the Northern Hemi then shipped back here the CO2 still drifts back here anyway :confused:
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no.
What you're referring to is that the northern hemisphere (with the vast bulk of the global population) emitts much more CO2 than the southern hemisphere. Because of this the CO2 moves south.
But this doesn't change the fact that Australia has the highest per capita CO2 emission levels in the world (excluding a few tiny countries).
A lot of countries are far more proactive than Australia on this (arguably even China), so I think this is a bit of a copout.
No, Australia can't achieve anything alone, but you have to always start at home in my opinion.
 
spludgey said:
josko has "Realist" under his username, yet seems to probably think climate change isn't real.
Bit of irony for you there!
Click to expand...

No, in assuming and catagorising me....you have already made a BIG mistake. This attitude is so typical of anyone that will "assume" that they know what a person is thinking, because that person opposes what they believe to be true....related or not related to the original topic.

The media and anyone that questions why the majority of Australian's do not want a CO2 Tax are so quick to try and assume, judge and "think for the person/people they are attacking. Fact or fiction...REAL or not.

If you had even bothered to look at the video you would note Dr Raiche's opening question:

"Is there anybody here that denies that climate changes?"

Now to lighten things up...a silly question:

If we had the highest H2O levels "per capita", would you want that taxed? I find this tax as ridiculous as that question.

Regards JO
 
Last edited:
pennyk said:
I have a friend who used to be a senior scientist at CSIRO...
From what I have heard, I think he would agree with Dr Raiche on the CSIRO.
He moved on a number of years ago for similar reasons.

But he would disagree with him on the scientific basis of climate change. (not sure what his views are on the carbon tax, but he certainly believes in the research related to climate change)

I think its a really difficult time to be a scientist at the moment. There is so much criticism from both sides of the climate change debate, and de-valuation of their research/work. I think if people were dissecting my profession in the same way, I would feel very angry!!on both sides of the debate, there are vested interests, with big money and big agendas. I dont feel like anything I hear is really independent or unbiased, and so far I havent heard from anyone who really answers my questions.

Too much propoganda and not enough facts. (from both sides)
Click to expand...

Hi Penny,

I totally agree with you. Dr Raiche also said similarly, that there ARE opposing views and from many different expert scientists, a few of which he mentioned. What he did say was that NO: the evidence is not conclusive and as far as a tax on CO2...it will achieve nothing.

A man like that does not stand on a platform infront of literally thousands of people, not to mention mainstream media and profess his opposition to this tax.

Regards JO
 
tom32 said:
I don't think scientists for the most part have it wrong anyway around climate change.

It is the cost v benifit of moving unilaterally which is the issue. Scientists should not be expected to understand this side of things and I am sick of people saying scientist A thinks we must move now or in this case scientist B thinks we should not.

...
Click to expand...

Thats a really good point.
I have thought for years that the biggest problem for environmentalists is that they havent got a well thought out and communicated economic plan of how helping the environment can also help the economy.
I think this is where Malcolm Turnbull has a good opportunity. I think he could take the emotional heat out of the argument that Abbott has been busy putting into it, and actually come up with a plan that makes sense for both the environment and the economy.
 
Well, yes and no.
What you're referring to is that the northern hemisphere (with the vast bulk of the global population) emitts much more CO2 than the southern hemisphere. Because of this the CO2 moves south.
But this doesn't change the fact that Australia has the highest per capita CO2 emission levels in the world (excluding a few tiny countries).A lot of countries are far more proactive than Australia on this (arguably even China), so I think this is a bit of a copout.
No, Australia can't achieve anything alone, but you have to always start at home in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Fact: A tax will not change the Global Climate....up, down...sideways...

Regards JO
 
But this doesn't change the fact that Australia has the highest per capita CO2 emission levels in the world (excluding a few tiny countries).
Click to expand...

What do you put this down to? I reckon it's because we do a lot of mining and refining and they are energy intensive. The US, on the other hand, writes software, makes movies, sells iPods and other gadgets built in Asia and what manufacturing they do is high value added.

Until we can compete in these industries I reckon we must do what we are currently doing. Our mining industry directly employs less people than there are on Woolworth's payroll but picture how much energy those big machines and trains burn. Each worker would have a bigger carbon footprint than a hundred Yanks. If we don't do it, someone else MUST. Will they be more, or less, efficient than us?
 
come 2015, the price of carbon could very easily be set at $400/t, which means a $23/t tax would be just over 5%.

how many taxes do you know that are this low? most are 15, 22, 30 etc....

imagine the value of a tree?
 
We have high CO2 emissions because we live a high consumption lifestyle - cars, electricity, gadgets, industrial agriculture, packaging, travel, high food miles, pharmaceutical, dental and medical - all high users of fossil fuels in one way or another. High fossil fuel use = high CO2 emissions (when you process or burn fossil fuels you release water + CO2) .

The thing people forget is that most of this fossil fuel has been out of circulation for the best part of 360 million years. It's been locked up underground. It hasn't been part of the climate equation. Over the last 300 years we've released almost half of it from underground stores. Where does it go?

Not to trees, it's young growing trees that take up CO2 and there's not many of those. Old trees don't take it up and we are still clearing many of those globally. (If we had a massive global tree planting program we'd be in with a chance.)

So we are releasing a lot of CO2 via using up fossil fuels but have no way to then take it up again in any useful volume. It accumulates in the atmosphere as greenhouse gases, leading to global warming.

Mining coal is small bikkies by comparison.
 
I live in a regional city and I actually am revegtating my own block in my spare time. I find a lot of people here don't think CO2 is an issue because when they drive to the beach on the weekend they see lots of trees and lots of paddocks and all is green and right with the world.

The volume of young trees we'd need to counterbalance the release of CO2 would be phenomenal, and I doubt any of our farmers (or those o/s) would be too happy being told they need to return much of their land to trees.

Globally, no, there's not many young growing trees.
 

Similar threads

P
Chile
2 3
Replies
50
Views
14K
PJ1
P
MarkB
Should Australia Go Nuclear? (or at least move further down that path)
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
HotRod
HotRod
Gockie
Most fun jobs you've ever had
2 3
Replies
41
Views
8K
chindonly
C
I
Themes for next few decades in Australia?
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Angel
A
KangaBanga
Top End owned by corrupt officials
Replies
15
Views
4K
Freckle
Freckle
Back
Top