Climate Change- CSIRO

[Bigblu]

so it was industry that commissioned the report, not the government or allied NGO?

As I said most of our money comes from industry at the project level. CSIRO is structured via a matrix. On one side you have the divisions (i.e CSIRO marine and atmospheric research) which controls the labour (i.e hires me). On the other side you have the flagships (i.e Wealth from Oceans). The flagships have the money. If I want to keep working for CSIRO I need to get industry supported projects up (or at least on them) and then get one of the flagships to contribute. The division then hits the flagship up for a co-contribution (usually 50%). Usually there is about a 100% mark up on the project costs to cover overheads etc (keeping the lights on etc). If I'm underallocated then my job is in doubt. That report would have been commissioned by one or all of the flagships (or management). But what does it matter to you if you accept the science (as in your last post) but are not too concerned about the impacts? Still going for the great big conspiracy angle?

There's a section at the end on the effects on future changes. The report is available here:
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.aspx

 

[Bigblu]

A quick look at Web of Knowledge produced 315000 peer reviewed studies/papers relating to climate change. Of that 120000 were related to atmospheric or environmental science from who knows how many organisations. You would think that you guys could produce just one study that backed up your argument. One paper. Just one bluddy paper. One study. Something... No its all a big conspiracy!

 

[Bigblu]

you need to remember that evolution happens when one species absorbs a genome of another. it doesn't happen one gene at a time over hundreds of generations.

we lose a few species and gain a few more. oh well. humans are a result of this, we may change too.

As a biologist I would have to say that would be the worst explanation of evolution I have ever seen (and I've seen some rippers). Sometimes best to not post on subjects you know little about in case it causes public embarrassment.

 

[truong]

I’m with you Bigblu with regard to the science of it all, however your posts are typical of someone who doesn’t understand that the argument needs to be won among the general public, not just among scientists. For governments to take action there needs to be public approval, and this is the domain of politics, not just science.

The scientific community needs to realise they have to win the political debate, or have politicians good enough to win it for them, because winning the scientific debate alone is a hollow victory.

A lot of voters are currently bitter about how they’ve been mislead about the carbon tax. They’re disillusioned by the lack of progress after decades of useless, costly global talkfests. They’re angry for being taken for granted. So they show their displeasure by rejecting everything and everyone related to what they perceive as a scam. In the same swoop climate science is thrown on the scrap heap.

For you to say that “we know and you don’t” is not going to win a single one of these voters. It just exacerbates the emotions of it all.

 

[Bigblu]

I’m with you Bigblu with regard to the science of it all, however your posts are typical of someone who doesn’t understand that the argument needs to be won among the general public, not just among scientists. For governments to take action there needs to be public approval, and this is the domain of politics, not just science.

The scientific community needs to realise they have to win the political debate, or have politicians good enough to win it for them, because winning the scientific debate alone is a hollow victory.

A lot of voters are currently bitter about how they’ve been mislead about the carbon tax. They’re disillusioned by the lack of progress after decades of useless, costly global talkfests. They’re angry for being taken for granted. So they show their displeasure by rejecting everything and everyone related to what they perceive as a scam. In the same swoop climate science is thrown on the scrap heap.

For you to say that “we know and you don’t” is not going to win a single one of these voters. It just exacerbates the emotions of it all.

I agree with what you are saying but I not a climate scientist. Consequently im not really qualified to talk climate science. Happy to talk biology or science in general (and how to evaluate it). I wonder how many of these misunderstandings could be cleared by better science education in high schools etc (not looking to blame teachers - another area I know little about). I thought HiEquity ended this thread nicely a couple of posts ago. I'm not certain that it's the role of scientists to get tangled up in the political debate. I think CSIRO is pretty active in getting information out to people willing to listen.

 

[Bigblu]

"josko" is also a woman, but hey - once again you fail to understand what you're posting about.

Ok I admit I was a bit harsh on AS. There's probably not that many people out there who could give a decent definition on evolution and it's not central to his argument. But if he gives it he should be able to take it.

 

[truong]

I agree with what you are saying but I not a climate scientist. Consequently im not really qualified to talk climate science. Happy to talk biology or science in general (and how to evaluate it). I wonder how many of these misunderstandings could be cleared by better science education in high schools etc (not looking to blame teachers - another area I know little about). I thought HiEquity ended this thread nicely a couple of posts ago. I'm not certain that it's the role of scientists to get tangled up in the political debate. I think CSIRO is pretty active in getting information out to people willing to listen.

The science community needs to invest more in the conservative side of politics. Getting too close to the Greens will only result in a lost battle.

As it was much easier for a Labor government to implement economic rationalism policies (Hawke, Keating) it will be much easier to get pro-environment policies adopted with a Coalition government.

Some environmentalists are choosing the wrong political friends and making the wrong political enemies.

 

[geoffw]

Closing the thread