ABC Four Corners ran an interesting show last night on the anti-science interest groups who dominate the formulation and official discussion of policy on global warming in Australia. Transcript here, along with discussion from Tim Lambert and Larvatus Prodeo.
What particularly interested me was the number of scientists who had been pushed out of CSIRO, or had left of their own volition, after being tightly censored in what they could say about global warming, and the emissions reductions that would be needed to stabilise the climate (the latter point is particularly sensitive since any actual number implies a target and government policy is opposed to targets).
In particular, I was struck by the fact that global warming contrarians commonly explain the overwhelming support of climate scientists for the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming in terms of careerism. The contrarians say that if the scientists deviated from the dominant consensus, they would lose their jobs or their grant funding.
THe Four Corners report made it clear that, in Australia (as also in the US) the exact opposite is the truth. Speaking out in support of science on global warming is a very bad career move, at least for anyone employed by the government. In climate science, where the big organisations have been CSIRO and the Met Bureau, that constraint applies to most people working in the field.
John Quiggin 
There was another report somewhere else that I currently can’t remember which showed that at least they got good jobs in other countries. In this respect you might be able to to look at it positively, in the sense that if science in the US is getting underfunded and lots of really smart people are getting censored, one can imagine that more really smart people who moved to the US might start moving to other countries. In this case it could be a bit like the fall of Carthage as people with the potential to work in high tech areas move away from the US and take that potential with them.
Perhaps the real solution to global warming is to ask the opinion of 18 year olds rather than old corrupt people who are going to die before too many problems from it emerge.
Yeah, those contrarians are horrible, glad I’m not one of them!
Claims that the fossil fuel industry had unprecedented access to confidential Commonwealth government processes and the silencing of senior climate change scientists require an independent investigation, the Australian Greens said today.
The allegations point to a corruption of the process for developing government policy on the most critical environmental issue facing the nation, Greens climate change spokesperson Senator Christine Milne said.
http://greens.org.au/mediacentre/mediareleases/senatormilne/130206a
Mark – I was not really convinced that they do. There is the chance that the people taped were just braggers and had no such access. I think the normal level of access they have combined with an agreeable coal mining government is sufficient to have warped the policy direction toward fossil fuels.
Nothing suprises me about the Howard Government and the suppression or denial of the truth. We see the same forces at work in the US . There is a recent book on the Republicans war of science…on the matter of global warming,on stem-cell research,on evolution…a host of other matters too.
So in Canberra the same culture dominates.Even if the fact were even more obvious,they would still lie and distort. They are congenitial liars and like their US buddies,they will deny the facts until they no longer can…and then someone else will have inherent a vast crisis. One should read the writing of the emminent UK authority ,Sir James Lovelock,who sees the long term effect of global warming as threatening the basis ofg human civilizatioin itself…but don’t expert John Howard’s mates to listen…only profit and “the economy” matters to them. Liars all !!(Iraq, WMD’s,children overboard,wheat-deals,whatever !!)
In terms of Johns argument about careerism I agree with him. People might keep silent about their beliefs in order to preserve a well paid job, however very few people will fabricate their entire belief system purely for material gain. Some belief systems are things that people will often die for rather than change. Whether a particular belief system correlates with the truth is open to debate.
The suggestion that pro AGW scientists are just making stuff up for grants and promotions does not wash in my view. Hopefully we can also see an end to the claims made on this website that those in favour of privatisation, tax cuts and smaller government are on the take.
On global warming John Quiggin has previously explained how the Kyoto protocol is a low cost solution. In this I think he is also largely correct. However I am still keen to see John Quiggin explain why he thinks that the Kyoto Protocol is NOT a low benefit solution.
To paraphrase the details:-
1. John Quiggin has argued that over a decade the Kyoto Protocol would defer economic growth by merely a few weeks.
2. Others have shown that over a century the Kyoto Protocol would defer global warming by merely a few years.
So to me the Kyoto Protocol looks like a low cost solution with very minor benefits.
Clearly the advocates of the Kyoto Protocol envisage that it will evolve into something of high benefit. And the opponents envisage that it will evolve into something of high cost.
I am keen to see John Quiggin explain why he thinks that the Kyoto Protocol is NOT a low benefit solution. Or perhaps he agrees that it is a low benefit solution.
Terje,
In regarding to the ‘cost-benefit’ analysis of Kyoto as it is, versus, a beefed up Kyoto, versus inaction, which you demand of Professor Quiggin, you are truly nit-picking.
If you would only take off your neo-liberal economic ‘rationalist’ blinkers, you would understand that most of the manufactured items for which so much greenhouse pollution has been generated, which is either now in landfill, or destined, in a matter of months to end up in landfill, is of virtually no long term benefit to humankind, anyway.
We don’t need expensive time-consuming research to understand that.
The unfettered ‘free market’ has clearly failed to make rational use of this planet’s scarce non-renewable resources so far, and is bringing our environment, and our civilisation, to the brink of catastrophe.
The ‘free market’ is highly unlikely to change its behaviour in the near future, that is, until unless our elected parliamentary representatives finally decide to use the powers vested in them to rein in the selfish behaviour of our corporations in the interests of the broader community.
When they do, there is no question that they should act to dramatically act to vastly curtail the current levels of consumption of fossil fuels and implement plans to allow our society to cope with less energy, as it has, before.
That is a very small price to pay for our future and for the sake of future generations.
I am continually struck by the similarities between the operation of the Howard government and the operation of Republicans in the US. It almost seems that the current crop of political operatives in Canberra, both those in and outside the government, learnt their craft in Washington.
Things like industry lobbyists writing ministerial briefings make me feel like I am reading about US politics. In the US it has gotten to the point where industry lobbyist actually write some of the legislation affecting them, which is then passed without an opportunity for anybody to actually read it beforehand. I wonder if the Coalition having control of the Senate will result in the same thing happening here one day.
Does anyone remember Mr Howard’s first energy minister, Senator Warwick Parer, a rich Queensland coal-miner? Does anyone remember that he got sick of being a minister because questions kept being asked about his continued involvement in the management of his coal companies, but not before he had brought about the abolition the Energy R&D Corporation, which mainly funded R&D into renewables?
Why should anyone be surprised at the continuing coal-first policies of this government? But remember, it’s not ‘picking winners’ in subsidising coal research because it always lets the market decide. Doesn’t it?
I am keen to see John Quiggin explain why he thinks that the Kyoto Protocol is NOT a low benefit solution. Or perhaps he agrees that it is a low benefit solution.
yeah, well i am keen to see some substantiation of this, and, should such be forthcoming, an explanation of the errors therein:
Hopefully we can also see an end to the claims made on this website that those in favour of privatisation, tax cuts and smaller government are on the take.
oh well, i guess we can’t always get what we want.
Terje, firstly I do think you have fairly characterised the question.
But the answer to the question is obvious, and it lies in international politics and diplomacy rather than economics. Kyoto is both low cost and low benefit (although IMHO the benefits outweigh the costs), however given the recalcitrance, shrtsightedness and sheer wilful bloodymindedness of many of the negotiating parties, all seeking to maximise their short term advantage and not giving a crap about future generations or the biosphere, it was about as good as was going to be gotten at the time. It was only ever considered a prelude for real action.
If we stay in the current fettered view of what an economy and a society should look like, then Kyoto II will be high cost, I agree. It will unfortunately be totally inevitable (to pay those costs) unless we all want to live in a dystopian wasteland. I still think that an economic/industrial revolution towards a low carbon economy is quite achievable and will be much less painful than many people who cannot get out of their mental straightjackets will admit. I beleive that the much vaunted (particularly by the free-marketeers) human inguenity and novel technology will be able to rapidly transform the world.
But I also believe that we’re on a trajectory towards ecological armageddon, so I like to think happy thoughts that we’ll all pull through to keep me sane.
Terje,
The point of Kyoto was that while it’s direct benefits would be small, it was believed that it would smooth the way for bigger and better things. There were several ways in which it was hoped it would do this. So far I think the jury is still out on its success, but as long as there is a reasonable prospect that it might work it should be supported, even if it itself won’d do very much.
It almost seems that the current crop of political operatives in Canberra, both those in and outside the government, learnt their craft in Washington.
Well one of Howard’s sons did work on Bush’s 2004 campaign.
Adoption of liability for greenhouse induced loss would set a cat among the pigeons. If Australian coal produces 10% of the world’s GHG, then maybe we should pay up prorata. For example $US30bn towards the reconstruction of New Orleans.
Ender,
It maybe that the braggers may just be pumping up their own egos, but their comments was used in a peer reviewed work (the PHD). Because of this I would expect that it would be a bad idea for the author of that PHD to use these interviews (if they were dubious) and I expect he and his supervisors knew this.
Secondly, it is important to keep in mind that this government has had a “put all our eggs in one (coal) basket” mentallity on this problem and has not tried to hard to hide it. This is reflected in its heavy backing of geosequestratoin and poor backing (when compared to other countries) of other energy technologies. Now, this could be in part due to our former head scientific advisor working half time for Rio Tinto which may have skewed his view slightly…. I do not wish to suggest that he was corrupt or anything like that, but I have always wondered what the bosses and shareholders of rio tinto would have said (to him) if he had suggested a broader multi energy source direction (wind/solar/hotrocks/tidal & wave power etc) and encouraged the government to adequately subsidise the needed research in this direction.
It certainly looked bad on 4 Corners, but unfortunately I’m not surprised. Howard himself is pernickety about things like Cabinet docs (its part of his control freakery), and is in any case far too smart to be so blatant, but some of his ministers – especially early in his government – were different.
Merredin though misses the point. Even if the best chance *globally* of averting catastrophe is a focus on renewables research, though, it doesn’t follow that Australia should focus its efforts there. We clearly should use our extremely limited resources to chase solutions – even less likely solutions – that favour us. We can safely rely on others, with much bigger resources, to explore the solutions that don’t favour us.
Terje,
Partially the answer depends on what you mean by “Kyoto”.
The impact of the cuts agreed to for the five five years on climate will be modest and the costs of those cuts will be relaitvely high because much of the cost of settign up the institutions such as national carbon accoutnign systems and trading exchanges are front-loaded.
Without knowing what targets are adopted for the period past 2012 it is impossible to quantify either the costs or benefits.
Terje,
I asked this question of our good host some months ago. His response was that Kyoto was low benefit of itself, but was a good way to set up for further, future cuts. In essence, it established the principle.
Derrida,
I don’t agree that putting more time and money into renewables research doesn’t favour us. After all, Australia gets plenty of sun, we are surrounded by oceans near our big cities and the hot rocks (geothermal) potential is looking good. These are all resources to be tapped and many can be easily exported. A good example is the new method of extracting power from waves featured on Catalyst last year. From what I’ve read there is already interest in this from around the world.
I guess my question is “what’s so special about climate scientists”?
When I worked as a scientist in the public service, if I’d made unauthorised public pronouncements about policy, I would have been fired. I’d be sure the same would have been true of my Dad, who was a “top” scientist in a Federal department.
If these “top” scientists want to quit and run around with the WWF crying that the sky is falling, fine, but why should they feel that they should be able to do that on the public dime?
James Lane says: “If these “topâ€? scientists want to quit and run around with the WWF crying that the sky is falling, fine, but why should they feel that they should be able to do that on the public dime?”
In my view scientists on the public payroll have a right and a duty to address the public on the issues that concern them. The public’s right to hear what scientists actually think is far more important than the right of a Government to avoid embarrassment.
Those who are on the public dime should be true “public servants”, not robots under the thumb of pollies. Does that make sense James?
I think it is more complex than that Steve, employees are paid by corporations (public and private) to do work for that corporation and that work remains the property of that organisation and anyone who releases information of that work without approval of the owner could be seen as a thief.
Imagine if you paid me to come to your house to build a shed with your tools and materials and I took home some of the materials, how would you feel?
Its all property.
Rog, don’t be such a fool. Climate change research is not “property” and subject to patents. It is information that belongs in the public domain without any restrictions.
If we lacked confirmation that GW “contrarians” are anti-science authoritarians, we’re getting plenty in this thread.
Steve,
I don’t know what you do for a living, but you seem to have a poor understanding about how government (or business for that matter) works. What if a bunch of “top” scientists have different (but heartfelt) views. Should they all issue divergent press releases? How’s that going to help the public?
The only way the process is for the experts to argue it out, and the senior bureaucrat make a balanced recommendation to the Minister. It’s an imperfect system, but the only one that will work in the long term. It’s also frustrating for people with contrary views – fair enough, you can quit and do what you want.
I mentioned earlier that my father was a “top” scientist in a government department (in fact, he was a department head). He was once strongly opposed to a policy decision (actually a famous one), but (publically) kept his counsel. As it turned out, my father was quite wrong, and the policy was spectacularly successful. If my father had “come out” publically at the time, it would have likely hindered public acceptance of the policy, which in fact saved thousands of lives.
In this instance, the “system” worked. No doubt there might be contrary examples. But if you work for the government, you should play by the rules, unless there are issues of corruption or malpractice.
JQ, the 4Corners program while interesting was a bit of a mixed bag. I was unconvinced of the conspiratorial view proposition but did find it strongly supportive of the ‘group-think’ problem associated with all organisations. The evidence since Senator Parer’s non-demise early in the Howard years, the strong support of the extractive industries for the HR Nicholls society merely demonstrates, to me anyway, that the Liberal government is not a captive of these interests but rather has always been a strong supportive spokesparty for such Australian interests. I do not know why we are constantly suprised by what is obvious. The ‘Mafia’ tag is but a sign of that policy and political arrogance.
The counterpoint was that good science and credible scientists buck the ‘group think’ trend, thus those who speak out suffer the consequences, good science -v- bad policy. The CSIRO has been gradualy gutted for years as they have been forced to either commercialise or fund from commercial outcomes to the detriment of good science which sometimes has no real commercial outcome, there have been a lot of good people shoved out beside the climate scientists. The contrarians will find any explanation to suit their ideology, ala the AWB and Vaile’s assertion today that it was basicaly unAustalian for people to criticise the AWB and hence threaten the wheat trade.
Still better to keep speaking the truth and patiently arguing for what is right, pity is at the moment, every one has cloth ears.
JQ,
Why do you think I’m anti-science? I’ve always loved science. My father was an internationally recognised scientist, and impressed on me the importance of critical thinking.
Maybe it’s because I’m standing up and expressing a contrary view… hang on, what was the theme of this thread?
Ignoring whether it is Climate Science, or health or defence or whatever department you work for in a Government – it is the elected government that sets policies. It is not the employees’ right to go pontificating in public on policy unless policy is their job.
Steve Munn, your theory on a public policy free for all is a recipe for disaster. You actually undermine the ability of public servants to provide sound advice without fear or favour to Governments. Despite the real problems and the media beat ups and the carping from all sides of politics, public servants generally do a good job and this is because they have the discipline required to implement policies, even if they didn’t vote for the government they work for or disagree.
As for the view that “How terrible is the Howard Government” for controlling public policy – well, it applies to all Governments at all levels. They all do it. A recent example in WA was when a Doctor from the Childrens’ Hospital spoke about alleged problems risking the lives of children. Within 24 hours the Doctor was saying it was “misquoted” and having met with the Minister the issues were being clarified and dealt with.
Slightly off topic but when it comes to public pontificating about policy and issues – what is it with Academics who write to Newspapers and give their address as the University so that it implies that their personal opinion is the view of that University?? I don’t mind them using Dr or Prof in their title by why not use their own suburb address rather than their University.
JQ – perhaps you could throw some light on the practice.
Interesting Steve how you say climate research is not “property”, how do you think it should be funded?
Razor says: “Steve Munn, your theory on a public policy free for all is a recipe for disaster. ”
Your point is extremely weak. How is it that CSIRO scientists publicly expressing their views on climate science will lead to disaster? How will this cause the sky to fall in? Are you being honest?
We live in a democracy and it is generally accepted by supporters of democracy that open public debate is a good thing. It may be old fashioned, but I support that view.
The public gains nothing from being kept in the dark like mushrooms. We need to know what eminent scientists think in order to make informed judgements on scientific issues.
By the way, I was a federal public servant for 15 years and I never hesitated to comment on government policy.
John Lane: The only way the process is for the experts to argue it out, and the senior bureaucrat make a balanced recommendation to the Minister. It’s an imperfect system, but the only one that will work in the long term.
Ever worked in the policy section of a government department, John?
Steve,
You must have been in a pretty timid department or one where the policy issues weren’t terribly earth shattering. I spent 10 years working for the Federal Government in a Department where commenting to the public about anything outside your field of expertise, let alone policy, drew anything from a ‘meeting without tea or coffee’ through to formal action.
I’ve got nothing against spirited open public debate. Public servants do not have the right to go into public debate on Government policy in their persona as public servants. One of the big criticisms of Governments at State and Federal Level is the politicisation of the Public Service. Part of the cause of Governments wanting to install their own people in place of Public Servants is due to Public Servants politicising themselves. Public Servants need to be able to give frank and fearless advice and they undermine their ability to do that if they are active in open public debate that clearly exposes their personal biases.
The same logic applies to why Cabinet Papers are kept from public release for so long – it allows members of cabinet to have free and frank exchanges on matters of policy without it being in the public arena. It is a strength of the Westminster system.
The fallacy in James Lane’s argument is to equate the position of bodies like CSIRO and the Met Bureau with that of government departments with a function of advising the executive government on policy, and of administering government policy.
Clearly there must be (and always have been) significant constraints on the freedom of public servants employed in such departments to express publicly their own personal views on government policy. But neither CSIRO nor the Met Bureau performs such functions. The role of CSIRO especially is better equated with that of a university, where traditionally academic freedom of speech (at least in the academic’s area of expertise) has always been jealously guarded and broadly accepted, as an essential part of the open discourse without which human knowledge cannot flourish and increase.
There is no sensible basis for suppressing that sort of freedom of speech on the part of scientists employed by a body whose primary function, as its name indicates, is to undertake and disseminate scientific research rather than advise on and administer policy. Similarly with a meteorological bureau whose function is to research, understand and publicly disseminate knowledge and prediction about weather and its long-term cousin climate.
To pre-empt an obvious response, it is certainly true that CSIRO conducts industry-based/applied research. There are therefore obvious and perfectly reasonable “commercial-in-confidence” reasons why governments might (and do) place some constraints on the freedom of speech of its scientists to discuss such research publicly. But it would be difficult to argue, for instance, that Graham Pearman’s views and conclusions about climate science ought to be suppressed for commerical-in-confidence reasons. A fortiori for the Met Bureau, which conducts little or no commercial research.
Actually they are vision enhancing super goggles. You should get yourself a pair.
Ken – the first letter in CSIRO stands for Commonwealth – it is a Federally funded Department. If the employees of the CSIRO want to be treated like University Academics then go and work for a University. Otherwise, the people who pay the bills get to make the rules. The same applies for the BOM. They are Public Servants.
Yeah, that’s an intelligent comment, Razor. It’s not like the Feds fund universities or anything…
Of course under Brendan Nelson the universities were headed on exactly the same path as the CSIRO. That doesn’t excuse what happened at CSIRO, it’s just further evidence of malfeasance on the Feds part.
Again, I think it’s clear from all this that the contrarians, despite their pose as heroic independents, are eager to enlist the support of the government to suppress the truth whenever possible. I haven’t seen a single comment yet from the contrarian side of the debate to suggest that the government ought to encourage, rather than suppress, open debate on scientific issue.
Yet if an EU government were sacking totally unqualified public servants who were attacking climate science and Kyoto, I bet we’d never hear the end of it.
Who do you think pays the salaries of university academics in Australia, Razor?
Whatever the merits of James Lane’s argument as it applies to government departments, there are plenty of government funded institutions that serve the public better by allowing all opinions to be voiced, even when these are contradictory. As Ken says, this applies to the CSIRO in the same way it applies to universities. There are numerous institutions, in which research is conducted, that have an official doctrine, but whose employees employees can still freely state their own views. They only have to include a rider like: ‘Opinions expressed in this paper should not be taken to represent the policy of [say] the Reserve Bank of Australia.’
Sorry, SJ. Your comment hadn’t appeared yet when I started replying.
I am not sure if I fit the tag of “contrarian” but let me just say that I think governments should defend the principle of free speech.
English botanist David Bellamy recently expressed a view along the lines that critics of AGW were being silenced. Not that his opinion proves anything. See the following article:-
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22750-2012854,00.html
EXTRACT:-
“But we simply cannot get our stuff published. They don’t tolerate dissent because they are not telling the truth. There is no consensus whatsoever on global warming; there are just as many people dissenting but they will not publish those papers in journals.�
I am still hoping that John Quiggin might address the questions I raise in my post earlier up on “February 15th, 2006 at 5:17 am”.
Terje
Bellamy is a cuddly TV personality who does PR for companies that want to improve their green image. That piece is from the Murdoch Times motoring section, which is forever hyping ‘eco-friendly’ new car models. I wouldn’t be at all susprised to find that the article was part of an advertorial package paid for by one of Bellamy’s employers.
Terje,
David Bellamy has no credibility whatsoever in the debate on global warming. See article by George Monbiot.
I suggest you google using the search terms :
JQ – I’m all for active debate on policy issues. Much of the issue here is perhaps that there isn’t a clear enough understanding of the role of the CSIRO. Is it a goverment Department or an independent statutory body like the RBA. Maybe the staff aren’t clear on the role of CSIRO and their obligations within the organisation.
In a way I see this much like the peer reviewing of other Academic work, except in this cse the peer review process results in policy positions rather than academic publications.
I’m still interested in your opinion on the Uni employees writing to newspapers issues I raised above.
The public gains nothing from being kept in the dark like mushrooms. We need to know what eminent scientists think in order to make informed judgements on scientific issues.
This type of statement, IMHO, is part of the FUD. This argumentation arose around the hockey stick argument that an amateur couldn’t ‘audit’ someone’s data. It has blown up into a mantra-like talking point.
Some boy sitting in his parents’ basement isn’t going to ‘audit’ these data and make some world-breaking discovery.
Yet, the system continues to work. I’m quite sure a postdoc in a climate discipline can contact a paleo scientist and get their data.
Trouble is, some scientists aren’t releasing data to parties that have shown a tendency in the past (and now) toward character assassination. That is: some scientists are saying “Too bad. You can’t have the data, you’ve used it against me before.”. That response is then blown up into a green conspiracy and a cabal against truth.
It’s like some folks are making a career out of character assassination, by using clever little phrases.
Best,
D
Good point John, I have not heard of any EU govt encouraging open debate on scientific issue by unqualified public servants – therefore they must be very authoritarian!
Well, this is all very interesting but there is a growing and sometimes urgent need for knowledge that does exist to be dumped on the public, come what may. Here in Canada the pulp mill owners knew a long time ago what damage they were doing to the land, the air, and most importantly the water. They hired experts to study environmental issues, and the experts reported pretty thoroughly, often adding notes on trends they had observed as well. But these experts had signed contracts promising not to tell anyone but those who hired them what they had seen or reported, and such obligations are considered sacrosanct by the various professions. Huge mats of rotting dead fish, yards deep rusting metal garbage, gigantic fish kills after a mill maintenance shut, intense bursts of murderous chemicals sluiced into the salt chuck (while pen graphs are falsified by putting a bit of tissue under the pen), nearby waters guaranteed to kill fish. These millls would take up to 80 million gallons of the purest mountain water, run it through mills that only William Blake could reasonably describe , and pour torrents of the residual crap into fish bearing waters. That’s in pulp industry and lots of other stories can be told of other industries where that which belongs to all, the environment, is used as a garbage can by private parties.
It is just plain stupid, and gutless , to let such bastards keep a zipper on the mouths of experts whether they are privately employed or have government positions. Whose bloody servants are they, in the latter case, anyway? I want all experts who believe they have encountered something that cuts into the public interest to be required by law to send a copy of their report to an independent body, on pain of legal punishment if they do not, with that body to decide if the information does affect the public interest. If it does a public report is to be produced forthwith.
I don’t know if 19th Century rules on confidentiatity were ever justified in an industrial society with large populations concentrated in tight zones, but they are not now. The posturing of the private interests on this point is truly disgusting. Look at the performance on biological hazards. Private claims must be stopped where public interest is affected.
Steve, please don’t let on to Michael Mann or Phil Jones that, as you say,
Mann famously said that asking him for his information is “intimidation”, and Phil Jones refuses to release his information at all. I’d hate to see you burst their bubble by pointing out that it “belongs in the public domain” …
w.
Thanks John, you made a great point about careerism and consensus.