Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs

[Octafish]

Because the science is settled there is no need for more basic research, the government says

By Gayathri Vaidyanathan
Scientific American ClimateWire on February 8, 2016

With an ax rather than a scalpel, Australia’s federal science agency last week chopped off its climate research arm in a decision that has stunned scientists and left employees dispirited.

As many as 110 out of 140 positions at the atmosphere and oceans division at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) will be cut, Larry Marshall, the agency’s chief executive, told staff Friday. Another 120 positions will be cut from the land and water program. Across the agency, 350 climate staff will be moved into new roles unrelated to their specialty.

Scientists say the cuts would affect Australia’s ability to cope with climate change. The nation is already the driest on Earth and experiencing significant shifts in rainfall. It would leave the global research community disabled, since CSIRO ran the Southern Hemisphere’s most comprehensive Earth monitoring and modeling programs. And it would leave young climate scientists at CSIRO without direction.

SNIP...

On Feb. 3, (Larry) Marshall wrote in a memo that CSIRO would henceforth focus on commercially viable projects. The next day, during a staff meeting, he said all climate change programs would be cut. Staff would be transferred into other programs, so there would not be job losses, he said.

SNIP...

“Climate science becomes secondary to business; business comes first,” (Clive) Spash said. “The interests of the corporate sector, of the mining and resource extraction industry, are primary in Australia.”

SOURCE: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australia-cuts-110-climate-scientist-jobs/

[Hestia]

1. They have to - they are broke. They didn't invest their commodities and future spent the money

instead. They didn't save anything when minerals, etc. were sky high and now the market has collapsed there is no money coming in. You think Greece is bad, Australia is probably worse.

[Octafish]

6. Thanks for the heads-up.

Did not know Canberra got stung that way.

I understood the climate scientists would still have government jobs, just in other departments.

PS: I think the world of Hellas and Australia. Lots of good people in both places.

[Eugene]

2. The stupidity of this move is just breathtaking.

Not unprecedented but you have to go back a long, long time
to find such a profound lack of vision by policymakers.

[Octafish]

7. The climate models need data from the southern hemisphere...

Being the Land Down Under made Australia the perfect place.

Policy makers with vision is exactly what the planet needs.

[procon]

3. Being an ostrich with their head stuck in the sand must be contagious.

For a country of the leading edge of the effects of climate change, the ignore button must look like a tantalizing solution. If they are so concerned about business now, just wait, it will be a much, much greater concern after years of pretending it doesn't exist.

By then those ignoramuses can move to hiding under the bed with their eyes closed while clutching a plush lil teddy. Everyone knows that the big, bad climate change boogeyman can't see under the bed.

[Octafish]

9. Tornados of Fire

One family survived by hiding under a dock for three hours. That must have been terrifying.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/09/16429395-family-escapes-australian-tornadoes-of-fire-by-clinging-to-jetty-for-3-hours

As for those selling hidey holes to ostritches, may I introduce to you to the floating sea castle lifeboat side business of CIA-Pentagon-Carlyle Group and Princeton man, Frank Carlucci?

http://www.alternet.org/story/147058/the_really_creepy_people_behind_the_libertarian-inspired_billionaire_sea_castles

[malaise]

4. The stupid burns

I can't believe humanity is this stupid

[Octafish]

14. They should be HIRING climate scientists in Australia.

You must be an educated person.



“What matters is not to know the world but to change it.” ― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

[philosslayer]

19. Hiring Climate Scientists to do what?

The science is settled. The climate will be dramatically altered. The scientists have done their jobs. The important thing to do now is respond to the changes that will take place.

[Octafish]

20. Great. If that's all done, they can get to work on solving the problems.

The problems are there. Unless we get cracking, we don't have a chance: the planet will go past the point of sustaining 99 percent of humanity. Just like Flint.

Yeah, "In like Flint," shee?



Heh. Heh. Heh.

[Dont call me Shirley]

5. Humanity has got to create a better way to exist with the earth and each other.

[Octafish]

12. Calling Jacque Fresco.

He's got ideas for the real New New Deal:



http://www.thevenusproject.com/about/resume

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. Jaque's ideas and creations are what we need to be moving toward as an Earthly community.

As Todd Rundgren said it 40 years ago,

City in my head, Utopia
Heaven in my body, Utopia

[world wide wally]

8. American Republicans will latch onto this like a dollar bill.

[Octafish]

13. That's the greatest force in the arsenal.

It holds their universe together.



"The business of government is business." -- Calvin Coolidge via Ronald Reagan.

[haele]

10. Commercially viable science? Climate change science is critical to maintain commercial viability.

The reduction in equivalent costs (human and commercial) of winter storms in 2010/2011 and winter storms in 2015/2016 (so far) is significant with the newer forecast and modeling programs. It's not just "better" technology, it's being able to plan a week out, so that your boss is not stuck in DC without a place to stay during a blizzard, or perhaps they would decide to move the Friday meeting to Charleston, SC because the weather models were able to predict the path and effects of the storm coming in a good 72 - 96 hours in advance.

With climate change modeling, forecasting of flood and fire conditions can be better targeted; businesses (especially transportation and distribution) can make continuity and contingency plans and FEMA/state EMS plans and pre-positioning can be in place before the storm or flood or natural disaster occurs and disrupts lives and business.

The concerns of the Australian corporate sector should be focused like a laser on the effects of climate change. With the brutal droughts and heat waves Australia has been experiencing, your entire infrastructure is affected. If wild-fires destroy your rails, if heat waves melt your roads and make your work sites unbearable to both machines and men, if droughts remove your water sources, if when it does rain, all you end up with are dangerous flash floods that end up muddy pits of run-off silt because the earth is too burnt out to soak the water into the ground, how can even the mighty "mining and resource extraction industry" continue on with business as usual? Why wouldn't they need a predictive modeling service to allow them to plan for extreme weather conditions that will (not might, but will) impact their bottom line, not to mention a subsistence revenue operation.

They will become as the dust on the ground they're currently hiding their heads under. Singing "la-la-la" isn't going to bring about cooler weather or rain.

Haele

[Octafish]

15. Thank you, Haele.

Every word. May they turn their laser beams on doing -- now, not just while the climate is still livable -- but now, when we can afford it.

These are the wealthiest times in human history. David Stockman told CBS 60 Minutes that 7/8th of all the wealth ever created has been churned in the last 34 years. Most all of it has ended in the pockets of the 1-percent of 1-percent.

For the price of Iraq War II, Bush Jr's war of choice, we could have rebuilt the nation's energy system into a green, 100-percent sustainable energy grid, ready for battery cars and everything.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/for-the-price-of-the-iraq-war-the-u-s-could-have-a-100-renewable-power-system/5330881

Based on evidence of their inaction, what we are seeing from the rich and their satraps in Wall Street-on-the-Potomac is the intentional setting the stage for environmental collapse. Perhaps it's better from their POV for the planet to endure a few centuries' wacky weather than even a non-nuclear WWIII. You know who'll survive, the same people what's got the money, the ideological descendants of the Dulles Brothers, Nixon, Kissinger and Rove.

http://www.alternet.org/story/147058/the_really_creepy_people_behind_the_libertarian-inspired_billionaire_sea_castles

Whatever happened to that New New Deal for the 21st Century they were talking about, before the Banksters looted the trillions? If those trillions We the Taxpayers signed the IOUs for had gone, instead, to R&D, we'd be half way to remaking the planet the paradise it could be.

[haele]

17. If "they" think they can buy their way out of destruction, they're woefully deluded.

Making up one's own "reality" won't work on a planetary scale. Even if "expendables" are just gotten rid of quickly enough to avoid widespread civil warfare and enough damage to make any "small colony" survival preparations effective. Any survivors that would be allowed to accompany "the masters of the universe" will never just happy to allow a bunch of rich m-f'ers boss them around without being able to wipe their own butts unless a servant does it for them.
History has never been kind to slave owners - the risk of revolt was always present, and the brutal enforcement methods needed to keep the under class in line always made the risk of revolt greater.
People will only maintain the status quo when they're comfortable, given the appearance of being respected for their efforts, and are otherwise pandered to. Once there's no more pandering or they become uncomfortable or treated as if they were fungible, then you start seeing civil unrest.

I think the reason that the love of money is so evil is that it makes people short-term clever, but long-term stupid. Since one can presumably "buy their way out of trouble", having large amounts of money just re-enforces bad decision-making.

Haele

[Delphinus]

18. Thank you.

I wish "they" would have a grand awakening before everything just goes down the drain.

[ladjf]

11. No, climate hasn't become secondary to buisness. nt

[The2ndWheel]

21. The environment always takes a back seat

That's how we have things like roads, or human progress, or any of the good things that people like. All the bad stuff as well, but you can't forget about the good ones. They come at a cost too.

We're not built to be any other way. We need to consume to exist. We've just gotten really good at consuming. So much that we want to make life easier for ourselves. Again, a good thing, but it comes with a cost. If we live on a finite planet, we can't escape that cost, no matter what we do.

One way or another, there will be a downside.

[ladjf]

22. Just because short sighted and greedy business people put business

ahead of climate doesn't mean that business is more important climate. In the end, climate will be ahead of anything humans could think of, if there are any left to think.