
Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs - nkurz
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australia-cuts-110-climate-scientist-jobs/
======
lukevdp
This is part of a head count neutral reorganisation of CSIRO. The move is away
from climate measurement towards "what can we do about climate change?". Here
is an interview with the ceo explaining the changes
[http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4400695.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4400695.htm)

Funding wasn't cut to the organisation, in fact it was mostly restored by
Malcolm Turnbull last year after it was gutted earlier by Tony Abbott.
[http://www.itnews.com.au/news/turnbull-to-restore-csiro-
fund...](http://www.itnews.com.au/news/turnbull-to-restore-csiro-funding-
shake-up-govt-it-procurement-412721)

~~~
baylisscg
The issue is that they've eviscerated the groups working understanding and
measuring climate change and are shoving them into "make it go away" roles.

The CEO of CSIRO basically declared the breadboard prototype production ready
and reallocated all the engineers who'd been working on it to sales.

~~~
lukevdp
He is saying "everyone else is already making breadboards, let's figure out
how to cut bread"

~~~
dogma1138
>He is saying "everyone else is already making breadboards, let's figure out
how to cut bread"

Hmppf a breadboard is a prototyping board that is used to make basic
electronic circuits it's also some times called a plug board basically a board
with allot of holes that are interconnected usually on a single axis that you
can plug your components to and with additional jumpers/cables complete the
circuit.

So unless you are trying to make a way to sophisticated pun and imply that
they are tackling something way out of the current field of climatology I
think that analogy might be wrong.

------
FreedomToCreate
Similar things happened in Canada under the Harper government. When everything
is viewed from a monetary gain perspective, a lot of research that has no
foreseeable innovation or gain becomes obsolete, but this viewpoint is
extremely distorted. Imagine if Einstein had only worked on theories that had
foreseeable monetary gain. We would never have the theory of relativity and
decades later we would have not had satellites in space.

~~~
Shiva2012
Sigh... sorry but Einstein had nothing to do with putting satellites in space.

If anything you're talking about the working of the GPS system and even in
that case, the effects of gravity are below the error of the device. (clock
drifts dealt with via regular ground synch)

The only appreciable effect is the ephemeris calculation which uses
relativistic doppler calculations. Unfortunately the difference between normal
doppler and relativistic doppler is minuscule at these speeds and are also
within error ranges... So ultimately even the GPS argument doesn't hold
water..

So... like, go with Jonas Salk who gave away the fortune that was the Polio
vaccine. That's a real hero.

~~~
LeoPanthera
"The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS due to general
relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a
clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth
than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of
5×10^(−10), or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is
noticeable.

When combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the
discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day, a difference of 4.465 parts in
10^10. Without correction, errors in the initial pseudorange of roughly 10
km/day would accumulate.

To compensate for the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each
satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly
slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543
MHz instead of 10.23 MHz. Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites
are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application
of the scientific theory of relativity in a real-world environment. Placing
atomic clocks on artificial satellites to test Einstein's general theory was
proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg in 1955."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_General_Relativity)

~~~
jessriedel
Doesn't shiva2012 specifically address this in his point? You are describing a
slow drift that would accumulate over many days and eventually lead to an
error, but that is avoided by regularly re-syncing the clock on the satellite
and the ground ("clock drifts dealt with via regular ground synch"). In a
hypothetical world where Einstein didn't figure out GR, nor the thousands of
physicists who followed him in the intervening decades, the implication for
GPS would be an unexplained drift that would be easily correctable though
still mysterious.

~~~
LeoPanthera
To my knowledge there is no "ground sync" \- as described in the previous
quote, the clocks are intentionally set to run slightly slow in advance to
offset the effects of relativity.

~~~
Shiva2012
Ground re-synchronization happens daily.

"The clock and ephemeris corrections are uploaded generally about once per day
(but some times more often if needed to maintain precision). The rubidium
clock’s natural drift is large and might be of the order of 10^-13 per day"
(quote from an engineer that works on the system)

------
harry8
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/csiro-head-larry-marshall-
def...](http://www.smh.com.au/national/csiro-head-larry-marshall-defends-
climate-research-cuts-as-angry-scientists-protest-in-
melbourne-20160208-gmo81n.html)

The man has a PhD in physics but he believes in water divining. The second of
these may have had more to do with qualifying him to head up the CSIRO than
the first. [http://www.skeptics.com.au/2014/12/04/bent-spoon-to-csiro-
he...](http://www.skeptics.com.au/2014/12/04/bent-spoon-to-csiro-head//)

I don't know if this is the right thing, but I'm just going to assume it is
100% wrong based on a bozo who believes in water divining being in charge of
Scientific research and having stated he wants water divining researched by
real scientists.

------
flashman
Don't worry, the head of CSIRO is "interested in the development of technology
that would make it easier for farmers to dowse or divine for water on their
properties."[1]

That's right, the head of our national scientific organisation is going to
solve climate change with metal rods.

[1][http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-20/nrn-csiro-ceo-water-
di...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-20/nrn-csiro-ceo-water-divining-
dowsing/5822472)

~~~
Gatsky
Did you look through 2 years of CSIRO news to find the least charitable
soundbite possible? Also he isn't talking about climate change in that
article, he's talking about agriculture.

~~~
flashman
Maybe farmers have to dowse for water because they're looking at a huge drop
in rainfall due to climate change: [http://www.vegetableclimate.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/C...](http://www.vegetableclimate.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/CSIRO-climate-change-predictions.jpg)

------
Cogito
I sent this message to my local member:

\----

I read today of the plan for the CSIRO to cut 80% of its climate scientists
([http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australia-
cuts-110...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australia-
cuts-110-climate-scientist-jobs/))

Firstly, how does this fit in with the government's vision for managing our
climate, and contributing to international climate study? As the premier
climate research country in the southern hemisphere this decision not only has
ramifications for us but also for the global community.

What can we do to ensure the continuance of long running monitoring
operations, that provide some of the few sources of high quality and long term
data on the climate in the southern hemisphere?

The CSIRO has a long history performing fundamental science in tandem with
commercialising its work. I am concerned at the current drive towards
commercialisation at the expense of fundamental research. I support and
understand the needs for commercialisation, as it is a clear driver of useful
innovation, however the government is one of the few organisations that can
focus on long term research that seeks answers to who we are and what place we
have in this universe. How can we ensure that the government continues to
invest in long term, fundamental research?

~~~
shermanyo
Thank you for the clear, well articulated post. I forwarded an edited version
to my local members too.

------
agentgt
I'm curious how many scientist the US has on climate change? I have no
perspective on quantity of scientist for climate change (or pretty much any
field) ie is 110 a lot or is that normal for country like Australia?

~~~
Roodgorf
At least in the context of Australia's resources this seems pretty significant
considering it was 110 of 140 positions just in the one area, apparently with
more cuts on the way. A drop to a quarter of research staff on pretty much any
project seems like it would make a pretty big impact.

------
bdamm
It sure seems likely that many countries are going to look back on this time
with some substantial sense of shame.

~~~
jessaustin
I love this comment because it admits a wide range of contradictory
interpretations. That is, we agree, but we probably don't agree.

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

Allow me to say that this is wonderfully ironic.

~~~
a_bonobo
"We've proven that HIV causes AIDS, now we can fire all these researchers"

------
chris_wot
Turnbull says he's different from the previous Abbott-led government, but
clearly he isn't. That's very sad.

I was really hoping Turnbull would be different. As bad as Labor are, the LNP
is much, much worse. In fact, they can't even Claudio to be better economic
managers: Labor listened to Treasury during the GFC and took action that saved
us from a recession and job losses, albeit on the back of a mining boom. This
current lot literally started stripping government spending from the economy,
right at the tipping point where we are in danger of going into recession. And
yet they have increased our national debt - something they crowed they
wouldn't do whilst in opposition!

~~~
Gatsky
Sorry mate, but this is an incredibly biased and pretty much useless summary
of the last 10 years in Australian politics. Why post this on hacker news?

~~~
chris_wot
Hardly. You haven't contributed much with your comment. Why don't you refute
it? Now that would be substantive, unlike the rather useless non-rebuttal
you've just posted. Why post what you just posted on HN?

Incidentally, I'm quite allowed to post my biased opinion on HN. I'm not being
abusive, but I'm giving my viewpoint. You might not like it, but you can
equally give your own biased counterpoint.

As for it being useless, what part do you dispute?

a. That Labor listened to Treasury and managed to prevent the worst effects of
the GFC from hitting Australia?

b. The fact that the instant that Abbott got in he and Hockey attempted to
start stripping funding in the budget?

c. Or perhaps you don't like the fact that our debt level in 2012 was
A$233.968 billion and it is now, just over 3 years into a Coalition
government, that the national debt is A$405.988 billion? Read it and weep -
that's double what the ALP had when they lost power. And the Coalition aren't
dealing with the GFC!

I seem to recall that certain Coalition members said that the grownups were
now leading the country. These are the same people whose first budget was so
disastrous - with a leader so dreadful! - that they got rid of a sitting PM
even faster than the ALP dumped Rudd!

I mean, of all the ironies - Abbott and pretty much every LNP member were
positively _crowing_ when Rudd was taken out by Gillard. And they installed
Turnbull after only just over 2 years of government and the Treasurer left
parliament altogether because he couldn't pass any legislation?

A Treasurer, I might point out, who made a valedictory speech that showed such
an utter lack of insight into his complete failure in performing this
important role that he called his "debt and deficit" and "lifters and leaners"
speech one of the greatest speeches to be made in the last several decades.
The same guy who literally said that poor people don't drive cars, smoked a
cigar openly before one of the harshest budgets in Australia's history and who
couldn't even guarantee that he would abolish the GST on tampons, even though
he said it on the highest rating political media forums in the country, on our
national broadcaster no less!

If it wasn't screwing up our country, it would be very funny indeed.

------
suprgeek
Here is the CSIRO joker aka CEO endorsing water divining
...[http://www.skeptics.com.au/2014/12/04/bent-spoon-to-csiro-
he...](http://www.skeptics.com.au/2014/12/04/bent-spoon-to-csiro-head/)

Which such a firm grasp on pushing the "envelope" one wonders what other BS is
he peddling.

------
shermanyo
Yay for Australia, we finished science! /s

------
emmelaich
The Cape Grim monitoring is not in danger according to the CEO.

------
perseusprime11
Did they ever fix the hole in their ozone layer?

------
markhall
But the debate here [US] looms on...

------
samstave
China should hire all of them to help fix their pollution problems

~~~
fiatjaf
If scientists knew how to do anything besides article-publishing and money-
asking.

------
Daishiman
Sometimes I wonder if, secretly, a lot of governments just know the numbers
and the sheer impossibility of tackling climate change with existing
technology and have decided to settle for the near-term human civilization
collapse scenario. Google's pretty much done that already.

~~~
buckbova
I don't buy the doomsday scenario. The system will adapt.

~~~
zbyte64
There is no guarantee that adaptation will respect our moral sensibilities. If
we don't acquire knowledge and make the effort to adapt then nature will make
the decisions for us and we might not like the results.

~~~
iofj
Nope. I think the theory is much more along the lines that our moral
sensibilities will adapt.

Right now the prevailing theory seems to be that we can beat climate change
... without serious economic impact ... without moving cities/populations ...
without sea level changes ... without moving around agricultural production
... above all without any compromises anywhere ...

Of course this will fail. This idea of keeping the world constant has failed
in every period, climate change or no climate change.

The conspiracy theory is that this is not in fact a surprise to anyone working
on climate change, but that the money's good (and the counter is : we're
talking academics here ... so let's get real ... the money's ... almost
acceptable)

~~~
zbyte64
Thank you for telling me what my position is while ignoring the claim that
knowledge is beneficial for adaptation. /s

