Thursday 10 May 2012

The destruction of science: Cheryl Jones does it again

The destruction of science: Cheryl Jones does it again


To Julie Hare  highered@theaustralian.com.au
There was so much in The Australian's budget edition of Wednesday May 9 2012.


I suggest no one picked up the trite ascientific codswallop from The Australian's newly appointed 'innovation writer.'
Science on verge of an ethical revolution The Australian Higher Education 9/5
I guess this woman represents some sort of balance to offset the common sense of other writers in The Oz.
Maybe to keep the left happy; I guess - and to get them to buy your paper.
So maybe you can faithfully say to Conroy / Gillard / Green claims to their new media body designed to control The Oz - that yours is a journal also for the true believers! Not merely the evil media of the lamentable Bob Brown.


Cheryl Jones has worked for the CSIRO - and the article is sadly a continuum of her /  their social - science - view of the scientific world! It  is so revealing of what her mentors at the CSIRO yearn for and proudly promulgate.


There are pathetically over 900 at CSIRO scientists studying so - called 'Climate Change Science.'
Jones plainly vitiates common sense  AKA real science! Look closely what her mentors have attempted: plain old censuring one of their own! Simply astonishing!


This is best demonstrated in how the head of CSIRO Megan Clark and the lame, useless Minister for Science Kim Carr lied in claiming they did not attempt to censure an economist re his economically unacceptable ideas on Carbon trading!
It was  in The Australian at the time - 2009 -2010. In full detail: o wonder Carr was eventually sacked by the hapless Gillard.
There are links galore on my website.


It was so pathetic: the article accepted Global Lunacy also known as Global Warming  / conveniently rebadged by the true believers as the forever - useful / utilitarian  Climate Change.
Whew!


http://www.clivespash.org/main.php?page=cnsrsp&style=default


Read also:


http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=6259533


http://australian-blogs.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/update-on-clive-spash-at-csiro.html


http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/On-the-record.aspx




This woman seriously discusses ''..intervening in the earth's atmosphere ... [via]  geo engineering.. injecting aerosols.. to cool the planet...'' This is asinine at best. I have no intention of trying to prove this: mere intelligent children would understand - the left do not.
But her raison d'etre is the eye opener: she is into ''ethicists, sociologists and psychologists in science projects...''


She quotes a professor from Arizona lovingly: "The old way of regulating the impact of technology doesn't work,"


  • From:The Australian 
  • May 09, 2012 12:00AM

  • SOME research areas are political minefields.

    Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet.
    Then there are the ongoing skirmishes about genetically modified organisms, human genetics and nanotechnology.
    US science policy expert Daniel Sarewitz says closer collaboration between scientists and social scientists could help guide research and innovation towards areas likely to deliver the biggest social, environmental and economic dividends while avoiding the biggest risks.
    Professor Sarewitz, a professor of science and society from Arizona State University, has also worked as an adviser to the US congress.
    He calls for the early involvement of economists, ethicists, sociologists and psychologists in science projects as the pace of technological change quickens.
    Rec Coverage 28 Day pass
    "The old way of regulating the impact of technology doesn't work," he says.
    Professor Sarewitz is on a lecture tour of Australia and will speak at the University of Tasmania tomorrow and at the Australian National University next Monday.
    As director of the Washington-based Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, he is working on ways to integrate science and social science in innovation.
    "We are exploring whether it is possible to build into the innovation process the capacity to think through impacts; to steer the directions of innovation towards social benefits and away from problems by starting early on, rather than waiting until things are highly embedded in the market and in the structure of economies," he says.
    "This involves thinking through the potential social impacts and implications upstream in the journey the technology takes from the lab."
    He acknowledges the difficulty in predicting technological impact, but stresses: "What we can do is be self-conscious about the evolution of the innovation."
    The biggest problem is breaking down the barriers between disciplines.
    "The first thing it requires is changing the way institutions organise themselves, because it means a radical crossing of disciplinary boundaries," he says.
    Society could soon face proposals with implications on a planetary scale, including radical geo-engineering techniques.
    "There are huge ethical geopolitical implications," Professor Sarewitz says.
    "Is the notion of intervening in the Earth's atmosphere a good idea or a bad idea?"

    News for science on verge of an ethical revolution


    1. The Australian‎ - 1 day ago
      Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet. Then there are the ...




      ################################################################################################################################################
      4

      The below is the product of google search for:
      1. News for science on verge of an ethical revolution


        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. Science on verge of an ethical revolution

          The Australian‎ - 1 day ago

          Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet. Then there are the ...
        1. Science on verge of an ethical revolution | Subject alerts

          fssalerts.wordpress.com/.../science-on-verge-of-an-ethical-revolution/
          Science on verge of an ethical revolution. Posted on May 9, 2012 by ryancr11 | Comments Off. The Australian Cheryl Jones 9 May 2012. SOME research areas ...
        2. Human race being terminated by 'scientific suicide' « Natural Rain

          naturalrain.wordpress.com/.../human-race-being-terminated-by-scient...
          1 day ago – Science on verge of an ethical revolutionThe AustralianTake geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols ...
        3. Fukushima « Natural Rain

          naturalrain.wordpress.com/tag/fukushima/
          1 day ago – Science on verge of an ethical revolutionThe AustralianTake geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols ...
        4. nuclear1up8 « Natural Rain

          naturalrain.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/...scientific.../nuclear1up8/
          5 days ago – Science on verge of an ethical revolutionThe AustralianTake geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols ...
        5. Genetic Engineering | Teen Opinion Essay | Teen Ink

          www.teenink.com › Points of View
          ... many people say the world is on the verge of a scientific revolution that brings one... The ethical dilemmas of human genetic engineering are what make this ...
        6. ORNL in the News

          www.ornl.gov/info/library/ornlnews/
          Science on verge of an ethical revolution. (The Australian) Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the ...

          Get more results from the past 24 hours

        7. The Christian and Genetic Engineering | CRI

          www.equip.org/articles/the-christian-and-genetic-engineering/
          Genetic science is on the verge of not only discovering possible cures for ... decade, the discipline of human genetics has undergone nothing short of a revolution.... But whatever the number, all rules, ethical judgments, and actions must flow ...
        8. In vitro fertilization ivf Essays and Research Papers

          www.paperdue.com/search/in+vitro+fertilization+ivf
          HEALTHCARE ETHICS – STEM CELLS Introduction Stem cell science has been ....and genomic science are on the verge of creating a revolutionary change in ...
        9. RaidersNewsNetwork.com I Breaking news, US, World, Science ...

          www.forbiddengate.com/
          Says Co-Author Of Taxpayer Funded NSF “Ethics Of Human Enhancement” Report ...You are about to discover that science is on the verge of creatures we have ....technologies, we are near the start of the Human Enhancement Revolution.

          #################################################################################################################################################

          5
          The below is the product of a google search for Cheryl Jones CSIRO lead writer




          HIGHER EDUCATION | Latest Higher Education News | The Australian



          www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education
          Cheryl Jones SCIENTISTS and social scientists should work more closely together. ...Newcastle appoints Dunford to head business and law ... He was chief editorial writerfor the newspaper and covered the High Court. He is a psychology ...

          Carr expulsion a worry for research scientists | Story & Education ...



          www.theaustralian.com.au/...a.../story-e6frgcjx-1226290956906
          by: Cheryl Jones, Innovation writer; From: The Australian; March 07, 2012 12:00AM ...Labelled "one of the best ministers ever to lead the research portfolio" by ... Along with the CSIRO, he led Australia's bid to host the world's biggest radio ...

          OPINION | Higher Education Opinion & Analysis | The Australian



          www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion
          Education reform can lead us ... CSIRO out of the lab and in court. Cheryl Jones THE army of lawyers defending the CSIRO's rights over its wi-fi technology is ... Cheryl Jones, Innovation writer LEADING academics fear hard science will be ...

          ECOS – THE NEXT CHAPTER - CSIRO Publishing

          www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=6834
          Deputy Business Unit Leader, CSIRO Ecosystem Services ... Dr Cheryl Desha ......Lead author Dr Theo Evans, formerly of ...... Jones Sustainability Index. Yet ...

          CSIRO Staff Association - In the Media

          server.dream-fusion.net/csiro/eng/showpage.php3?id=2585
          AuthorCheryl Jones. THE CSIRO is facing a staff revolt over job cuts at regional laboratories. Staff are claiming that the cuts threaten vital research into land, ...

          ERA 2012 Research Evaluation Committee - Medical and Health ...

          www.arc.gov.au/era/recs_2012/MHS.htm
          ... undertaken at the Baker Heart Research Institute and CSIRO's Division of Human Nutrition. ... Head, Department of Cognitive Science ... He also holds the Chair of Immunology, and is head of the Immunology and ... Professor Cheryl Jones .... authorof the WA Health Cancer Services Framework and first Acting Director of ...
          [PDF] 

          Abstracts & Program Book_final - CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric ...

          www.cmar.csiro.au/biologging4/.../AbstractsandProgram_final.pdf
          File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
          Lead author Title. Monday 14th March. 9:45. O1.01. Davis R. Classification of free-ranging Weddell seal dives based on three-dimensional movements and ...
          [PDF] 

          Farm Bill Gives Agriculture Research A Higher Profile in the ...

          future.aae.wisc.edu/publications/farm_bill/science_article.pdf
          File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
          by C HOLDEN
          4 Jun 2008 – Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), ... The reduction at CSIRO is “a disappoint- ment ... Cheryl Jones is a writer in Canberra, Australia.

          Blue moon at the The Australian : Deltoid

          scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/.../blue_moon_at_the_the_australia.p...
          29 Apr 2010 – Posted by: Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com · Author Profile Page ...Actually, I've just had a read of a few other Cheryl Jones articles and I see she's an ....Cheryl Jones also highlighted CSIRO scientist Wenju Cai in the ... with droughts, and preferably improve lead times, and all you can do is spout BS.

          March « 2012 « Understanding Climate Risk









          2risk.wordpress.com/2012/03/
          31 Mar 2012 – Poorly planned responses may also lead to maladaptation. ... Alan Pears, writing in The Conversation disagrees. ... the recent State of the Climate 2012 released by the Bureau and CSIRO... So says the header in a short article in The Australian by science journalist Cheryl Jones, referring to this research.


          ################################################################################################################################################


          6
          http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review


          How the Internet is Changing Science Journals



          The past few years have been a period of significant turmoil—some of it quite constructive—for publishers and editors of science journals. Controversies regarding potential conflicts of interest have led some journals to reexamine their rules for revealing the financial relationships of published researchers. Competition from free online “open access” journals, such as the six new journals published by the nonprofit Public Library of Science, has led several mainstream print journals to beef up their online offerings. And some notable journals concerned about fraudulent research have reportedly improved the screening of manuscripts under consideration, in an attempt to catch those who would misrepresent or “beautify” their data. (“Let’s celebrate real data,” the editors of Nature Cell Biology recently wrote, “wrinkles, warts, and all.”)

          The most interesting change stirring in the world of science and medical journals—and the change likely to have the most far-reaching impact—relates to peer review. Also known as “refereeing,” the peer review process is used by journal editors to aid in deciding which papers are worth publishing. Some researchers may assume that peer review is a nuisance that scientists have always had to tolerate in order to be published. In reality, peer review is a fairly recent innovation, not widespread until the middle of the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, many science journals were commandingly led by what Ohio State University science historian John C. Burnham dubbed “crusading and colorful editors,” who made their publications “personal mouthpieces” for their individual views. There were often more journals than scientific and medical papers to publish; the last thing needed was a process for weeding out articles.

          In time, the specialization of science precluded editors from being qualified to evaluate all the submissions they received. About a century ago, Burnham notes, science journals began to direct papers to distinguished experts who would serve on affiliated editorial boards. Eventually—especially following the post-World War II research boom—the deluge of manuscripts and their increasing specialization made it difficult for even an editorial board of a dozen or so experts to handle the load. The peer review system developed to meet this need. Journal editors began to seek out experts capable of commenting on manuscripts—not only researchers in the same general field, but researchers familiar with the specific techniques and even laboratory materials described in the papers under consideration. The transition from the editorial board model to the peer review model was eased by technological advances, like the Xerox copier in 1959, that reduced the hassles of sending manuscripts to experts scattered around the globe. There remained holdouts for a while—as Burnham notes, theTennessee Medical Association Journal operated without peer review under one strong editor until 1971—but all major scientific and medical journals have relied on peer review for decades.

          In recent times, the term “peer reviewed” has come to serve as shorthand for “quality.” To say that an article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is to claim a kind of professional approbation; to say that a study hasn’t been peer reviewed is tantamount to calling it disreputable. Up to a point, this is reasonable. Reviewers and editors serve as gatekeepers in scientific publishing; they eliminate the most uninteresting or least worthy articles, saving the research community time and money.

          But peer review is not simply synonymous with quality. Many landmark scientific papers (like that of Watson and Crick, published just five decades ago) were never subjected to peer review, and as David Shatz has pointed out, “many heavily cited papers, including some describing work which won a Nobel Prize, were originally rejected by peer review.” Shatz, a Yeshiva University philosophy professor, outlines some of the charges made against the referee process in his 2004 book Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. In a word, reviewers are often not really “conversant with the published literature”; they are “biased toward papers that affirm their prior convictions”; and they “are biased against innovation and/or are poor judges of quality.” Reviewers also seem biased in favor of authors from prestigious institutions. Shatz describes a study in which “papers that had been published in journals by authors from prestigious institutions were retyped and resubmitted with a non-prestigious affiliation indicated for the author. Not only did referees mostly fail to recognize these previously published papers in their field, they recommended rejection.”

          The Cochrane Collaboration, an international healthcare analysis group based in the U.K., published a report in 2003 concluding that there is “little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs.” The Royal Society has also studied the effects of peer review. As the chairman of the investigating committee told a British newspaper in 2003, “We are all aware that some referees’ reports are not worth the paper they are written on. It’s also hard for a journal editor when reports come back that are contradictory, and it’s often down to a question of a value judgment whether something is published or not.” He also pointed out that peer review has been criticized for being used by the scientific establishment “to prevent unorthodox ideas, methods, and views, regardless of their merit, from being made public” and for its secretiveness and anonymity. Some journals have started printing the names of each article’s referees; the British Medical Journal (BMJ), for instance, decided to discontinue anonymous peer reviews in 1999. The new system, called “open peer review,” allows for more transparency and accountability but may discourage junior scientists from critically reviewing the work of more senior researchers for fear of reprisal.

          Perhaps the most powerful criticism of peer review is that it fails to achieve its core objective: quality control. Shatz describes a study in which “investigators deliberately inserted errors into a manuscript, and referees did a poor job of detecting them.” And critics of peer review need look no further than recent high-profile papers that turned out to be hoaxes—like the massive case of scientific fraud perpetrated by South Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk in Science. Of course, no one should expect a perfect system, or condemn peer review as a whole for its occasional failures. Back in 2003, the editors of Nature Immunology lamented “the expectation in the popular press that peer review is a process by which fraudulent data is detected before publication.” Peer reviewers, they argued, cannot be expected “to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions.” But even granting this truth, the question remains: Is peer review the best process for promoting the highest quality science?
          Beyond the many criticisms of peer review—some new, some perennial—two recent developments are especially intriguing. First, the open-access journals, which already make use of the Internet as their basic means of publication, are now finding ways to incorporate many so-called “Web 2.0” tools for collaboration, comment, and criticism. So, for example, a forthcoming multidisciplinary academic journal called Philica seeks to institute a peer-review process that is “transparent” (meaning that “reviews can be seen publicly”) and “dynamic” (“because opinions can change over time, and this is reflected in the review process”). Instead of following the print-journal model of publishing articlesafter peer-review, Philica will publish articles before peer-review. “When somebody reviews your article, the impact of that review depends on the reviewer’s own reviews,” the Philica website says. “This means that the opinion of somebody whose work is highly regarded carries more weight than the opinion of somebody whose work is rated poorly. A person’s standing, and so their impact on other people’s ratings, changes constantly as part of the dynamic Philica world. Ideas and opinions change all the time—Philica lets us see this. This really is publishing like never before.”
          Another new open-access journal is likely to have an even bigger impact on the scientific community. The Public Library of Science will be launching its seventh journal in November 2006, called PLoS ONE. In an implicit challenge to Nature and SciencePLoS ONE will be the first of the group’s journals to publish articles in all areas of science and medicine. Articles published in the new journal will undergo peer review, but some of the standard criteria that older journals use to screen out articles—like “degree of advance” or “interest to a general reader”—won’t be used by PLoS ONE reviewers; all papers of scientific merit will be posted to the public record. Only weeks (not months) will go by before a submitted article is published, since instead of coming out periodically issue-by-issue, PLoS ONE will be in a state of continuous publication. A more public review process will continue after publication, as readers will be able to rate, annotate, and comment on papers, and authors can respond to their comments. The original paper will remain as such, but comments, revisions, and updates will orbit nearby, an electronic Talmud on every article of significance.
          It is easy to believe, in reading the plans for this new publication, that it truly represents “the first step” in a wonderful “revolution” (as the Public Library of Science puts it). But it is worth remembering that gates and gatekeepers serve the important function of keeping out barbarians; it would be regrettable if the world of science journals came to suffer the sort of “trolling” and “flaming” so common today in comments on blogs and Internet discussion boards. It would be unfortunate if the deliberate, measured character of scientific research and discourse were lost to a culture of speed, hype, and quick-hit comments.
          The second major development is that traditional peer review is under reconsideration even within the heart of establishment scientific publishing. This summer, the journal Nature is experimenting with a similar system of public review. Although the journal’s articles will continue to go through the standard closed peer review process, a public version of peer review will be working in parallel: certain submissions will be posted online to solicit reader feedback, in hopes that experts will voluntarily review the articles. If this experiment shows that posted “pre-prints” receive enough attention online,Nature will apparently consider altering its traditional peer review practices. The journal is meanwhile sponsoring an ongoing online debate about peer review, with articles about the pros, cons, and future of refereeing.
          What to make of all this? Peer review will surely not disappear overnight, but there are clear indications that it will evolve in the next few years as the established journals come to terms with Internet publication. Already in some fields of science, like physics and astronomy, the print journals have receded in importance due to online repositories like arXiv (pronounced “archive”) that disseminate studies without the hassle of peer review. The last few decades of peer review may someday be remembered as a peculiar period in the history of science, an aberration produced by an explosion of researcher productivity and the constraints of print publication, eventually superseded by a fuller, nonstop scientific conversation. But we should not declare a revolution too soon or dismiss too easily the significant achievements of the current system, even as we acknowledge its many shortcomings and prepare to take full advantage of the new technologies of publishing.
          The Editors of The New Atlantis, "Rethinking Peer Review," The New Atlantis, Number 13, Summer 2006, pp. 106-110.
          #################################################################################################################################################



          7


          Clive L. Spash

          Environmental Values and Economics




          LATEST
          Home
          Publications
          Short Pieces
          Conference Papers
          Discussion/Working Papers
          Review Articles
          Citations
          Video
          Media
          CV
          Teaching
          Subject Areas
          Research Program
          Research Projects
          Research Groups and Networks
          Search
          Contact

          Debating Carbon Emissions Trading


          Ariana Boussard-Reifel, Between the Lines, 2007. Photo: Ariana Boussard-Reifel
          Ariana Boussard-Reifel, Between the Lines, 2007. Photo: Ariana Boussard-Reifel

          What all the fuss was about: the paper is now on-line!

          At the beginning of 2009 Clive Spash wrote a paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, that was critical of carbon emissions trading schemes and argued redesign would not address the concerns raised. He was employed at the time by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO), which endeavoured to prevent the paper from being published even in his capacity as a private citizen. The paper had been both internally and internationally peer reviewed, and was accepted for publication by New Political Economy, when CSIRO management first decided to prevent publication. After several months the issue became public and was the subject of debate in the Australian Senate. The CSIRO was forced to release the paper but first attempted to subject the work to serious alterations, to which Clive was asked to assent without making any changes. He felt that he could not agree. The journal New Political Economy also wrote to Senator Carr stating the changes made were so substantive that the paper was no longer equivalent to that which they had accepted for publication earlier that year. After six months attempting to seek due process there remained no internal recognition within management of any failure on their part or any breach of acceptable scientific practice. Despite considerable support from his colleagues Clive felt that he could no longer work within an organisation being run with such an approach to management and where arbitrary judgment over political sensitivities are employed to alter or ban research findings. He resigned his position.
          Readers might also be interested in the following pieces:
          An Orwellian Guide to Carbon ETS (PDF).
          Kevin Rudd: His Part in My Downfall (PDF).
          Censoring science in research officially (PDF).

          VIDEO


          PRESS

          2nd November 2009
          Front page headline "CSIRO Carbon Trade Dissenter Silenced" The Australian.
          Inside story p.3. "CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack."
          http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-2702,00.html
          2nd November 2009
          "Climate economist says he was gagged". Adelaide Now.
          http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26292161-5005962,00.html
          3rd November 2009
          Climate expert Clive Spash 'heavied' by CSIRO management. The Australian.
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-expert-clive-spash-heavied-by-csiro-management/story-e6frg8gf-1225793717744
          4th November 2009
          Stifling debate. The Australian. Editorial
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/stifling-debate/story-e6frg71x-1225794078751
          5th November 2009
          CSIRO 'gagging climate debate' The Australian.
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-gagging-climate-debate/story-e6frg8gf-1225794500655
          5th November 2009
          Liar, liar your scheme's on fire. Herald Sun. Olga Galacho.
          http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/liar-liar-your-schemes-on-fire/story-e6frfihx-1225794596030
          6th November 2009
          Kim Carr raps CSIRO delay on ETS paper. The Australian.
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/kim-carr-raps-csiro-delay-on-ets-paper/story-e6frg6nf-1225794867411
          6th November 2009. Updated 11th November.
          Australian agency denies gagging researchers. Nature.
          http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091106/full/news.2009.1068.html
          9th November 2009
          CSIRO moves to put gag on scientists. The Australian.
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/csiro-moves-to-put-gag-on-scientists/story-e6frg6nf-1225795565498
          9th November 2009
          Climate paper will be published: CSIRO. The Age.
          http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-paper-will-be-published-csiro-20091109-i53w.html
          13th November 2009
          Australian agency moves to calm climate row. Researcher will be allowed to publish his paper after making 'tiny' changes. Nature
          http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091113/full/news.2009.1083.html
          14th November 2009
          Frank and fearless scientific debate comes with a few too many strings attached. The Australian
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/frank-and-fearless-scientific-debate-comes-with-a-few-too-many-strings-attached/story-e6frg6zo-1225797535057
          23rd November 2009
          "This ETS-lite deserves to be rejected" The Age, Kenneth Davidson
          http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/this-etslite-deserves-to-be-rejected-20091122-isr0.html
          26th November 2009
          "CSIRO scientist faces punishment." 9 News Crystal Ja
          http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/976536/csiro-scientist-faces-punishment
          3rd December 2009
          "Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report 'censorship'." News.com.au
          http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742
          3rd December 2009
          "Gagged CSIRO scientist resigns; calls for inquiry" WA Today, Australian Associated Press
          http://www.watoday.com.au/national/gagged-csiro-scientist-resigns-calls-for-inquiry-20091203-k7py.html
          3rd December 2009
          "Scientist quits over ETS 'censorship'." ABC News, Nonee Walsh
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/03/2761141.htm
          4th December 2009
          Scientist quits CSIRO amid censorship claims The Sydney Morning Herald, Dan Harrison
          http://www.smh.com.au/environment/scientist-quits-csiro-amid-censorship-claims-20091203-k8vb.html
          4th December 2009
          "Researcher quits over science agency interference. Australian research funding body under fire for ordering major changes to a peer-reviewed paper." Nature, Stephen Pincock
          http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091204/full/news.2009.1126.html
          14th December 2009
          "Censored CSIRO carbon trading paper - compulsory reading for climate movement." Critical Times, Chris Breen
          http://www.criticaltimes.com.au/news/censored-csiro-carbon-trading-paper-compulsory-reading-for-climate-movement/
          5th February 2010
          Rømde frå klimapolitisk sensur. Dag og Tid, Astrid S. Dypvik.
          Dag_og_tid_Norway_Feb_2010 (PDF in Norwegian)
          11th February 2010
          CSIRO 'in denial' over policy debate. Herald Sun, AAP.
          http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/csiro-in-denial-over-policy-debate/story-e6frf7kf-1225829195671
          3rd March 2010
          Senator 'abused' review process. The Australian, Bernard Lane.
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/senator-abused-review-process/story-e6frgcjx-1225836260242
          10th March 2010
          Sorry Senator Carr, no award for you. Herald Sun. Olga Galacho.
          http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sorry-senator-carr-no-award-for-you/story-e6frfihx-1225839438373
          2nd July, 2010
          "A poor climate for debate at CSIRO" The Age, Paddy Manning
          http://www.theage.com.au/business/a-poor-climate-for-debate-at-csiro-20100702-zu86.html
          3rd July, 2010
          "CSIRO in bed with big coal" The Sydney Morning Herald, Paddy Manning
          http://www.smh.com.au/business/csiro-in-bed-with-big-coal-20100702-zu2i.html
          17th December, 2010
          "Political interference will cripple climate debate" The Australian, Michael Asten
          http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-interference-will-cripple-climate-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1225972366783

          RADIO

          2nd November 2009. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
          CSIRO denies censoring climate paper. Shane McLeod for The World Today.
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/02/2731014.htm
          5th November 2009. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
          CSIRO embroiled in censorship claims. Shane McLeod for AM.
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/05/2733825.htm
          5th November 2009. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
          CSIRO stance not censorship: Minister. Shane McLeod for The World Today.
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/05/2734542.htm?site=news
          24th February 2010. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
          Dumped Professor calls for Senate inquiry. Colvin for PM
          Broadcast Interview
          Extended Interview
          http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2829301.htm
          26th February 2010. Radio 4BC Brisbane.
          Michael Smith for 4BC 1116 Drive.
          Introduction
          Interview
          3rd March 2010. Radio 2GB Sydney.
          Jason Morrison. CSIRO scientist resigns for Climate Change censorship.
          Interview
          9th March 2010. Student Youth Network, Melbourne.
          Paul Serratore for Panorama
          Interview Courtesy Panorama, SYN (90.7 FM), Melbourne
          15th August 2010
          Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Ian Townsend for Background Briefing
          Culture Wars at CSIRO.
          http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2977740.htm
          Short interview as part of 48 minute programme

          Australian Senate

          18th November 2009.
          Official Hansard
          10.31 Senator Back, Liberal Party of Australia, Western Australia, speech excerpt. (PDF)
          12.59 Senator Abetz, Liberal Party of Australia, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, speech excerpt. (PDF)
          15.46 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, motion. (PDF)
          Motion Passed
          19th November 2009.
          Official Hansard
          12.35 Senator Fisher, Liberal Party of Australia, South Australia, speech excerpt. (PDF)
          25th November 2009.
          Official Hansard
          15.40 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, notice. (PDF)
          25th November 2009 Senate Debate.
          Official Hansard
          Matters of Public Importance: The Rudd government's censorship of the Commonwealth Scientific Research Organisation
          16.59 Senator Abetz, Liberal Party of Australia, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, speech. (PDF)
          17.09 Senator Hurley, Australian Labour Party, South Australia, speech. (PDF)
          17.24 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, speech. (PDF)
          17.34 Senator Joyce, Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Queensland, speech. (PDF)
          17.42 Senator Forshaw, Australian Labour Party, New South Wales, speech. (PDF)
          17.52 Senator Ian MacDonald, Liberal Party of Australia, Queensland, speech (PDF).
          26th November 2009 Senate Order.
          Official Hansard
          The Brave New World of Carbon Trading
          10.44 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, order. (PDF)
          10.44 Senator Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Australian Labour Party, Victoria, opposition to order. (PDF)
          10.46 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, supporting order. (PDF)
          Order Passed
          15.40 Senator Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Australian Labour Party, Victoria, return to order. (PDF)

          Senate Estimates Committee

          Senate. Economics Legislation Committee Estimates. (Additional Estimates).
          Wednesday, 10 February, 2010. Canberra.
          Question and answer sessions involving Dr Megan Clark and Andrew Johnson (CSIRO) and Senator Kim Carr. (PDF)
          4th March 2010.
          Senator Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. (PDF)
          Senator Carr heavies CSIRO for political outcomes.
          Last modified 30-Apr-2011 10:33:06.
          Copyright © 2006–2012 Clive Spash.
          Site designed, hosted and maintained by Robin Faichney.
          Please note that neither Clive Spash nor Robin Faichney can be held responsible
          for the contents of any other websites that might be linked from this site.



      1 comment:

      1. Basiri Tutoring are a group of teachers, mathematicians and new media producers from the Universities of Leeds, Loughborough and Coventry and EBST. Mathtutor was funded with generous support from the HEFCE Fund for the Development of Teaching & Learning and the Gatsby Technical Education Project in association with the Higher Education Academy.

        ReplyDelete