Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs: "The Science is Settled."

An anonymous reader writes: 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. Why? Because the science is settled, there is no need for more basic research, the government says. No doubt many will experience a case of schadenfreude as they see those who have long claimed "the science is settled" face the inevitable and logical consequence of that stance.

Comments

What else would you have them do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously we know what has to be done. That money will be better spent doing it than flogging a dead horse.

Interesting bit from article

[Diss Champ]

Yes, I know you're not supposed to read the article. You find out all sorts of interesting things like the fact that noone was actually fired, they were re-assigned to other stuff. You also find out why some of the stuff they were doing was interesting.

But the thing that caught my attention with shades of "we have to pass the bill before we know what it does" was that one of the reasons given not to transfer the people was that they were needed to figure out what the recent climate agreement actually meant.

So apparently the climate agreement was so badly expressed that the several people who were not transferred away from basic climate research are not sufficient to figure out what it actually meant?
Didn't Kerry block the language change that would have made it require anything?

Re:The basic question is answered...but still...

[MightyMartian]

When at least some portion of General Relativity was confirmed by the 1919 eclipse, did that mean all the cosmologists could go home, their work done?

Re:The basic question is answered...but still...

[Anonymous Coward]

but there are still a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered. "How Fast?" and "Will the extra CO2 help crops or weeds grow faster?" and "What can we do about it?" and "Will such-and-such course of action have enough effect to avoid such-and-such consequences?" We need those guys even more than we did before the original question was answered.

Climate scientists aren't qualified to answer most of those questions; you need to hire economists and agronomists.

Many of these questions are going to need to start with climate models, to answer things like "what will be the effect at different latitudes, what will be the effect on precipitation, what will be the effect on storms"

First you going to have to start with convincing the masses that The Man above isn't just having a bad day.

(Remember there are a shocking number of people on this planet who truly believe a "God" has a hand in all this. Literally.)

Re:The science is not settled

[danbert8]

That last one is pretty key. For some reason that is the primary focus of all anti-CO2 actions despite that being the least tested hypothesis. The geologic evidence is the exact opposite being that the warmer periods of the planet have had the most prolific life and the coldest periods have had most of the mass extinctions.

What makes people think the climate of pre-industrial humanity is the "ideal" climate? Transitioning may be hard, but shouldn't we determine what the optimal climate is before spending resources trying to control it? Wouldn't those resources be better spent on transitioning if a warmer planet is indeed better for life?

Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science"

[turbidostato]

" I'd also suggest that if you really want to find out what's going on, follow the money. There's lots and lots of grant money out there for people in that field, but only if their results match what the politicians need to push their agendas."

I really find astounding this argument appears once and again. It's like... hippies hold all the money, not the big oil corps.

I imagine in the seventies was more or less the same: health problems with tobacco? It's an hoax. Just follow the money. There's lots and lots of grant money out there for people in that field, but only if their results match what the politicians need to push their agendas.

The money and therefore, if any, the politicians being bought is in the side of the oil corps.

Re:And, will the Martians stop driving?

[PopeRatzo]

And, since we know Mars and Venus are also getting warmer, it must be the Martian's fault.

If I'm getting warmer because of a fever, and the chicken breast in my oven is also getting warmer, they must be related or neither is really getting warmer. CHECKMATE AL GORE!

Delete your account you stupid fuck.

Re:What scientists do

[lgw]

Except that "verifying models" step. None of the climate models are making better predictions than the null hypothesis, or for that matter than the "lgw blindly asserting it's getting colder" model. Global temperatures have been remarkably steady for the past 19 years or so, and while that's within the error bars for most of these models, it's better predicted by the null hypothesis, and within the error bars if you take any of these models and put a "-" in front on their predicted temperature change. So, yeah, the negative of the models predicts as well as the models right now.

Not an argument that they're all wrong, but an argument that there's no reason to think any particular one is right, either. The "science" part is ongoing, but hasn't verified any of the models.

Re:Economics is a social science

[PopeRatzo]

Some economists can very accurately be called scientists because they use the scientific method and economics is quite properly categorized as a social science.

If this is enough for you to say Economics is a science, then it is the softest science of all. Parapsychology (and I'm absolutely serious about this), is based more on data and scientific rigor than economics. Psychology is many times more rigorous than Economics. Fucking Gender Studies is more rigorous and data-based than Economics.

I'm guessing you don't actually know any real economists.

I am probably the only Slashdot user who has actually taken a course from Milton Friedman. My views on the pseudoscience of Economics is based on 30 years experience having economists as colleagues, friends, neighbors and lunchmates. I have played in a weekly poker game with economists. I lived next door to a Nobel-nominated economist for years back in Chicago. I watched Superbowl XLI with him and had to explain what it means to arbitrage a point spread that has moved 10 points.

Plus, if you read any Economics articles, you will find that their math is very unimpressive, and even suspect.

Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science"

[Archangel Michael]

The people saying "global warming" are all paid to say "global warming" to get/keep Government funding, so that government can dictate to everyone (except rich n powerful) that we need to give up every technology that makes the world run.

The fact is, ever number has been fudged to get the results they are wanting, to prove what they need to prove, to keep getting funding to support something that has no basis except "consensus"

When every major prediction has failed, the the consensus cannot be right. I remember all those predictions of "worse hurricanes" followed by "almost no hurricanes", and "Polar Ice caps disappearing" only to have "polar Ice caps expanding (which is now the new "proof" of global warming), on down the line.

not to mention the Greening of Africa, when it was supposed to be getting drier and more desert like: http://news.nationalgeographic...

The problem isn't Global warming, it is that EVERYTHING is blamed on it. Ice growing or shrinking .. GLOBAL WARMING, more snow GLOBAL WARMING, more rain and greening in Africa GLOBAL WARMING!

In fact, global warming may in fact be good for the planet, even if it isn't good for Humans. ;)