The CSIRO situation appears to be a problem with the leadership understanding CSIRO's mission:  Mr. Marshall seems to think CSIRO is a startup company as opposed to a carefully constructed research organisation that takes a long-term view of science and how it affects industrial policy.  He is asking for a redefinition of CSIRO to attack short-term (5-year) issues.  That should be the role of businesses.  Does Mr. Marshall have the mandate to change the fundamental mission of CSIRO?

Climate science in Australia has been internationally outstanding, even Mr. Marshall accepts that. But he must understand and the government must understand that there are still critical issues to be addressed particularly on national and regional scales. Most, if not all, of the issues that Mr. Marshall wants help with are related to climate change.  I think we will look back in 30 years time and say that given the climate changes that we could see were coming, we could (should) have anticipated the immigration, health, agriculture, oil and mineral resource etc issues that are disrupting businesses and countries.  For climate science on national (Australia) scale, we need to be 'downsizing' the effectively global projections of temperature rise and sea level rise to national, regional scales.  The future for climate science within CSIRO should be to emphasise regional climate change:  how much drier will Australia be in 30 years time? Will national temperature increases require more or less heating/air conditioning?  Where are storms/flooding likely to be increased, by how much?  Regionally, how is climate change going to affect southeast Asia to put stress on movement of populations?

In recent years CSIRO has only supported research for which external funding can be found, and climate research is too important to the nation to be entrusted to an organisation with this business model.  The need for climate research in Australia has never been more pressing.  The announced abandonment of climate research by CSIRO needs to be urgently succeeded by growth in this type of research outside CSIRO.  

    Water management, bushfire control, agriculture, the insurance sector, infrastructure, fisheries and emergency services all need to know about theeffects of climate change at the regional scale so that they can adapt to the changing climate in the most cost-effective manner.  Such regional climate predictions are not yet possible with an acceptable degree of confidence, and a separate research body is urgently needed in Australia to conduct this research. 

    Australia needs this Australian-specific climate research facility just as it need roads, schools, hospitals and telecommunication services.  Other nations will not do this country-specific climate science for us.  A country without the ability to predict its future climate is a country whose steering wheel is only loosely connect to the front wheels, and whose engine is limping along on three cylinders rather than on all four.  

Mr Marshall is absolutely right to recognise that Australian and specifically CSIRO scientists have made a great contribution through their excellent work on climate science over decades. He is mistaken in his assertion that the climate change "question has been answered". Although we are confident that human influence is a substantial cause of many aspects of past climate change, much more work is needed on understanding how climate and sea level will change in coming years to inform important decisions about policy, adaptation and impacts, both for Australia and internationally. The decision to make our CSIRO colleagues redundant will damage the capacity of the Australian and global scientific community to address the very large uncertainties that we face. Their expertise, built up over many years, should be maintained and developed as a valuable element of Australia's national capability.

I have spent much of the last decade working in the field of climate adaptation, specifically in relation to the likely impacts of future sea-level rise. To say, as does Larry Marshall (CEO, CSIRO) that "..... our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change ..... that question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it ....." indicates a bafflingly simplistic and naive approach to climate adaptation. Solutions for adaptation (such as how we allow for future sea-level rise) depend on a knowledge of the likely range of future climates - a knowledge that is currently quite poor.

While such uncertainty is routinely addressed by techniques of risk assessment, greater uncertainty leads directly to a greater likelihood of under- or over-adaptation, which on a country scale can prove very costly. The science as described in the recent Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC still falls far short of what Australia needs in order to make robust and cost-effective adaptation decisions. The sciences of climate change, adaptation and mitigation need to proceed in concert - you can't do one, rule it off and then move on to the next.

As past Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, that assessed the Physical Science Basis of climate change, I am fully aware of the enormous contribution that the Australian scientists have made to the past IPCC assessment and hence to the scientific basis of the historic Paris Agreement. This was possible thanks to brilliant minds and a functioning and reliable infrastructure, excellent observations, and sophisticated climate models, in particular regional models. That science has demonstrated just how vulnerable Australia is to future climate change is an achievement of Australia's climate science community. Capacity to assess future risks, created and amplified by climate change, crucially depends on this capability. Only the most irresponsible leader fires those who are able to produce new knowledge in a changing world, knowledge that may be inconvenient but that is absolutely needed to navigate uncharted territory.

It was with sadness that I heard of the planned axing of the Oceans and Atmosphere research group of CSIRO.  That sadness was accentuated by my incredulity at the flawed rationale for the staff redundancies.     

Australia is among the nations that are most vulnerable to the many facets of climate variability and change and the nation needs a capability to understand that variability and to predict its impacts.

Over the past two decades the scientists in CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere have made enormous strides towards achieving that capability and have developed into a world-leading group that is highly respected and, indeed, envied internationally. 

However, our understanding of the drivers of climate variability is still in its infancy.  One thing that is clear however is that the oceans play a crucial role in driving (and buffering) climate fluctuations on both long and short timescales. Australia lies within the Southern Ocean and, despite the advent of satellite remote sensing and robotic ocean profilers, that ocean remains largely a mare incognitum. 

The research of CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere has been a magnet that has drawn international resources into collaborative work to address the key role of the Southern hemisphere oceans in global and regional climate. The proposed cuts will remove that magnet.

CSIRO’s climate expertise is a strategic resource, the loss of which will add to the nation’s vulnerability to climate variations.

If the tensions between the S (science) and I (industry) in CSIRO lead Larry Marshall to conclude that this climate expertise is “surplus to requirements” then Australia must find or create another parent body for that expertise. 

Sadly, Thursday’s announcement has already damaged the world’s perception of Australia as a country capable of making sensible strategic decisions in the area of climate research.  Urgent action is required to repair that damage. 

Larry Marshall, head of CSIRO, talks about the need to shift to more innovation and adaptation to climate change as the “science is established”. However, innovation and adaptation must be based on local realities and these details of climate change as it will affect Australians are not yet well established. Crucial are the likely changes to tropical cyclones, El Nino, flood and drought magnitudes and frequencies, and rates of sea level rise and wave height changes that will cause coastal flooding and erosion. CSIRO has pioneered such research and has the skills to further clarify what must be adapted to and what innovations are needed. This requires cooperation between climate modelers, agricultural, ecological, water and marine scientists, etc., all of whom are in CSIRO as well as in Universities. CSIRO has a proven track record in this area and this should not be cut short. CSIRO has a vital role to play in adaptation to climate change, and related innovations, especially in getting the detailed scenarios right.

I thought I had seen it all before: a new leader, assuming apparently infinite control, driven by narrow and often tired ideological fixations, tampering with a national asset, CSIRO.

It is about time that CSIRO is overseen by an inclusive Board and that the Board is empowered to wrest control of its directions by having the CEO responsible to the Board. This would see that the research directions, culture and management, are based on inclusive views of what is needed by the Nation and its taxpayers, who are still largely its funders; that these directions are cognizant of the now and the future; distancing it from faddish views that, from time to time, arise in narrow sectors of the community and, indeed, sometimes include governments and their overly compliant bureaucracies."

This comment has been condensed. For Graeme's full comment, see https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fdc5316d8cbd7a248ee94eaeb/files/I_thought_I_had_seen_it_all_before.docx

If the cuts to a significant swathe of CSIRO’s climate research activities proceed, Australia faces the prospects of losing forever its world-leading research and application work on climate. This research has been painstakingly built up over decades and places Australia at the forefront of work to better understand climate, climate change and its impacts. At stake are internationally acclaimed monitoring and modelling programs. We knew next to nothing about oceanic behaviour and global changes 25 years ago. Thanks to CSIRO’s research, we are actively using this and other knowledge for forecasts, seasonal outlooks and long-term projections that lie at the heart of our ability to take advantage, and reduce the negative impacts of, weather and climate. Are we really prepared to lose all this?"

I was surprised (and not in a good way) to hear of the proposed job cuts at CSIRO, particularly in the areas of climate and oceans research. CSIRO has world leading teams in these areas, who have contributed hugely to our understanding of climate change. While the fact of human-induced climate change may be accepted many uncertainties remain, such as local and regional impact of sea level rise, and the CSIRO researchers are well placed to address these pressing questions. As the climate continues to change we need to better understand these changes if we are to deal with the consequences. This points to a continuing need for research on both the climate and the oceans (the latter being a key player in global climate). Therefore it would be wise to maintain CSIRO's expertise and research in these areas.

Mr Marshall's justification for cutting these positions is based on his premise that we now know all we need to know about climate change in order to  move on with developing mitigation and adaptation strategies. But while we know that climate change is real, the level of information about its possible impacts needed to develop the best mitigation and adaptation strategies is still far from complete. 

Investing in this research will lead to huge economic returns with respect to helping guide the development of these expensive strategies in the most cost-efficient way possible. Cutting CSIRO positions in climate science does not make economic sense.

The job cuts in the climate science division of CSIRO have been rationalised by the new CEO, former venture capitalist, Mr Marshall, as being the product of a rationalised and streamlined approach to corporate management in line with startup companies such as Netflix.  

The CSIRO, however, is a crucial agency for social and environmental progression. It is the Federal government government agency for scientific research in Australia.  It seeks to develop the scientific knowledge required to manage Australia's wildlife, plant and land resources for ecological sustainability.  It is not a technology startup.  

Mr Marshall also suggested that following the Paris summit, the question on climate change 'has been answered' and as such, the people qualified to measure and model climate change may not be best placed to determine mitigation and adaptation strategies. This is a non sequitur.  These two issues are inextricably linked.  As a legal academic who has worked extensively in natural resource and climate change law, I am extremely conscious of the strong connectivity between the nature and pace of climate change and the regulatory and policy mechanisms that are needed to address it.  

The work of the CSIRO and the expertise of the scientists and experts within Data61, Oceans & Atmosphere, Land & Water and Manufacturing is absolutely critical if we are to implement effective and informed climate change strategies. The Paris Summit focused upon the importance of 'bottom up' strategies that utilise 'subnational' initiatives, informed by science and environmental agencies.  Maintaining the integrity of the accumulated research and expertise of the climate science division of the CSIRO is vital to the overall effectiveness of Australia's response.

The foreshadowed cuts show a surprising disregard of how science, and in proxy innovation, works: it requires continuity. The fact that the nation's prime research organisation is prepared to do away with years of accumulated expertise, which required considerable public investment  to build, is exactly what has been recently identified as Australia's weakness by a major report from ACOLA: short termism.  It is foreseeable that the expertise now going to be lost will have to be built up again when the political wind changes... And the wind will change as the issue of climate change gains greater traction with the public. 

The latest round of job cuts from CSIRO is nothing short of appalling. The climate research work conducted by CSIRO has been pioneering and of global standard. While we know that the climate is changing because of human activity, we have not simply "answered" that question after the Paris agreement - many more questions remain. Like other scientific fields -  such as biology, chemistry and medicine - continual research is required to continually improve our methods, understanding and knowledge. Research in any field does not, and cannot stop after an apparent question has been answered. In terms of climate science, much more research needs to be done on furthering our understanding of these changes, monitoring the climate as it does change, and making our climate and weather models more efficient and improving their capabilities. Much of this work was undertaken by CSIRO, and so now a big hole will be left. If we want to properly safeguard our country from climate change, we require ongoing fundamental climate research - we cannot create innovative and effective solutions towards climate change without it.

This is terrible news for climate science in Australia and threatens our ability to predict future climate and the inherent risks. Research at CSIRO is at the core of our climate modelling and monitoring efforts, and is essential for better future climate projections. Climate science is not solved - out to the year 2030 most of the uncertainty in climate projections is due to uncertainty about the ways to represent some physical processes in climate models. We know that the risks associated with extreme weather and climate events increases disproportionately as the globe warms. Cutting funding in this area now doesn’t make any sense.

This extremely disappointing news from CSIRO. Australia is in a unique location in the global climate system and CSIRO climate science has played a critical role in building our understanding of the factors that drive regional climate. These climate scientists have developed valuable partnerships with other researchers and with government and industry to provide climate knowledge for adaptation decisions. These staff cuts will undermine the strong climate science capacity we need to inform future climate adaptation.

I'm a medical doctor with research interests in the health effects of climate change.  While I focus on infectious diseases I'm concerned about the myriad other impacts.  The cuts to basic climate science at the CSIRO will severely damage Australia's ability to monitor and respond to the health impacts of climate change.  The proposed focus on mitigation and adaptation is important, but the reduced capacity to model and measure climate change will reduce our ability to assess impact and hence to determine the efficacy of mitigation and adaptation.

Australia is known worldwide as a leader in measuring our climate. CSIRO has contributed a good chunk to our global knowledge, of how we change the climate and how it has changed in the past. It is hard to imagine how Australia could ever regain that expertise in ice cores and atmospheric measurements if it were lost. If the realisation dawns in a couple of years that we need continuous accurate scientific measurements for the world to follow through on the Paris commitments, it might be too late to regain that expertise in Australia. For example, Australia's CSIRO is the world's prime source of how CO2 changed in the atmosphere over the past 2,000 years. If we cannot further investigate how that CO2 record unfolded over the past 2,000 years, we walk a bit more in the dark when it comes to limiting future CO2. A great loss for Australia and an additional hurdle for the world on the path towards limiting climate change.

The notion that somehow the question of global climate change has been answered is ludicrous. Yes, it is now absolutely certain that the greenhouse gases we have added to the atmosphere are causing Earth’s climate to warm, but that big-picture knowledge does not allow us to predict and prepare for the many ways in which climate changes are going to impact on the safety and prosperity of Australia in the future. To not invest in understanding this enormous problem will cripple this country’s ability to effectively respond to the many challenges facing us as the Earth’s climate continues to warm.

Climate models, including Australia’s ACCESS model developed by CSIRO researchers, have undoubtably played an important role in proving the physical theory that greenhouse gases are causing Earth’s climate to warm. But one aspect where models consistently show we still have much to learn about exactly how the pieces of the climate jigsaw puzzle fit together is in their ability to accurately represent the Southern Hemisphere. Gutting Australia’s capabilities in climate science will severely hinder momentum in solving this and many other unanswered questions that will directly impact Australia’s future prosperity and security.

While accepting that review and restructuring is necessary for most if not all organisations, the CSIRO CEO and the Government must explain to us, the people, how further cuts of up to 350 CSIRO jobs will help to achieve better understanding and the evidence base to, at least:

      1.  meet Australia’s commitment at the Paris Climate conference, December 2015, to cut emissions and limit global warming, especially in the week that the RepuTex report shows that Australia’s emissions are still rising;

      2.  manage bushfire threats, especially after the raging bushfires in Tasmania and the continuing difficulty in controlling their environmental threat;

      3.  water shortages in many states and devastating droughts in northern Australia, limiting food production and agricultural business.

 CSIRO’s CEO states that CSIRO scientists are innovative and many will adapt to new challenges and areas of work, such as finding enduring solutions and positive outcomes to the health, environmental and business challenges due to climate change.

 Rather than threatening staff with redundancies and paying out large redundancy settlements, would it not be better to provide opportunities for existing scientific staff to extend their skills and knowledge so they can assure necessary innovation and future economic success of Australia?

Whilst the Academy is seriously concerned that CSIRO will no longer be leading Australia’s climate and environmental science research effort, we want to ensure that our national research capability is not lost in these important areas.

We call on the government to quickly make alternative arrangements to continue a comprehensive national program of climate research. Without a nationally coordinated effort, our diminished research capacity will mean Australia lacks the local knowledge necessary to adapt to a changing climate.

Our climate and environmental scientists are some of the best in the world. We wouldn’t stop supporting our elite Olympic athletes just as they’re winning gold medals. Nor should we pull the rug out from under our elite scientists.

Australia is internationally recognised for its expertise and unique position in climate and environmental research. Realistically, there are no other countries in the Southern Hemisphere that are able to do what we do. We have a singular contribution to make towards global and regional climate knowledge, and with this role comes a great responsibility to the global community.

This is a disastrous move that will decimate ocean and climate sciences in Australia.There seems to be no appreciation of how much this science underpins our nation's interests - from agriculture, fisheries and water management through to infrastructure, planning and finance.  What a backward step in this supposed decade of innovation.

This is deeply disturbing news. The impacts of climate change are already being felt around Australia at an increasing rate, and there is more to come. We absolutely need to know more about the basic operation of the climate system - how it is changing and how best can we respond to the climate change challenge. The health, environmental and economic risks of climate change are just too large to sweep them under the carpet. CSIRO is Australia's premier research organisation in terms of fundamental climate science, and has built a well-deserved international reputation for world-class science that has contributed much to global understanding of climate change. It takes decades of hard work by dedicated scientists to build up such a reputation. It can be destroyed overnight by senseless actions by those in power. Very regrettably, this seems to be happening.

Larry Marshall surely has a point about rejuvenating organisations and solving new challenges, but I worry about his statement that there is no further need post-COP21 to understand climate change since we now know it is real. Effective action requires detailed understanding. For example, Marshall speaks of contributing to the proposed agricultural development of the Northern Territory, but we don’t know for how much longer this region will still support agriculture or even human habitation as the Earth keeps warming, nor how much drying (if any) Australia's existing agricultural regions will experience. The groups that would help provide answers are the ones he says we don’t need any more.

I worked at the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric laboratories both in Melbourne (Aspendale) and Hobart during the period 2003-2011. I'm now based in the US as opportunities to undertake world leading research at CSIRO have dwindled over the last decade. This new round of proposed cuts makes a bad situation so much worse, and from the information currently being reported may lead to a key and proud Australian research capacity at CSIRO leaving Australian shores for good.

It is with dismay that I read the reports that climate research in the Ocean and Atmosphere section of CSIRO is effectively to cease, due to staff cuts. It is incorrect to say, as CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall has stated, that the climate change science problem is solved, and now all we need to do is figure out what to do about it. No working climate scientist believes that. Also, it is very hard to believe that good decisions will be made on what to do about climate change if CSIRO has little remaining expertise in climate science.

It is always disappointing when science is cut back, especially when we need to be more innovative to overcome the economic problem of falling commodity prices. It is particularly bad when the cuts are in such areas as Oceans & Atmosphere, Land & Water and Manufacturing, as these are critical to our chances of a sustainable future. More worrying than the cuts is the language used by the new CEO. There won’t be scientists sacked, there will be “reductions in headcount”!  And these aren’t research areas, they are “business units”, headed not by top scientists but “business leaders”. The cuts are “something that we must do to renew our business”, according to the CEO. The language reveals that the government is trying to sabotage our public science body and turn it into a consulting business.

CSIRO climate scientists are world class and are researching the most decisive factor that will influence the future of the world. To slash their numbers at a time when the urgency of understanding and responding to climate change has never been greater suggests that the Government does not want to hear the facts. At least Mr Abbott was upfront about his denial of climate science. This new phase is more insidious.

I am stunned by reports that CSIRO management no longer thinks measuring and understanding climate change is important, innovative or impactful. Paris did not determine whether or not climate change is happening, scientists who generate and study big data did. The big question now, which underlies all climate adaptation work, is “How is the climate changing?” That answer will once again be determined by those scientists who gather climate data and model it. How can it be that our largest national research organisation chooses not to engage, indeed not to lead, the effort in finding the answer to that question?