Experts Say CSIRO Climate Science Job Cuts Will Put Australian's Health At Risk

More experts have raised concerns about the recent job cuts at CSIRO, stating that climate science "underpins planning and programs for the health sector in Australia with climate modelling used by health researchers to identify issues, monitor changes, plan a response, and prepare resources".

They describe the planned cuts to climate research as "a shocking and poor decision" that must be reversed.

The proposed cuts would gut climate science within the nation’s leading science body, says Dr Hanna, putting the health of the nation and its citizens at serious risk.

"Health and medical researchers rely heavily on CSIRO climate modelling to understand the health risks to individuals as well as larger population groups. Axing these globally respected climate experts from the CSIRO will directly threaten the future health of Australians," said Climate and Health Alliance President Dr Liz Hanna.

Dr Hanna said health professionals were also worried about the health implications of axing scientists from the land and water division of CSIRO as they worked to secure Australia’s water and food supplies.

"Australia is the world’s driest inhabited continent so water security is a critical issue. All our major cities have faced water shortages, and some towns have completely run out of water. People must have access to clean, safe and secure food and water supplies in order to survive."

[Climate and Health Alliance ]


Comments

    Just to play the devils advocate here, but if I were to counter these people (I'm not. I think we should keep the scientists where they are) I'd be asking: "If the current climate models are good enough to set global climate/emissions policy, and there is already a way to link it to health outcomes, why do we need so many people, rather than just a few to 'plug in the numbers'?".

    Of course, that completely neglects the fact that models need to be updated as additional information is available.

      yeah, I dont think they are that mature yet. As climate sceptics (nuts) will constantly point out, the predictions haven't been amazingly accurate so far. Its not to say the prediction of overall climate change hasn't been perfectly accurate, but the more specific breakdows (such as what will happen region by region in Aus)

      I think you have your answer, we need ongoing assessment and appraisal in order to combat the effects of climate change. Whilst we know what's going to happen in broad brush strokes we don't know how local ecosystems will be effected. Being able to monitor the environment will enable us to intervene at a much earlier stage.

    As we can see this is all part of a broader attack on the environment by the LNP. It started with Tony trying to log Tasmania's world heritage sites and continues with Malcolm with attacks on green groups funding, the right to fight mining projects, the war on wind, funding for renewables.... There is no scientific or economic reasoning, in fact just the opposite, it is purely ideological. It is also no coincidence that these are exactly the same views shared by the mining lobby. Preventing us monitoring our environment and protecting our environment are vital for their continued exploitation of Australia and its people.

    Ultimately this decision must come back to the Turnbull government because while Abbott severely cut CSIRO's funding Turnbull did not fully or properly restore it. This decision MUST BE REVERSED! It is too important that we have constantly researched and updated climate research for it not to be.

    The squealing begins as the trough is withdrawn from the snouts.

      And only later does the farmer realise he will have to do without bacon in future.

      Seriously, the current government keeps acting on policy in the apparent belief that climate change is illusory while the evidence (which has been pretty definitive for a decade or so in any case) mounts that it is not. The "pause" was constructed by comparing against the previously record highs in the late 90s - records which have been definitively shattered.

      Why are we spending $250M on an arguably unconstitutional school chaplaincy programme while laying off the scientists who are best able to advise us on matters of climate which affect major national issues such as the water supply and bushfire management?

      As policies go, It's as rawly ideological as they come. Next thing you know we'll be seeing supply-side economics.

      I suppose at least our children will now be well advised on how to pray for rain.

      Last edited 10/02/16 4:11 pm

    You are right coconutdog, look at that so called govt expert Flim Flam Flannery, everything he claimed would happen didn't, and it hasn't warmed in the last 18-19 years.
    No wonder they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.
    Hard to disprove when the climate always has and will change.
    The squealing is getting louder.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now