CSIRO OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
Castray Esplanade, Hobart, Tas. 7001
GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia
Dr Larry Marshall
CEO CSIRO.
April 3, 2016
Dear Larry
This is an open letter in response to the invitation for feedback in your email of March 17. I provide
direct feedback on decisions reported in your email of February 4, as well as those of Ken Lee at
staff briefings. There are also a series of questions that require answers.
The world, and Australia, has agreed that climate change is an important and pressing issue, and that
every nation has to contribute to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and that we will all have to
adapt to a changing climate. Successful and cost effective mitigation and adaptation requires
ongoing, and indeed strengthened, climate science. This is specifically recognised in the Paris
agreement at COP21.
The Paris agreement also recognises some nations may have lower capacity to perform climate
research, and so there is also a call to assist developing nations by providing underpinning advice for
adaptation.
The climate science that is critical to adaptation and mitigation includes:
 Understanding how Australia’s (and our neighbours) future climate might change. (There are
many pertinent open questions, including: How will ENSO and Australia’s drought-flood
cycle change? What does it mean for the Murray Darling Basin? How will it impact food and
water supply issues, not just for the rural environment but also for our cities? What does it
mean for coastal development and resilience? As recognised in the recent Australian defence
white paper, what are the defence and security implications?)
 Are there important climate thresholds we need to consider that would have long lasting and
severe impacts? For example: severe damage to the Great Barrier Reef and other unique
Australian ecosystems; ongoing decay of the ice sheets resulting in multi-metre sea level rise.
 Australia is already severely impacted by extreme events – cyclones, storm surges, heat
waves, droughts, floods. How will these extreme events change? What will it mean for
bushfires, human health, food and water supply, coastal infrastructure, our sandy beaches?
 Are we on track to meet the targets? We cannot afford to be distracted by short term
variability that may be misunderstood as a slowing in global warming.
 What are appropriate adaptation pathways? How do we reduce vulnerability, minimise costs
and maximise opportunities?
 Do we need to take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere or pursue other geoengineering
options? What is realistically achievable, what are the benefits and what are the risks?
The idea that climate science is now “done”, and that we can dispense with it as we move onto
mitigation and adaptation is incorrect, naïve and misleading. Rather, the agreement reached in Paris
has indicated climate science is more important than ever and critical to cost effective mitigation and
adaptation. The proposed cuts would break the commitments made in Paris just last December!
Climate science, as a major research issue facing Australia, is central to CSIRO delivering under the
Science and Industry Research Act 1949 (hereafter CSIRO Act), and is also a key issue that is
recognised in the CSIRO Strategy. Tax payer support for CSIRO comes from its ability to
independently address major issues facing the Australian community, including to undertake public
good research, such as climate change research.
The proposed cuts to climate science will result in the loss of key elements of research that underpin
both mitigation and adaptation. Australia is the leading nation in the southern hemisphere, and as
part of the international community, Australia must continue to observe the climate system, improve
understanding and models of the climate system, project future climate change and assess its
implications for Australia and our neighbours. All of these components are important and
synergistic – you can’t outsource one component without limiting the benefit of other components.
The proposed cuts directly undermine these efforts and will detrimentally impact adaptation to
climate change for Australia and our neighbours.
It is also now clear that the decision to cut climate science was based on incorrect financial data.
Question 1. Since your decision to cut climate science is based on an incorrect
understanding and information, will you now reverse the decision to cut climate science?
Question 2. If not, what is the real reason for cutting climate science?
There have been numerous calls, including from the Chief Scientist and the Australian Academy of
Science, that Australia’s capability in climate science must be maintained for the nation’s welfare. If
the significant cuts to climate science proceed as originally indicated, this would be effectively
throwing hundreds of millions of dollars of investment on to the scientific scrap heap and would be
wanton vandalism. If CSIRO wishes to vacate these areas, Australia’s climate science needs could be
accomplished by the appropriate transfer of capability and capacity to some alternative structural
arrangements. This would need to be done with care and requires considerable consultation with
partner organisations and the broad science community. It is clear that the necessary consultations to
facilitate this did not occur prior to your announcement. I understand that such discussions have now
started but that the proposed transfers, at best, save a small fraction of the existing and required
capability. While this is of course a challenging problem, it is not acceptable for CSIRO after a very
short time to wash their hands of the issue and effectively say this is too hard for us – this would be a
major failure of the CSIRO executive and the CSIRO Board.
Question 3. What steps are you undertaking and what partnerships are you building, such
that Australia’s past investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in climate science is not
wasted, and that the necessary capability is preserved and indeed enhanced for Australia’s
welfare?
I welcome a stronger focus on climate mitigation and sincerely hope that CSIRO increases
investment in this area. I would also welcome an increased focus on adaptation to that part of
climate change we will not be able to avoid. However, both of these foci require continued climate
science research and indeed you are effectively cutting climate adaptation research through your cuts
to climate science. You come to CSIRO with a reputation as an entrepreneur. Climate mitigation
and adaptation are extremely high profile issues and are excellent opportunities to put these skills
into practice.
2
Question 4. What steps are you undertaking to raise new funds for mitigation and adaptation,
rather than taking the easy route of redirecting funds from other areas?
CSIRO is a research organisation governed by the CSIRO Act with broad responsibilities to the
Australian community. The CSIRO strategy as written and the concept of innovation cover a broad
remit that would be consistent with the CSIRO Act. However, it appears, and documents released as
part of the Senate enquiry reveal, that the CSIRO Strategy and the word innovation are being
interpreted in a very narrow and limited way. I have no complaint about supporting industry but
CSIRO cannot unilaterally change the scope of its remit – only the Commonwealth Government can
do that. CSIRO needs to continue to address the broader scope of issues of national interest.
Question 5. How will CSIRO continue its national responsibility in areas of public good
research, including building national partnerships to undertake and fund the necessary climate
science research?
A research organisation requires excellent communication both within the organisation and with
stakeholders and cannot effectively operate with a culture of extreme secretiveness and of command
and control from the top. It is clear that this has not happened, with misleading and incomplete
statements rather than openness characterising communication around the current changes.
Question 6. When will you and the senior leadership begin to adopt an open, consultative
and supportive approach to ensure the maximum benefit is gained from government, industry
and private investment?
As a successful and respected climate scientist, I do not believe I am resting on my laurels on a path
to mediocrity, as stated in your email February 4. Personally, I would prefer to leave that sort of
judgement to the stakeholders in my research (who have given me strong support), my world leading
national and international colleagues and reviewers and editors of journals like Nature. All of these
are important measures of quality that are essential for CSIRO to continue to deliver into the future.
I also take exception to your inference in your email of March 17, that scientists like myself are
putting their own personal needs ahead of those of Australia and CSIRO. I and many of my
colleagues have worked exceptionally hard and taken on significant responsibilities over many years
as part of our commitment to the welfare of humankind and the environment.
Finally, I, and also on behalf of my colleagues, demand that you stop being disrespectful and
insulting to your staff who have given so much of their lives in service to CSIRO and Australia.
I look forward to your open response.
Yours sincerely
Dr John Church, FAA, FTSE, FAMS, CSIRO Fellow.
[email protected] +613 6232 5207
CC Mr David Thodey, Chair CSIRO Board, All CSIRO Board Members
Dr Alex Wonhas, Dr Ken Lee
3