The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Comprehensive reef protection plan could begin with Science Ombudsman > Comments

Comprehensive reef protection plan could begin with Science Ombudsman : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 14/6/2016

Even after the information had been passed on to senior bureaucrats, the false claim of elevated levels of fat-soluble pesticides in dugongs was repeated in their influential briefing papers and reports.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Agronomist & Bugsy,

You have not pondered the possibility that the Chief Scientist might be entrenched in paradigm or consensus views?
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 5:54:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer, I fully understand the difference between insecticides and herbicides. I mentioned insecticides because you stated the problem was with fat-soluble pesticides in dugongs and these are almost always insecticides. In addition, your article from 2002 failed to mention diuron specifically or herbicides generally.

If you can't get your story straight, then it will be difficult for others to adequately respond.

Allow me to suggest that your correspondence did not get the response you wanted, because you were unable to provide evidence of a problem with the report. Baker did not ignore your correspondence as your own article states that Baker responded promising to consult with the science panel. What he didn't do is get back to you afterwards. I suggest, based on what you wrote in the article compared with what I know from the science, this is because your concerns were largely without merit.

The report wasn't claiming dioxins were coming from pesticides. There are indeed issues with insecticide movement from land to the reef and these are a potential risk to wildlife (although a small risk at the moment).

The Queensland Government response as set out in the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Act 2009, seems to me to have identified the main problem issues: soil erosion from cattle farms; and herbicides and nitrates from sugar cane production. Reducing the movement of these would deal with any potential threat to the reef without stopping people from farming.

Bob Fernley-Jones, the whole point of consensus in science is a description of what science agrees on, rather than the views of a couple of maverick engineers on topics outside their expertise. If the Chief Scientist were to give advice diametrically opposed to the scientific consensus, I would want them sacked.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10:50:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer: Would the Chief Scientist be able to investigate and then report on this blatant misrepresentation of the science... as detailed in the above article...

Bob Fernley Jones: You have not pondered the possibility that the Chief Scientist might be entrenched in paradigm or consensus views?

Agreed on both counts. The Chief Scientist cannot be relied upon for impartial judgement. Nor can a responsible-Minister-appointed panel, e.g. the panel that looked into the BOM temperature record adjustment process was biased in favour of BOM, as Jennifer can attest.

Appointment of a science ombudsman appears the appropriate solution.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 12:06:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist,

You write: "fat-soluble pesticides in dugongs and these are almost always insecticide". In this instance the "fat-soluble pesticide" proved to be a naturally occurring dioxin. Furthermore, John Brodie/David Haynes and others never claimed it as a insecticide, but rather initially claimed it was a byproduct of the use of the herbicide 2,4-D in sugarcane.

Raycom, and/or someone with some administrative/legal expertise:

I've been emailed the following link, with the note that,
"It would appear that they cover public universities.
http://www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au/ "

So, could complaints about JCU's treatment of Peter/his photographic evidence goto the existing Queensland Ombudsman?

Furthermore, regarding the issue of temperature homogenization, could this go to an Ombudsman?

The examples represent such blatant misrepresentation of evidence, surely they simply need to be brought before a fair minded person with some authority?

John Singer wrote at my Facebook page:
"I suggested a citizens jury and I am told scientific matters are complex and probably beyond their ken. Perhaps, but we rely on citizen Juries on matters of life and death so perhaps there is some merit in the idea.
I do have experience of specialist tribunals and I formed the view many years ago that the familiarity which develops between specialist adjudicators and the specialists or lawyers appearing before them rarely achieves the just result that was being sought. The elephant in the room is that 'other case' being battled of which the appellant is blissfully unaware.
I believe in the common sense of people who have not been influenced by either side of a complex matter to be able to find where the truth lies, to identify pressures and weaknesses and to come to a decision as rational as a Court but faster and cheaper. Put five such people together like the old Equity Juries and who knows maybe we could have a workable system."

What were "Equity Juries"?
Posted by Jennifer, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 9:50:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist,

“If the Chief Scientist were to give advice diametrically opposed to the scientific consensus, I would want them sacked.”

You are displaying an elitist attitude that is being critiqued here and which is sometimes called ‘group-think’. It is bad for the advancement of science which has sensibly been seen as benefiting from scepticism.

Let’s pretend we are back in the early 20th century and Alfred Wegener (a German scientist) who was primarily a meteorologist submitted a theory to our Chief Scientist that the Earth’s continents are not in a fixed position but drifting around. Let’s imagine that the Chief Scientist independently studied the evidence and agreed that this was true. Given that it took the geological establishment (the consensus group) some thirty years to accept the theory, to be renamed tectonics, it follows that you would want the chief scientist sacked for actually concluding correctly on the evidence.

A deplorable attitude!
Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 1:30:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And exactly what policy involving continental movement would this hypothetical Chief Scientist be advising on Bob?

I am not exactly opposed to the idea of a Science Ombudsman, so I don't really know where you get that impression.

I am however of the opinion that anyone from your particular kaffeeklatsch should be immediately disqualified for the position, especially if Jennifer is putting their name forward.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 1:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy