? it's specifically about Australia, where the government has largely been climate-denalists for two decades, including sabotaging government research projects: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/16/csiro...

Indeed.

Worth taking a look at our top exports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_Australia

I wonder why the leaders of our country that profits primarily from large-scale export of coal, natural gas, petroleum, beef and cotton don't want the population worrying that maybe these exports aren't sustainable in the long- (or maybe even mid-) term?

is it really so hard to imagine that perhaps the climate issues that have been "constantly talked about for 20+ years" have been heavily moderated/filtered/co-opted by financial/political interests?

The current party line is "holy shit we gotta do something soon or 2100 is gonna be bad, ya'll!". Thing is, essentially nobody today will be alive by 2100. Humans are not very good at thinking in these kinds of timescales. Corporations are hilariously bad at thinking beyond the next quarterly financial report.

So if it turns out that we're witnessing irreversible and catastophic changes to important natural systems that many of us will witness first-hand in our own lives, don't you think it's entirely plausible that the people in charge don't want us to learn the full scope of how bad things got under their watch? That the people profiting from this carnage don't want the majority to act in a way that impacts their profits?

> Humans are not very good at thinking in these kinds of timescales.

That doesn't really resonate with me, as there are plenty of people who do stuff for the betterment of their kids, grand kids, and so on.

I was thinking the same thing. I started thinking the article was satire towards the end. I was expecting that it would be about climate scientists being gagged for not being alarmist enough or for presenting some evidence that went against the climate change narrative.

I know of such incident from a town near were I lived where a marine biologist with a PhD was fired for publishing a paper which claimed that coral bleaching had improved. You never hear about such cases on mainstream news.

Who knows maybe this article is a psyop.

> where a marine biologist with a PhD was fired for publishing a paper which claimed that coral bleaching had improved.

That's the Sky News framing of his dismissal.

He was dismissed for misconduct towards other peer researchers, he beat that up on Sky News, initially won an unfair dismissal case and then lost on appeal.

He did claim that coral recovery after a mass bleaching had come back better than ever, the reality was that recovery was good but at the tally up things were still worse than before.

For reference:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-environment-oceans...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/qld-controversial-que...

> You never hear about such cases on mainstream news.

Yes, you do.

It was all over Sky News, ABC Australian news, Reuters, The Guardian, BBC News, etc.

> I was thinking the same thing. I started thinking the article was satire towards the end. I was expecting that it would be about climate scientists being gagged for not being alarmist enough or for presenting some evidence that went against the climate change narrative.

This comment is a good example of being primed to accept a particular narrative, assuming that the OP would confirm that bias, and then on discovering that it does not confirm that bias, reacting to reject the offending data point as a "psyop". A neat encapsulation of the challenge we have in communicating honestly with each other.

I think of myself as agnostic on climate change.... Maybe it's happening, maybe it's primarily man-made. Still, I just can't imagine in the current environment where the media blames literally everything on climate change that scientists would be reprimanded by politicians (who are themselves clearly in favor of climate alarmism) for being too alarmist. That does not add up for me.

The examples given appear to all prior to the change of government in Australia last year.

The former Prime Minister, Scotty from Marketing, was famously heavy handed and self serving with respect to his image (and by extension what he thought the image of Australia should be). As a prominent member of a particular big tent evangelical church he never did abide with the notion that man might impact the world.

This is about the suppression of direct personal testimony on the effects of climate from senior scientists that were part of the government research teams generally under a CSIRO umbrella.

Papers were published, reporters were advised, articles were printed, but certain types of strong language was edited out and direct interviews with particular people were denied in various ways - the article alleges.