Attacking research they don’t agree with, activist favorite gets it wrong again
October 20th, 2016
Unhappy with the weight of research into the benefits, safety and scientific credentials of the coal seam gas industry, a supposedly independent think-tank has taken a swing at the credentials of the CSIRO.
Activist favourite, The Australia Institute, claims the CSIRO and industry partnership, the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance is somehow conflicted because it is funded by industry, and has joint governance arrangements which see a degree of industry oversight.
But, as with everything TAI releases, it’s worth looking beyond the headline.
After all, this is the same group who quietly withdrew, corrected and reissued another report on the gas industry after inadvertently killing off a US nurse, and whose ability to interpret figures has been called into question before.
So, what is the real story? It’s quite simple.
GISERA was established in 2011 with the following purpose:
“The partners in the Gas Industry Social & Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA) initially invested more than $15 million over the first five years to research the environmental, social and economic impacts of the natural gas industry. Our initial research focus was on coal seam gas developments in Queensland, Australia.
The Alliance has now expanded into New South Wales and includes partners Australia Pacific LNG, QGC, AGL, Santos, Origin Energy and CSIRO.
The Alliance also receives funding from the Australian and New South Wales Governments.”
GISERA’s Governance Statement clearly sets out how CSIRO maintains its independence. But, as none of this suits the story arc of anti-industry activist groups, it is conveniently ignored.
GISERA’s response to the TAI’s claims makes for interesting reading, and the list of identified errors clearly shows the lack of rigour that went into the preparation of the report
While claiming that they have no formal political or commercial ties, there’s no avoiding the fact that the TAI has a heavy Green influence, and that this latest report is just another part of their attack on research they don’t agree with.
It should be seen for what it is – an attack from a vested interest, with little basis in fact or credibility.