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?

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.

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.