John Church during his current – and probably final – research voyage with CSIRO. A couple of weeks earlier, Church was co-author of a letter published by the internationally respected Nature group that sets out the evidence that humans have been the dominant force in the accelerating increase in sea level since 1970. I mention these two pieces of research not because of their particular importance, but because they are just the most recently available examples of Church's work, which stretches back to the late 1970s when he was hired to work for the national science agency in Hobart after completing a PhD in physics. In science, peer-reviewed papers carry the weight of gold bars. Church's research – using tidal gauges and satellite data to calculate the pace at which the sea is rising across the globe, and the extent to which different factors are contributing to it – has yielded more than 150. His CV includes the Eureka Prize for Scientific Research and CSIRO's Medal for Research Achievement. He has twice been a coordinating lead author of chapters in the era-defining reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall. Credit:Daniel Munoz After first being reported by Fairfax Media's Peter Hannam, his sacking was picked up by the New York Times. Its report quoted NASA scientist Joshua Willis describing Church as one of the world's top 10 climate scientists. He summarised: "It is sad and embarrassing for the Australian government." Scientists who spoke with Fairfax Media backed this up. They noted Church is conservative and meticulous in his work and public statements. He has often warned against inflated estimates of what can be projected with confidence across this century. He is also a leader, widely praised for his quiet guidance of younger scientists. illustration: Jim Pavlidis Credit:Jim Pavlidis To state the obvious, this is not expertise you should give away lightly.

Since CSIRO's plan to axe 275 scientists was announced, Church has been among those who have spoken out forcefully against the cuts to climate programs in particular, arguing they breach Australia's commitment to escalate research as part of the climate deal reached in Paris in December. Some within CSIRO believe it is likely Church was targeted due to his outspokenness. But it is not clear whether this is the case as CSIRO has signalled it is moving away from investigating global sea level rise. It is making this cut despite sea level rise being a developing area of science that is clearly in Australia's interest to understand thoroughly. On average, seas have risen more than 20 centimetres since the late 19th century. The most conservative estimates project a further increase of between 30 centimetres and a metre by the end of this century, depending on greenhouse gas emissions. This is already having real-world ramifications for coastal planning and existing waterfront infrastructure worth billions. You might think a better understanding of the problem would be helpful to plan properly.

This is also not an argument against CSIRO making changes. It should pivot to focus on areas of science that it believes are most in the national interest. If that includes throwing resources into commercially focused innovation, so be it. What makes little sense is abandoning areas in which you have world-leading expertise, and where more information is unarguably needed. Of course, Church's case is just one high-profile example. It is understood 70 scientists in CSIRO's oceans and atmosphere division alone have been approached about a possible redundancy. It comes as the agency has been scrambling in the face of significant pressure from the scientific community, here and overseas. Chief executive Larry Marshall's response was to spurn an offer by the Bureau of Meteorology to take over some CSIRO climate measurement and modelling, and instead promise to keep a smaller team at a new climate science centre in Hobart, employing 40 scientists. It sounds good in a press release, but no details are available about how the centre will operate – they are still being nutted out. CSIRO's partner agencies are privately concerned they are being excluded. They believe that to be truly effective the centre should be a national collaboration, bringing in expertise from all agencies and universities. At this stage there is no sign that will happen.