Australia’s chief scientist tells PM's business adviser to stick to economics, page-56

Good afternoon Hunnyman, thanks for your input and what exactly are you on about?
it seems you're suggesting that the vast majority of scientists qualified to publish peer-reviewed material have somehow concocted a conspiracy to confect some form of environmental extremism inthe form of global warming.

where do you place science in the modern world? Is it not more likely that these scientists have been led by observations, data and analysis that sum to a broad conclusion that global warming exists and human activity is mostly responsible.

i can assure you there is no faith in this process - unlike religion which resides solely on it. There is only veriable evidence and data and plausible analysis in the conclusions scientists draw.

you talk of wealth and technology underpinning the survival of the species. Science underpins the technology in the same way that science underpins the global warming conclusions.

the opinion of Maurice Newman doesn't hold the value in this debate as the vast majority of scientists. Newman Vs NASA really is a no-brainer.

The trashing of science by the mob in govt and their gravy train such as Newman is a disturbing trend and one that must be turned around. If you want open heart surgey done, do you head to a pastry shop? Do anthropologists pore over the bible as a major text? Do software developers and hardware manufacturers spend their time roo shooting?

i'm backing Australia's chief scientist Ian Chubb on matters of science any day and all day over Maurice Newman. It really is a no brainer.