Australia’s chief scientist tells PM's business adviser to stick to economics

Originally posted by Hunnyman ↑

I see the term "climate denier" being used by some extremists.
That is a silly term indeed. I assume we all acknowledge the existence of climate.
Is the term meant to equate a sceptic to a "Holocaust denier"?
Is the term meant to transfer the distaste generally felt for such people on to those who don't feel that the sky is likely to fall if we do not do as the extremists say.
I do use the term "extremist" advisedly. Remember peak oil?
I have seen a few end of the world scenarios come and go, and this global warming stuff is just another in a long history of panics caused by the Chicken Littles of this world.
The world may well experience overall warming, or not.
Either way mankind will soldier on. There will be mass die-offs, there have been so many in the past and they are not ever going to cease, no matter what any saviour of the world does.
The best chance for any particular human culture to survive the inevitable slings and arrows of outrageous fortune will be to build wealth and technology, both of which combined will provide the best chance of survival while not guaranteeing it.
There are no guarantees. The universe owes you nothing.
A poor, technologically backward society will suffer more from the absolutely inevitable climatic changes in the future, whichever way the mercury goes.
That brings up the argument as to which is the best way to increase wealth and technology, and the answer is free enterprise, unfettered to the greatest degree possible by governments and religion. ( and Chicken Littles )
Look at the world and you will notice that the people are inevitably worse when government and/or religion have more power than personal freedom to create wealth. I class environmental extremism as a religion, the organisational structure and mind set is quite the same.

Expand

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.