Saturday, July 3, 2010
Our chief scientist, Penny Sackett, at the climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week seems to be confused.
From the Chief Scientist's Website: The Office of the Chief Scientist supports the Chief Scientist for Australia in her role of providing independent advice to Government on a wide range of scientific and technological issues and her engagement with the science, research and industry communities, learned societies and other governments.
My interpretation is that, by independent advice, it would mean reviewing all science as it applies to Australia and not just science as it relates to the Labor Government's AGW policies. Ms Sackett has been known to say publicly that there are no peer-review papers against the hoax hypothesis of AGW. This is despite her knowledge that they do exist. Therefore she pushes the Labor Government line.
Prof Sackett said: "Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it (AGW), is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change."
Well, Ms Sackett, practise what you preach!
AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist, Penny Sackett, says polarising debate on which policy is best to address climate change is often unhelpfully confused with the scientific argument for global warming.
At a climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week, Professor Sackett told The Age acting on climate change should be the role of all Australian political parties.
It was the responsibility of politicians, scientists and the public to engage with each other on the issue, she said.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it, is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change,'' she said.
''The consensus within the scientific community about the main points of the science is strong, whereas the consensus within the political community - and those who elect them - about what to do about it is less strong.
She continued:"While it is unfortunate that Australian politics and a large fraction of the citizenry may be polarised with respect to the best course of climate action, it would be not only unhelpful but tragic if this polarisation led to a societal divide in our commitment to act."
Well, Ms Sackett is polarised on the hoax hypothesis and will not looks at the evidence against the hoax.
''My expectation as a citizen is that every political party would be engaging in learning about more the science, so together they can, in Parliament - where everybody has one voice regardless of their political party - make the most of an opportunity to make the best policies for Australia,'' she said.
Why, oh why does she not practise what she preaches. Why does she close her mind to the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is innocent?