cornaco "The question I have is why does the right hate science so much?"

Yet it's the left against Nuclear .. huh?

So why does the left hate science?

Cronus

"The plain English movement arose when Scientists realised they needed to speak clearly with the bulk of the population."

And its work better than we anticipated:) All in our opinion, ALL have the right to know whats going on, not just the chosen few.

Huamns have made our like a DO AS YOU PLEASE....FREE FOR BANQUETTE and now the time has come to come strait......

Any Questions?

"Publications are the determinants of one’s career".....YES! It still does.

"the majority of papers published are lucky to be read by more than half a dozen people."

Thats how it used to be, however, the people/public can influence/high-light the concerns that was once pretty pointless/or of little concern, since yes! to the conspiracies, that governments tend to think like......."its only a need to know bases:)"or, "you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette" this of course, is no longer relevant.

Time and again the content of papers can be halved with reader comprehension improved."

And that's what its all about:)

LEAP

Is it possible that our government is simply 'hitching a ride' here? The scientific community is an international one. Certainly, there are some nations and some groups that like to keep their findings to themselves, but much of our scientific knowledge transcends borders. While I think it's a bit mean-spirited, I can almost understand why our government wouldn't offer significant funding and support to science when they can invest just a little and still benefit from our international friends' findings.

The trouble with that attitude is that we DO have some brilliant scientists in this country. We have brilliant minds and brilliant work ethics that are never exploited because the facilities and resources are lacking.

<< You are only exemplifying the view I described: the idea that human beings are a form of noxious pest, a plague, a cancer… >>

Peter Hume, I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m striving for a balance between humanity and the environment and resource base.

You seem to be seeing things in a very polarised manner, as though any attempts to strike this balance are to be completely condemned!

You seem to want science to just forever increase productivity, without any ‘greenie’ encumbrances. And that seems to be about the end of it, as I read it. There’s no sense of balance or moderation in your writings.

Well, don’t you think science IS delivering what you want?

With science being funded by successive manically pro-growth governments and by big business, that’s exactly what you are going to get, far and away ahead of what I want – science based on balance and sustainability.

So I don’t understand why you think that; << the state funding of science should be abolished. >>

The CSIRO has done a lot of research into how to improve productivity on the land, amongst other things. It has greatly assisted us in our efforts to forever increase productivity and economic growth, which of course governments just love to death!

But the CSIRO also put together a comprehensive submission to the 1994 Australian population carrying capacity inquiry, arguing strongly for limits to growth based on a population in the order of 24 million if I recall correctly.

So, under a government funded regime, it managed to put out a message that very strongly conflicted with the continuous growth doctrine.

Unfortunately the government took no notice. But at least the freedom of speech and independence was there, at that time, at least for that particular scientific institution.

Is it really significantly different today?

It would be interesting to know the sources, amounts and area's of funding for say the CSIRO?

There is no information from the current Senate Committee Hearings and all I can find is total funding of $1.2Bn.

Anyone know where we might find a funding breakdown as this would add to the debate?