Cheryl, do read the reports again. All I claimed is in there. Have a look at the ABS's primary sources too, if you don't believe me.

As for injury, do you really think that it's reasonable for women white collar workers to make around as many claims for injury as male blue-collar ones? Male white-collar workers only make about half as many claims as their blue-collar brethren.

I'm suggesting that women suffer from lots of conditions they might not want to admit to the boss about. How much PMS is being disguised as other things? Much nicer to claim a case of RSI than admit you're having a hard time with the menopause, too.

Either women fake it, or they're not up to the job. Take your pick, but either way they take a lot more resources to keep employed than men do.

Antiseptic,

that's one of the most unsubstantiated and asinine posts I've read. There is absolutely no hint at that in the cited report or any report I've read on workforce productivity that women are work shy. Nor is it alluded to in the writer's article.

I put it to you that you have merely used this writer's article to flex your misogynist attitudes. Your thinking is regressive. Read more widely.

Visionaries are important, as well as people who have the technical and manual skills to fully realise the dreams.

Some had both. For example, Nikola Tesla.

The author makes no suggestions on how to produce cheap energy.

Me thinks he has just chosen this topic to malign men, a common addiction in our feminist society.

I think the author has scored on own-goal here.

I agree that it most circumstances there is normally no "silver bullet", especially in regards to complex systems that are partially understood.

So why is there so much credibility given to the concepts that (1) anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused global warming and climate change, and (2) the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions can “mitigate climate change”?

The author has perfectly summed this up in the opening paragraph – “This is a story about men and their dreams – alchemist dreams. Part science, part magic, part religion.”

The article further suggests that: “... there is always at least one such guy (this syndrome only afflicts men) in the audience who has in his grasp the triumphant Cornucopian solution – the silver bullet that will herald in a bright future for mankind.”

And: “For one thing, it is not possible to contest the science – their belief is generally more about faith than it is about science, and who can argue against impregnable faith?”

And: “By and large these are the most earnest, dedicated, passionate people you could imagine. But, like anybody deeply infatuated with religion they tend to be smitten with an absolute, rock solid belief. They’ve found their Holy Grail. And that’s the scary bit.”

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar to anyone?

Chris. This is complete, unadultered piffle. I read on thinking at some point there was going to be an original or challenging thought. Sadly, the only conclusion i could reach was that as a former advisor to the Greens you had some experience of religious fervour and were quite predictably a technology reactionary. "The quack of today is the professor of tomorrow." (attributed to Sherlock Holmes).

Cheryl:"There is absolutely no hint at that in the cited report or any report I've read on workforce productivity that women are work shy."

Dear me, please try to stay focussed and perhaps try reading things that are referenced. I said that women white-collar workers generally make twice as many injury claims as men. Overall, women make about the same number of claims as men, despite working in mostly safe industries. Some female-dominated industries are dangerous, like kitchen work and some types of nursing, but the vast majority are not, yet the injury rate remains high. This is all in the ABS report. I said that women prefer to work in part-time roles when they can, etc - this is according to Goldman Sachs.

I didn't say it was universal, merely that it is the statistical case. The net outcome, according to Goldman Sachs, is that women are 50% less productive than men. F-I-F-T-Y. They didn't even look at the costs of employing women, which are obviously much higher, making the equation even less favourable.

None of those are my opinions, they are the pinions of Goldman Sachs JB Were and the ABS. Worksafe Australia has more detailed breakdowns if you're interested.

The Goldman Sachs report came from the website of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency.