"Professor Bell draws attention here to the big picture and the big questions ..."

No she doesn't. The reason why not is because the "we" she refers to means everyone in the world, now and indefinitely into the future, who have an interest in "the environment". (And if not why not?) The population of Australia is 23 million, but the population of the world is 7,000 million. Those 7 billion have an interest in the use of the MDB which, in Diane's own terms need to be taken into consideration in the decision-making process. But the decision-making authority will be vested in a teeny tiny little completely unrepresentative technocratic committee that has no way of knowing what those 7 billion people want from the MDB. How do "scientists", let alone "poets and songsters", know whether they want more food? Or more wetlands? How?

"This is science in its fullest expression, considering the complex multitude of interconnected factors..."

But the science doesn't consider them, that's the whole point! The process that she is assuming has the capacity to take all those things into consideration, is IN FACT not capable of knowing or integrating them. And she's completely ignorant of this fact. How could the process she envisages have any other result than vested interests bickering over incommensurable values backed up only by arbitrary political force - exactly what she thinks she's against? She's totally confused and making a fool of herself.

"...rather that we enlarge the scope and depth of our conversation when considering its and our future."

She's not enlarging the scope and depth of the conversation, she's immeasurably reducing it, by confusing "we" - meaning the world, with "we" - meaning the MDBA.

She doesn't understand the first thing about social science, and if she did, she'd know that Soviet-style bureaucratic central planning is worse for human beings and the environment, not better.

Prof Bell is right: the wrong questions were asked, the wrong solutions sought – the reticence to use the science, the avoidance of solutions and the triumph of lowest levels of commitment in the name of compromise. We saw feral right wing book burning, the denigration of science, the posturing of Ministers, the hypocrisy of vested interests inside and outside the Parliaments, and the political cowardice of today’s academics and scientists.

And the result: the failure to understand the urgent imperative to meet the impending challenges of accommodating to climate change; the failure to understand the imperatives of food security; and the failure to understand that failing these tasks is to fail not only the ecology of the river system but the sustainability of communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. And CSG remains a threat in the Basin.

But then we live in a period when the two largest political parties have lost any of the idealism on which they were founded and are captives of vested interest. Their leaders have little or no vision for Australia, and who have no clue about preparing for a world in rapid planetary transition.

And Jardine K. Jardine illustrates the descent into ignorant abuse that was displayed by many who lined themselves up against the imperative of putting the river system first so the rest follows: prosperity and sustainability. Jardine's tirade has no basis: a) Prof Bell IS a social scientist and called for wider inclusion; b) she has been prominently critical of the MDB plan from the start; and c) she is on the public record as campaigning for a science-based outcome.

Seamus anyone who suggests a dammed river mouth can flush salt out to sea is nothing but a fool.

A bit like those who still believe in global warming. Of course those fools are nowhere near as bad as those who realise global warming is a fools game, but still continue to use it to influence public policy.

Seamus, you and Diane are the ones arguing for a political solution, remember?

Well? You got it.

Your and Diane's talk of science is completely bogus. Science doesn't supply value judgments, while policy requires them. Science doesn't say what should be done with the MDB. All you want is for your preferred values to be forced on everyone else, simple as that, and your appeal to science is either ignorant or dishonest, there's no other possibility