How can a person be Australia's Chief-Scientist and fail to consider nuclear energy?

How can anyone who calls themselves a scientist lead us to 100% gas (and not even consider ultra-super-critical coal), which will have little impact on AGW even if the whole world adopted the approach, then simply hold (as an article of pure faith), that viable storage solutions will arise to avoid the ultimate need for much gas-generated power?

A sceptical scientist should not be bound in his recommendations to what he may believe to be politically acceptable, nor by his own leanings. Finkel has completely abrogated his responsibility in this regard and, if his blueprint is followed, he will go down in history as a part of the problem rather than of the solution.

The nuclear power industry spent more than $650
million on lobbying, campaign contributions and
advertising from 2000-2010 in its persistent effort
to achieve a nuclear “renaissance.”1
Now that the nuclear “renaissance” has sputtered,
with only 5 of some 35 reactor proposals currently
being pursued, the industry is turning its attention—
and money--toward preventing the shutdown of
many aging reactors unable to compete economically
with wind and solar power.
One of the industry’s primary goals has been to
convince federal and state legislators, regulatory
officials, and the media that nuclear power is somehow
“clean” energy, because nuclear reactors emit
little carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But this
disregards the alphabet soup of other cancer-causing
pollutants spewed into our air and water by
nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, lobbying campaigns
backed by so much money often attain some
success.
Thus, there are increasing calls from nuclear industry
backers, inside and outside of government, to
include nuclear power in Renewable Energy Standards
(or new “Clean Energy Standards”) intended to
boost use of clean renewables, or to permit nuclear
to trade emissions credits in regional cap-and-trade
1 Investigative Reporting Workshop, January 2010.
http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/
nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energyworking-hard-win-support/
emissions programs. This is occurring at both the
federal and state levels to encourage use of nuclear
power (and for some proponents, coal and natural
gas as well) to the detriment of genuinely clean and
affordable technologies like wind, solar, energy
efficiency and others.2

Yes. Finkel is a flop. But did anyone really expect anything else from a Turbull government appointee? Governments appoint only those who will tell them what they want to hear.

Dr Finkel's report proposes a clean energy target
to drive investment and lower emissions. It's a
step in the right direction.

Josh Frydenberg explained to Mr Abbott that the
problem that they're trying to solve is to get a
regulatory environment which encourages investment
in order that we don't have any more blackouts in
the future and that we get prices lower.

The Review should be read in full to get the bigger
picture that's being proposed.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/finkel-review-households-could-save-up-to-1000-over-a-decade-under-clean-energy-target-20170609-gwnz0g.html

evolution was the start of consensus junk science. The natural progression is the man made gw fantasy.

Finkle's findings are spot on and it will be a brave politician that does not take notice.
Runner there is two races of the same people on earth. there is RH + and RH-.
So are you saying god only made RH-people. maybe that is why religion is so divided these days. People know too much.