All this talk about lamingtons and politics is a terrible threat to the reputation of Catallaxy as a destination for nerds that we earned in the halcyon days of the Soon Age. This story is about boldness in science and a tribute to Ian Chubb, our Science Czar, written by Joanna Mather in a column in the AFR last Monday headed Bold Defender of Science.
Hopes are high that the retired VC of the ANU will continue to impress with his blunt, no nonsense approach and willingness to step on toes. Science advocates wanted more clout from the Science Czar, apparently the departed Penny Sackett did not measure up or lacked support. They wanted someone who “didn’t care about upsetting the political establishment”.
Ian Chubb seems to be a bit too close to the political establishment for my comfort.
He dismissed the idea that he might not have the ear of the nation’s most important politician [Mr Thomson?] “I know her (Julia Gillard) quite well so I’m not going to have any trouble about getting to her when I need to get to her.”
Followed by a joke about not phoning up to talk football because they support different teams. The Czar is a Swanies tragic and the PM follows Bunyip’s doggies.
Apparently it is “hard times” in Australian science. Mather re-floated the canard about “death threats” to scientists, which was apparently endorsed by the Czar. “Even he was surprised at the extent and ferocity of the harassment”. It is surprising how quickly the balloon of alarm deflated.
But funding is up! Labor’s election victory in 2007 “sparked hope of renewed interest in science”. That is a bit like the reverse of Phillip Adams waking up the morning after John Howard’s first victory to find that he was living in a racist nation. People who think that Government interest in science is helpful need to revisit Terrence Kealey’s book on the economics of scientific research.
As for a change from the “anti-intellectualism” of the Howard era, Kevin Rudd signalled his intellectualism with his attack on Hayek, demonstrating that he had no understanding of Hayek’s ideas and did not have helpers who knew any better, a situation which persisted after he was the PM with access to the best brains in the nation.
Chubb laments a lack of public intellectuals in Australia and concedes scientists have not done well in selling themselves and their work. As a result he says, those who “rant and shout” over the radio waves have had the opportunity to erode public confidence in the practice of science. “I would like to see many more people speaking up with authority because they have expertise …[followed by a reference to] …bad people who assumed power because good people kept quiet.
“Speaking truth to power” as they say. The Australian Academy of Science policy spokesman wants the Czar to speak up for the good people. He told the AFR that Chubb had a reputation as a straight talker when he chaired the Group of Eight universities [the gang of eight?] and he said “As chief scientist, I hope he will bring the same forthright approach to the government”.
He will need to do better than the Academy of Science when they convened the panel to review the Garnaut report. Faced with advice about the suspect nature of Garnaut’s model-based forecasts, they did not forward the advice as it stood but decided to have some consultation with Garnaut, with consequences that do not bode well for the prospect that the Academy will speak truth to the funding source.
Chubb trained as a neuroscientist at Oxford and Ghent (Belgium) before taking senior management roles at Monash and Wollongong, then moving up to Vice Chancellor at Flinders and ANU. At the ANU he put out notes to encourage scientists to speak publicly in their field of expertise, knowing that the university would back them. “Be brave, is his message”.
This advice does not sit well with his recent public comments on climate science.
In an address to the National Press Club in Canberra today, Professor Ian Chubb said climate science deniers should not be given an equal platform with mainstream scientists, and he criticised the media for giving sceptics the space to make their arguments.
This guy is operating in a minefield, especially as he is not a climate scientist. On the face of it, the Czar appears to have sold out. I would like to see the Chief Scientist answer these questions.
Truly we live in exciting times in view of the insights from the likes of Garth Paltridge. All is not well and the people who really care about science have got the job ahead of them to speak truth to power!
Cyril Burt is a great example of the union of Governments and science. Take a field that is based on debate and criticism, pick a winner and then ban all other theories thereby tyrannising over an entire nation.
Sean
25 Aug 11 at 9:12 am
Rafe – “1907″ ???????
Louis Hissink
25 Aug 11 at 9:32 am
“Mr Thompson” is the one who got in a bit of trouble a few years ago for writing a letter of recommendation for an underworld figure, and currently occupies Bob Hawke’s old seat. Mr Thomson is the one who’s in trouble now.
Felix the Cassowary
25 Aug 11 at 9:34 am
Felix
Bob Hawke’s old seat is Wills in Victoria, Thomson’s is Dobell in NSW. So, contrary to your assertion Mr Thomson can’t be the MP for Hawke’s old seat.
Rococo Liberal
25 Aug 11 at 9:48 am
RL,
Felix is correct.
Mr Thompson – Wills.
Mr Thomson – Dobell.
Sam
25 Aug 11 at 9:51 am
This emphasis on science is a bit disturbing for it ressurects the Technocracy Movement in the US during the 1930′s when the idea was that the economic collapse of the depression could be forever avoided if we only implemented a social system in which technocrats, (scientists, engineers, technicians etc) could control society by applying “science”.
The movement died a quick death, apparently, for the technical means to implement it were absent. Today the means are there and so is the political impetus, especially the emphasis on scientific advice whether via the web site “The Conversation” or as advice to the government via the Chief Scientist.
Judging by Rafe’s quotes above, there is an obvious move afoot to marginalise scientific dissent by the usual messenger shooting methods, in order to establish what? A PC scientific priesthood which cannot be questioned? If so, then why?
As I have learnt, the climate change agenda, according to ALP contacts, is not about mitigating the climate but to force us to start living more sustainable lives and this suggests we need to look at this idea’s precursor, the Technocracy Movement from the last century.
There is an interesting study lesson book published in 1934 and it deals with economics, science, the price mechanism etc. Given that it predates Keynesianism (or perhaps contemporaneous with Keynes’ General Theory published in 1932), it neatly summarises the progressive understanding then of economics. However reading it causes one to slowly realise that it’s theoretical basis forms the basis of existing progressive understanding of economics.
Technocracy really needs close examination and scrutiny because if the current push to de carbonise the world and, as the Trilateral Commission publicly stated during 1972, implement a new economic order based on energy allocations and trading rather than the existing one of the unhampered market, is real, then we have been not paying attention.
The immediate impression I gain from the most cursory reading of the material is that the progressives are intent on replacing the existing economic system with a highly regulated one based on energy allocations using technology like smart meters, so that energy accumulations in one part of the global energy grid can be redirected to other parts that are short of energy.
This energy allocation is supposed to replace money, and it cannot be accumulated either but needs to be used. This is nothing other than technically sophisticated subsistence, and energy allocation is determined microeconomically by a technical elite, the scientists, using smart meter technology.
It’s why the Gillard government is ploughing ahead with the NBN – it’s the backbone of the communications grid to allow real time management of the almost complete electrical grid. The goal seems to be establishing a global electrical grid powered by sustainable energy sources and that as night falls on half the globe, then the energy being produced by the lit hemisphere will be continously routed to the dark hemisphere.
The information is there on the various government sponsored web sites. Go study and understand.
Louis Hissink
25 Aug 11 at 9:56 am
Louis>
Not for nothing. I despise this government and despise this government even more. However suggesting they are building the NBN as a way to control the electric grid is bordering on the delusional.
Occam’s razor suggests they are building it because they actually think it will be good for them electorally and good for the punters.
JC
25 Aug 11 at 10:10 am
oops… I despise the NBN and..
JC
25 Aug 11 at 10:13 am
But what about people who are both mainstream scientists and climate deniers?
And does opposing mitigation (ie thinking we should adapt) count as climate denial?
Does opposing a carbon tax or ETS in particular count as denial?
Does expressing the belief that there will never be a global political fix for climate change count as denial?
What mechanism does he see for stopping those with ‘denialist’ points of view from accessing the public?
Should there be legal sanctions in place for allowing such people a voice, or does he merely want them smothered to death in the bear-hug of regulation?
Should people who spruik fanciful and exaggerated claims of the effects of global warming (for example, certain Australian science advocates have predicted 100 metre sea rises) also be censored?
There are lots of questions that deserve answers.
daddy dave
25 Aug 11 at 10:14 am
The goal seems to be establishing a global electrical grid powered by sustainable energy sources and that as night falls on half the globe, then the energy being produced by the lit hemisphere will be continously routed to the dark hemisphere
Technical reasons rule this out.
Sean
25 Aug 11 at 10:24 am
Does a la Rouchite holding up a noose to a climate scientist in a public meeting not constitute a death threat?
AndrewL
25 Aug 11 at 10:30 am
Rouchites are basically lefties, yea? So it wouldn’t surprise, AndrewL. It wouldn’t surprise at all.
JC
25 Aug 11 at 10:34 am
Speaking of the ANU, has anybody heard from the ‘climate scientists’ who were (in the words of one report) “rushed to a secure location” following those fake “death threats”?
C.L.
25 Aug 11 at 10:38 am
JC,
Why do we need to build the NBN in the first place? Why do they want to wire up every dwelling – if it’s all about broadband speed, and invoking Moore’s law, then no one would embark on this infrastructure program – it’s commercially inane – wireless is th go but wireless is too anarchic and uncontrollable. So what’s the real reason for hard wiring suburbia.
No, it’s not verging on delusional, it’s not being blind sided with specious rhetoric. Remember that the ALP ( under its current political control) regards itself as the natural government and the Coalition as an aberration. This lot are not about short termism but long term planning.
Don’t you accept the well publicised goals of the Fabian Socialists? From my experience it pays to take them at their word.
Louis Hissink
25 Aug 11 at 11:33 am
We don’t louis
We don’t Louis, although i would let the market decide that one.
Yea, but what does that have to do with building the NBN because the ALP wants to control the electric grid?
Yea, but see the last question.
JC
25 Aug 11 at 11:36 am
I will not be silenced on the evils of jam in lamingtons.
m0nty
25 Aug 11 at 11:41 am
Sean,
Technical reasons indeed but its for technical reasons that we can reject the progressive infactuation with microeconomic modelling to forecast outcomes, yet that does not stop them from continuing to use and deploy a technically incorrect methodology.
What I suspect will happen is that they will set up this global power grid, at great cost, and then, as you correctly point out, discover it’s not technically feasible. The only concern is that the IEEE members are deploying this grid. And it’s like the carbon tax and ETS, as inane as the global energy grid, but do they consider it an obstacle?
I would rather nip these crazy projects in the bud rather than, as what happens now, rebuild the economic wrecks the progressives are so fond of making.
Hence my suggestion we need to study this Technocracy Idea from the last century – if only to work out what makes these people think the things they do.
Louis Hissink
25 Aug 11 at 11:47 am
JC,
Better do some homework on this topic – the idea of the micromanaging the electric grid is to micromanage our energy usuage – which is the whole intent of the Carbon tax regime etc. I suspect they are starting at the macro level, to then incrementally extend it to the microlevel.
Louis Hissink
25 Aug 11 at 11:54 am
wireless is th go but wireless is too anarchic and uncontrollable
Wireless is a good free market option as it allows for people with wifi to connect on the run. However it is bandwidth that is the problem here. There is only so much information that can be sent via wireless links at any one time. Whilst the new standards allow for speeds of upto 300mbps, this will be shared.
From a purely techincal point of view fibre is the best technology and is futureproof. Cable can supply adequately the required speeds currently and probably for years to come. With electrical signals, speed is restricted by the devices at either end, fourier transforms used, and whilst this technology could increase quite significantly increased frequency of the electrical signal = resistance and there is a theoretical limit on max speeds well behind that of fibre.
With light signals you get basically zero resistance thus you are limited by the decoders at each end of the cable. Thus terabit speeds have been recorded by Japanese researchers. Then you could throw into the mix the potential for using multiple colours and the sky is the limit.
It’s a prestige project, not dictated by a market and we will hear for ever and ever about how the ALP reformed the nation despite the fact that there will be massive waste involved and every tax payer will be ‘looted’ to pay for it.
Sean
25 Aug 11 at 12:07 pm
Louis Hissink
The british crunched the numbers on having links to the geothermal and hydro power of scandanavian countries and the numbers didn’t come out. Thus when the Tories got the report they went with the recommendation to build new nuclear power stations and continue with offshore wind.
My understanding is that at a certain level wind power can no longer be fed into a grid, ~30% is the level, as it is too variable and until further technological developments are made to allow for it’s intergration with other fixed or variable supplies it will remain a bit player. On purely economic grounds this is where it belongs anyway, a waste of money! Not surprisingly every country that takes away subsidies then sees these companies fold.
Despite the green dream, multinationals which can diversify whilst currently supplying oil/gas will dominate this market in the future, companies like BP/Origin etc. It’s a dream situation. Governments steal money from tax payers, hand it to big companies to build wind turbines and put pictures on their websites, the Government then behind closed doors negotiates electricity prices (ha free market) and insists that 100% of green energy is cleared from the market!!
Sean
25 Aug 11 at 12:21 pm
What an astonishing remark coming from a country’s Chief Scientist.
It’s self-evident from the history of science that, as Popper commented in the 20s, science must be neutral, that scientists should assert facts and general (falsifiable) hypotheses utterly value-free and questions about what is thought desirable should play no part in what is accepted as a scientific hypothesis.
manalive
25 Aug 11 at 6:17 pm
Going on about how climate science is settled and the debate is over are bad tactics for the alarmists.
Attempts to close the debate in this way just provoke suspicion among those who expect some attempt to persuade them rather to instruct them from on high.
Presumptuousness is never a good influencing strategy nor is dismissiveness. Listen here you stupid dupe of corrupt corporate lackeys converts very few.
Most know that the defining feature of the growth of knowledge is debate and knowledge grows by displacing the received wisdom.
These instincts about interpreting the world with an open mind comes without any knowledge of the philosophy and sociology of science.
Biologists spent great effort over the many decades to rebut creation science is a cold methodical manner designed to change minds through facts and reasoned arguments. Why was this so?
Jim Rose
25 Aug 11 at 6:23 pm
He’s not talking about science, Manalive, he’s talking about science reportage, which gives a tiny minority of sceptical scientists, and a whole bunch of non-scientists, an undue volume of airtime and column inches.
Also, he’s perfectly correct.
FDB
25 Aug 11 at 6:57 pm
Like who is getting all the air time to get their unimpeded views across, FDB?
Monckton? He was mercilessly mocked when he was here.
You don’t know WTF you’re talking about.
JC
25 Aug 11 at 7:03 pm
That could be true if it was a contest between two conflicting inconsequential hypotheses but it’s not, it’s between an hypothesis (AGW or more specifically CAGW) with enormous potential social, political or economic repercussion and the null hypotheses.
manalive
25 Aug 11 at 7:14 pm
….null hypothesis
manalive
25 Aug 11 at 7:15 pm
And the null hypothesis is looking pretty good. Yay for the null hypothesis! I buy them by the gross.
DrBeauGan
25 Aug 11 at 7:38 pm
JC, the NBN is simply the electronic infrastructure and he who controls that and the data it delivers, is in control. Any way I’m veering off the thread so I’ll stop it here. Just Google smart meters and Technocracy.
This site is a good one:
Energy reporting system? Didn’t the Kyoto Protocol require us to report our CO2 emissions? Are we not required to do this now? (Some industries that is).
Rather than report emissions (a proxy for energy use) manually, smart meters can do it automatically.
Go figure folks.
Louis Hissink
25 Aug 11 at 8:02 pm