The similarity of the leadership of science and business

Comments on the previous thread underline the deficit of leadership in the business community that has a parallel in science. Peter Strong, chief executive of the Council of Small Business Australia, is upset by power prices but in the same breath he dissociates himself from “climate deniers” and the Liberal backbench dissenters who he wants to “shut up and go away”.

Does he think that power prices can be reduced while the policy options are truncated by the obsession with leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions? And this despite Finkels testimony that this will make no difference to the global climate. Practically no other developed nations are playing the game and the developing nations led by China and India can generate CO2 as much as they like.

Not to mention the German experience. Don’t get Jordan Peterson started on that!

Turning to the world of science, one of the most convincing arguments to support alarmism would appear to be the support of the Academies of Science of the world. Even allowing for exaggeration of that support by the usual suspects (some of the support is guarded and a lot is irrelevant like the College of Physiotherapists) it is disgraceful that there is not a united wall of objection to alarmism from that direction.

It seems from our threadsters that the so-called leadership of the business community is not business people as much as bureaucrats and carpetbaggers who fit the mould of public service timeservers. The same applies to the four agencies that have been created to plan, run, monitor and generally look after the power industry. People with scientific and engineering knowledge are almost completely missing at the decision-making level.

Not that being a scientist helps very much, there are plenty of scientists in the CSIRO.

I don’t know about the Key Performance Indicators for the business leaders and the upper echelons of AEMO and the other bodies. The KPI for the various Academies of science is clear enough, it is the amount of money raised by lobbying for Science. This calls for constant public relations efforts to inflate the importance and the achievements of Science. Anything that looks like a breakthrough will make headlines but even more effective are crises and the climate crisis has been pure gold for climate science. More money is good and who in a position to make a difference dares to question the quality of the work.

Another parallel: science and education. Education is good, so more money for education is good. QED.

Who involved in the industry or at least the public education industry would care or dare to challenge the proposition that more money is better? Actually there are data to disprove the claim but the small matter of politics gets in the way of reducing the waste. And waste of money is not even the worst part of education at present.

This entry was posted in Education, Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The similarity of the leadership of science and business

  1. Herodotus

    Politics is broken and Business is craven.

  2. stackja

    Big business doesn’t campaign against big unions. Big business accepts higher power costs. Eventually big business will become smaller.

  3. Rafe Champion

    Trump recently appointed Will Happer as his Science advisor, in the last year or so he has been canvasing scientists to be more helpful in the climate debate. No idea what success he has achieved at this stage, still he is in the right place to make a difference.

  4. duncanm

    I think the brow-beating tactics of the left have their desired effect.

    People are genuinely afraid to speak up – lest they fall under attack.

  5. 132andBush

    It’s not the “military industrial complex” that society should fear.

  6. miltonf

    “Science” has degenerated into Lysenkoism. Remember the lefty Ian McPhee was Director of The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures.

  7. Mark M

    Where is the warning of impending sea level rise here?

    The most private waterfront home in Sydney is on the market

    The heritage listed three-bedroom house at 233 and 233a Edinburgh Road, Castlecrag, was built in 1912 out of Canadian redwood.

    https://www.realestate.com.au/news/the-most-private-waterfront-home-in-sydney-is-on-the-market/?rsf=syn:news:nca:dt:article

    Or here?

    It came into Fairfax hands in 1901 when Sir James Oswald Fairfax paid £5350 for the two-storey house, set about additions from 1910 onwards.
    It is described in heritage records as “medieval and Queen Anne inspired”.

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/atlassian-co-founder-mike-cannon-brookes-just-paid-up-to-100m-for-australias-most-expensive-house-2018-9

    Yet the business man, Cannon-Brookes is a green grifter, demanding more unreliable energy sources?
    And he ‘leads’ people.

    Pro tip: If 7 inches of sea level rise per century causes your home to flood, you’re living too close to the water.

  8. egg_

    dissenters who he wants to “shut up and go away”.

    A common meme in the church of ‘global warming’.
    “The Science is settled”.

  9. egg_

    This calls for constant public relations efforts to inflate the importance and the achievements of Science.

    Even Ag Science research had to mention CAGW to obtain grants – thus, the falsehood is propagated.
    Half a billion to the GBR – what’s that all about?

  10. Iampeter

    Where was this heroic Liberal backbench back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s when this whole mess was first created by the…er…well…Liberal Party?
    What a brave and timely stand they are making two decades too late and without even acknowledging their own complicity.
    Sorry Rafe, just as this mess wasn’t created by Rudd and Gillard, it also wasn’t created by business or science leadership.
    Nor is it their job to fix it.

  11. John Constantine

    Saving the reef will require control of fertiliser and manure and sediment levels in the runoff that interacts with the reef.

    Which will require strict regulation and rewilding of farmland that interacts with water flows that interact with the reef.

    Which will create legal precedent and loopholes for rewilding all Australian farmland.

    Paris unswervingly complied with, Tory electorates suffer the new clearances and Waleed’s sewerage rebirthing plant gets the contract to supply the State with rations for the proles.

    Comrades.

  12. Nob

    Corporate leadership isn’t interested in principle or the nation’s good.

    It’s interested in where the money is, and if that requires them to bend with the political wind, so be it.

  13. Nob

    John Constantine
    #2862124, posted on November 12, 2018 at 8:02 am
    Saving the reef will require control of fertiliser and manure and sediment levels in the runoff that interacts with the reef.

    What if it turns out that all that runoff has been a net benefit to sea life?

    Certainly seen over the years that fish and dolphins love offshore drilling rigs.

  14. John Constantine

    It is locked in that farmland runoff causes algae blooms that cause dead areas in the sea and blue green algae sludge in inland waters.

    A small number of farmers are indeed reckless with their indefensible overuse of expensive nitrogen fertiliser.

    Coming soon will be training and accreditation and regulation and compliance to control fertiliser inputs.

    Comrades.

  15. .

    I’m surprised we haven’t gone down the (largely Eastern) European thing where you are required to have an ag. science. degree to own or manage a farm.

    (BTW, that is not a good thing).

  16. .

    The simplest explanation you twit is that it is a scam and there are plenty of people having a drink on this rort.

  17. RobK

    Harken is the logic contortionist, not from this earth.

  18. MiltonF:

    “Science” has degenerated into Lysenkoism.

    So true.
    Governments doling out money and regulations have brought the nation to the point of a feeble paralysis.
    It will only get better when the entire edifice is knocked down, and so far the only people capable of doing the knocking down are too busy grabbing the crumbs of their industry to do so.
    The future pain will be instructive.

  19. Nob:

    What if it turns out that all that runoff has been a net benefit to sea life?

    Ha ha ha.
    *snork*
    The study has already been done, and it proves that the project of rewilding the Australian continent must go ahead or the GBR is dead.
    Of course, there are many University teams of aging professors and their nubile bikini wearing undergraduates who would be happy to spend the next three years doing another study when the funds become available…
    Kaching!

  20. .

    Harken Now
    #2862184, posted on November 12, 2018 at 9:45 am

    Hark Point!: it seems to have escaped your attention that your side’s position routinely involves conspiracy

    No conspiracy dickhead, just Ockham’s Razor.

Comments are closed.