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.