Left-Brained Science in Australia

Left-Brained Science in Australia, by Tony Thomas. What sort of person gets appointed to head a government-funded science body in these post-Enlightenment days? A professor of science perhaps? Maybe our Nobel prize winner in physics? Why, a political type — labor staffer and warmist, not even a PhD.

The Australian Academy of Science has a new chief executive, veteran Federal Labor Party adviser and activist Anna-Maria Arabia (left). It seems unlikely that she will do anything to arrest the Academy’s decade-long slide into green/Left hokum.

Arabia, whose role starts on October 24, has been director of policy/principal adviser to Bill Shorten for the past three years, earlier spending half a decade as adviser to Kim Beazley and Anthony Albanese. Pre-Shorten, she was  CEO of Science & Technology Australia (STA).

On June 20, 2011, she led a war party of 200 STA members  on an anti-science crusade to parliamentarians, her  message being that “political leaders must put a stop to the misinformation campaign” by skeptics of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis, whom she bizarrely labelled “climate deniers”. …

Arabia is described by the Canberra Times as “a qualified neuroscientist”. She has a B.Sc (Hons) but did not complete the Ph.D.  candidacy she started at Melbourne University. A publication search shows one paper from 1998 — she was among  three authors — on inducing depression in rats with chemical injections.

Government funded science organizations nowadays promote politically-convenient theories under the guise of science:

In 2014 the Academy sponsored and part-funded a conference  at UNSW for zero-growth lunatics, titled   “Addicted to Growth? How to move to a Steady State Economy in Australia.” Some of the eco-loons cited there actually wanted a 90% cut in economic output as part of their anti-capitalism agenda. No speaker was invited to put a contrary view, e.g. that a switch, even to a zero-economic growth regime, would make the 1930s recession look like a picnic. …

The Academy’s official curriculum unit for students on global warming, which was recently and mercifully terminated, shilled for green activism for 16 year olds. The Academy advised teachers, in all seriousness, to “ask [15-16 year old] students if they have ever taken action or advocated for a cause. Do they know of anyone who has?”…  Key vocabulary: advocacy, campaign, champion, environmentalist.” …

Teens were grilled in ‘Activity 6.4 Climate change champions’: “Which is more effective, science awareness or advocacy, when it comes to generating ?community action? What cause would you sign up for?”

Other features of the Academy’s student curriculum included virulent anti-mining and anti-fossil fuel messages, Hollywood celebrity endorsements in  lieu of data examination, and advice to ignore all contrary evidence regarding warming catastrophism.

Arabia ran the death-threat nonsense (can’t they just tell the truth about anything?), while being politically allied (unofficially and deniably, of course) with those who issue real death threats:

On the  day  in 2011 that Arabia’s anti-science crusade to Parliament started, she upped the ante and told the ABC she had received an emailed death threat that very morning! That was a stretch. A serial internet pest in Seattle boasted the next day of having sent the email. “I Googled for her email and did my usual Nazi Bitch Whore litany, like I do every day. My usual litany includes, ‘When the Grand Jury is done with you, I’ll enjoy watched (sic) them string you up.’”

This missive was indeed abusive and, as Arabia said, totally unacceptable, but it was not a death threat, just a cut-and-paste diatribe. If jelly-livered climate scientists want to know what a real death threat looks like, they could consult Dutch politician Geert Wilders (round-the-clock bodyguards) or The Australian’s cartoonist Bill Leak, who has gone incognito after intercepted Islamist chatter about detaching his head ASAP.

In case you weren’t aware, the carbon dioxide theory of global warming is just a theory, based on models. There is no empirical evidence to prove it, and while there is supporting evidence there is also confounding evidence . Recently I found the theory is wrong (I’m an expert modeller — there is an overlooked technical flaw of omission in it), and am currently writing a book about it. Global warming was mainly caused by the Sun, and it will cool soon.

hat-tip Stephen Neil