Do scientists resort to propaganda to defend climate change? How do we deal with evolution unbelievers? How do governments and policy-makers decide what science should be funded? Where will the next generation of communicators come from? Why are western countries spending more on baldness than malaria? Live at the AAAS 2014 meeting in Chicago, panellists David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, Robyn Williams, of the Science Show on the ABC, MIT Enterprise Forum president, Kathleen Kennedy, IgNobel Awards founder Marc Abrahams and University of Madison-Wisconsin scientist Molly Jahn join Chris Smith to answer questions live from the audience...
I must say that it was a long discussion. I'm looking forward to the summary.
"Propaganda?" Certainly. Climate change is inevitable and uncontrollable, but worth studying to see if we can mitigate its effects. Unfortunately there's no money in it because governments can't use it to raise taxes. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam, useful for raising taxes and therefore deserving of "scientific" support, in exchange for government handouts. Historic data clearly shows that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around, so CO2 cannot be the driver of climate change.
Perhaps emigration is a problem with developing nations, and adversely affects the ability for developing countries to resolve their domestic issues.
No need - physics does!
It would be ironic if we all got malaria in North America because of global warming. cheryl j, Tue, 18th Feb 2014
26:30 ABC staffer? John T, Thu, 27th Feb 2014