It is starting to sink in that the world's heavy reliance on fossil fuels will only end once the alternatives become a lot cheaper and that this requires a much bigger research and development effort.
At any rate, more than half of R & D expenditure in Australia seems to come from business.
How much science does Australia produce for the amount of money it spends; what is the quality of its science and what makes for high quality anyway?
Mining companies are often seen as dinosaurs when it comes to making changes that will benefit the environment, but that perception may be shifting as some companies turn to renewable energy to cut costs and lighten their carbon footprint.
There is an almost infinite number of brilliant ideas that need public money to show their true value, and governments need a filtering system.
Very few scientists are in any real sense across 'science' as a whole. Science has become so large there are millions of experts, but they are expert only in a minuscule part.
Off-hand, ideologically-driven or politically-motivated opinions disguised as facts are nothing new in political discourse.
The decision to reject this delisting proposal has itself set an unfortunate precedent for Australia that it is now OK for politics, personal agendas, and nepotism to override science and due process.
Within a fairly short space of time, solar generated electricity will be fully cost competitive with coal-powered electricity.
Good research is better in the long run, and much cheaper for all of us, than convenient research, let alone pretentious rubbish.
From what I can tell the chemtrails conspiracy theory has its roots in the 90's when the US Air Force conducted some contingency planning surrounding the hypothetical weaponisation of weather.
One Abbott back bencher thinks we need a science minister and that our approach to science should be Strategic, Measured, Accurate, Realistic and Timed.