Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

No Carbon Tax Rally – Brisbane May 7

By

How will history record our current obsession with carbon dioxide and the idea of taxing it? What have you done about it?

I will be at the Brisbane rally against the carbon tax on May 7, See you there…
Queensland Parliament House Cnr of Alice Street and George Street
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Saturday, May 7 from 11:30am to 2:30pm

And if you were speaking at the rally…
What would you say?

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Debbie says

    Same thing I always find myself saying.
    How about applying some common sense?
    Why are we continually attacking the very industries that we all rely so heavily on?
    How can you charge a carbon tax and then increase your exports of coal and then claim that you are helping to reduce global C O 2 emissions?
    How does that make sense?

  2. el gordo says

    ‘What would you say?’

    There is no evidence to support the notion that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

    I wouldn’t mention Nasif, climate change conspiracies, or fraud. Discuss the cycles of natural variability, using local concerns like floods and cyclones. Reassure them that nothing unusual is happening with the weather and there is no need for alarm.

    Tell them that sea level has leveled off and is due to fall over the next 20 years, that should get news coverage at least.

  3. Luke says

    Well you’re talking to the converted aren’t you?

    Do you need to convince the AGW non-believers and carbon tax opponents any further?

    Say anything on the usual lines and Cohers talking points and they’ll applaud.

    So for some tension relief you could advocate an Australian tea party? Would be a big winner I’d think.

    If you were cynical you could toss in a few other anti-enviro agendas. MDB water strategy and building dams perhaps worthwhile.

    Of more interest of course would be to work out how to build a bridge to the proponents and believers.

    But the carbon tax is probably sunk at this point. So does it matter?

    The atmosphere merely smiles at all our mutual antics.

  4. spangled drongo says

    “The atmosphere merely smiles at all our mutual antics.”

    Is that what you call it?

    It seems that due to people like you, Combet and Julia it has been weeping a bit of late.

  5. Avatar photojennifer says

    Luke, Why do you think the carbon tax is sunk? It should sail through after July 1?

  6. John Sayers says

    I think you should speak on behalf of the farmers due to your The Land connection, with diesel at $1.55 and rising any additional fuel and energy tax will severely affect them.

  7. Louis Hissink says

    I was wondering about Luke’s view that the carbon tax is probably sunk – it’s even more likely that the ALP is sunk as well – could the proposed carbon tax be the Titanic ALP’s iceberg?

  8. Neville says

    Jennifer you must state the obvious, that a carbon tax will make zero difference even if the whole world stopped emitting .

    You’ve got the climate commissioner’s statement of no drop in temp for hundreds of years if not a thousand years.
    What more could you ask for, I mean Timmys the gift that keeps on giving.

    You could also quote from Timmy’s thoughts on GAIA developing a brain and a nervous system, should be good for laughs at least.

    Then you’ve got the admission by Phil Jones of the CRU and climategate superstar.
    He stated that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming for the last 15 years and all the warming periods from 1861 having the same trends.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

  9. Neville says

    But Jennifer the really big gun is the statement made by Rudd, Wong, Gillard, Swan,Gore, Suzuki, Combet etc, that this is the greatest moral challenge of our lives.

    Then these hippos happily export 3 times more coal from our shores every single year than we use domestically.

    This is all the proof we need that the whole yarn is a giant hoax and probably the greatest con trick in the last hundred years.

    Of course we’re supposed to fix or tackle the climate by reducing our emissions of 1.3% by 5% and help to wreck our economy by exporting jobs and businesses overseas.

  10. John of Cloverdale WA (Aus) says

    Hi Jo,
    talk about the industries that will move offshore, the loss of jobs and the increasing uncompetiveness of Australian exports as the carbon tax bites. And how the tax will hurt middle working class Australia with the increase of prices of just about everything (transport, housing, groceries, petrol, utilities that reply on expensive inefficent “clean” energy, council rates etc). And even accepting the failed hypothesis as fact, there will be a minimal fall in Global Temperatures if any. Quote Tim Foolery’s idiotic statements from the Price/Bolt radio show (as mentioned in other comments above). Shows how Gillard’s “expert” is so clueles.
    Also say that China’s and India’s increasing annual coal use and rising standard of living will nullify anything we can do about our cutting of MM emissions. And that Gillard’s ridiculous statements about China’s conversion to “clean” energy will have little effect in cutting back their overall CO2 emissions. ALL PAIN, NO GAIN.
    And off the subject, what happened to those recent Argo Buoy readings?

  11. Neville says

    Another point to make is that huge changes in climate happen all the time.

    Only 130,000 years ago during the Eemian hippos swam in the Rhine and the Thames and temps and SLs were much higher than any period of the Holocene.

    Only 6000 years ago the Sahara was a lush environment with herds of hippos and elephants and sizable human population.

    This small rise in temp ( 0.7C) comes after the end of one of the coldest periods of the last few thousand years.

    The fastest warming of the last 11,500 years came at the end of the Younger Dryas when temps increased by 1C a year for 10 years straight, now that’s what I’d call warming.

    This rapid warming has been found in parts of Sth Ameriaca at the same time.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

    You could also tell the crowd that SLs around Australia were 1.5M higher than today only 4000 years ago. See ABC Catalyst “Narabeen Man. “

  12. Debbie says

    I am sure you will do an excellent job Jen,
    Us farmers dont thank you often enough.
    So thanks heaps from this one.

  13. Neville says

    Another good point to make about the pointless stupidity of us cutting our emissions by 5% is the fact that China and the developing world will outstrip the developed world by a factor of 20 to one, up to 2035.

    By 2035 the developing world will be emitting twice the level of co2 emissions of the developed world. An increase of 0.1% per year compared to 2% per year out to 2035, what a bloody farce.
    We’re being led a mob of donkeys that’s for sure.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html

  14. Luke says

    Jen significant unpopularity with the public, unions and big business and seems to be growing each day. Why – worries about jobs, inflation on goods and industry going off-shore – in return for what climate dividend ??

    AND – how rock solid does Labor think the independents are.

    Something is gonna go wrong.

    Trying to be objective with an “I neither care nor uncare” analysis.

    Interestingly there is now almost a meta-debate about leadership above the debate. Sort of like derivatives in the stock market. The debate on the debate on the debate.

    I think it’s impossible to now convince people about carbon reductions – so put the resources into adaptation and good luck.

  15. NCO2TAX says

    The carbon tax is a tax upon tax & will blow prices for power & fuel sky high. There will be a lot of pain with no environmental gain. Whatever Australia reduces in a year, China will increase by in a week. So we will spend billions & lose jobs, while countries like China will prosper. World CO2 emissions are 4% of the current 385 parts per million & Australia is 1% of that. Australia has currently wasted Twelve Billion Dollars with no effect on the climate & will sacrifice Billions more to have nil effect in the future. The current Labor government has given the United Nations 599 million towards a Climate Fund & has committed millions more from the carbon tax, while Australians have to pay a levy to help flood victims. The carbon tax is a UN socialist scheme to distribute wealth from wealthy countries to help developing countries.

  16. Avatar photojennifer says

    Neville,

    Doesn’t the comment from Tim Flannery about 1,000 years infer that the residence time for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 1,000 years? And if this were true it would be serious – the IPCC suggests a maximum of 250 years and much of the peer reviewed literature 5-15 years.

  17. el gordo says

    ‘…so put the resources into adaptation and good luck.’

    Terrific, it’s already in place so this will save us a small fortune. Thanks comrade and you are more than welcome to join the farmers, graziers and miners at the victory celebrations.

  18. spangled drongo says

    “so put the resources into adaptation and good luck.”

    Luke,

    Your scepticism does you proud.

    As someone wise once said: “confidence is the prerogative of the ignorant not the wise” [or words to that effect]

  19. Luke says

    Well El Gordo it’s clearly NOT in place as billions of drought aid over decades and flooded flood plains suggest.

    Remember Dunning-Kruger also applies especially to sceptics. And Jen needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with bath-water and commit us to a new age of antediluvian scientific nihilism. It’s easy to tear things down but more difficult to build something useful.

  20. Neville says

    Jennifer you’ve just listed 3 scenarios 1000, 250 and 10 to 15 years but I think you’d have to ask Tim to perhaps second guess his blurt.

    Afterall he was put under a lot of pressure by Bolt in that interview. But my point is the utter stupidity of the entire argument and unbelievable bi-polar hypocrisy of the Gillard govt.

    I’m sure Luke, Cohenite and others would have different opinions about the residency time of co2. But I’d be very surprised if all countries stopped emitting now that it would take a thousand years before we saw a change.

    Of course if Lindzen , Spencer, Christy etc are right and even doubling co2 levels should only only produce a 1C rise in temp then it wouldn’t be a problem would it.

  22. Neville says

    Thanks for that Cohenite, I did follow that debate at Jo Novas, very interesting but I’ll leave that for another day.

    Jennifer the problem about SLs is another icon of the warmist mantra and things could be going pear shaped for them lately.

    Bolt recently revisited his stoush with Robyn 100 metres Williams and checked the level four years after his blurt.
    The poor bloke has to make up 4 metres lost in the last 4 years, but who cares he’s only the head of ABC’s science show so if he makes a babyish, idiotic statement then what does it really matter?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/100_metres_williams_is_already_four_metres_down_in_four_years

  23. el gordo says

    Luke, Dunning-Kruger doesn’t just apply to sceptics, kitchen table scientists everywhere run the risk of being diagnosed with this terrible affliction.

    Your side has discredited atmospheric science for years and it’s going to take a lot of effort to regain the people’s confidence.

    As for the drought/flood aid, there’s little that can be done in the short term because natural variability is pretty much unpredictable.

  25. Louis Hissink says

    Jennifer,

    With reference to Cohenite’s link to the Jo Nova post on CO2, where a fig 11 is reproduced from Columbia Uni etc, showing the carbon reservoirs, it would be very useful to stress that it’s incomplete – not one input from the earth itself via volcanic sources or the global fracture systems emitting CO2 and CH4.

    I suspect that the crustal emission of CO2 might dwarf that of humanity – so it’s the Gaia effect they have missed, but how to convert this fact into a short press-friendly sound grab might be difficult.

  28. Luke says

    El Gordo – we only have Archy’s E&E paper and the McLean et al GRL paper to show us the “quality” of sceptic science. Or the daily load of disinformation and codswallop from WUWT. How embarrassing. Only tea party types would take these guys seriously.

  29. el gordo says

    It’s not embarrassing, we’ll win the political debate first and then the academic arguments will become moderated as the gravy train slides to a halt.

  30. Louis Hissink says

    Peer review seems much like trade-unionism – a ticket issued in order to work. Hardly surprising since government science is more or less unionised.

  32. John of Cloverdale WA (Aus) says

    Sorry Jennifer, I called you Jo in my previous comment posted above. No offence meant. My excuse? My poor 11 year old GSD, Jessica (Electric Dancer) died on Monday and my mind is still not all there at the moment. Good luck with the rally and watch what sign you stand under.

  34. spangled drongo says

    Why would that be, I wonder?

    [Thinks]…. because even the hockey team wouldn’t swallow it?

  36. Mack says

    Jennifer,
    Some suggestions for your placards…
    Science very UNSETTLED
    CO2 is Natural – NOT Pollution
    WHAT “Greenhouse Effect????
    Luke , you coming to the party?
    Party party party Luke 🙂 🙂 🙂

  37. Mack says

    Aw, com’on Luke, We’re not all rich ,right wing, SUV driving, religo, witch-burning, denialist, rednecks.

  39. cohenite says

    SD; I just checked that link to Tisdale’s critique of Hansen; Hansen must know what he has done; if a CEO did this they would be charged. At the very least this would take pride of place in any new list of the 10 worst pro-AGW papers.

  41. el gordo says

    For the other punters out there unfamiliar with the lady in question – Sharon is in favor of a carbon tax.

  43. Louis Hissink says

    Cohenite,

    voted when there were about 374 votes against her idea. As for Hansen’s contrived paper, it’s a bit worrying that Hansen might not think he is doing something unprofessional. I get the distinct impression he really, really believes in this CO2 induced runaway greenhouse gas effect from his Phd work under Sagan all those years back, so he believes his actions are excused to ward off the looming catastrophe he believes the world faces.

  45. cohenite says

    Louis; you could be right, Hansen may be a believer as others like Karoly are but at the end of the day if you get run over by a bus it doesn’t matter what the driver is, the result is still the same.

  46. val majkus says

    Jen my suggestion is keep it simple, the ‘carbon dioxide’ tax is meant to combat anthropegenic global warming; so
    1) where’s the evidence (my favourite source on starting that subject is satellite temperatures
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ ) admittedly a short period but the most reliable given UHI problems with the surface data sources
    2) According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century;
    3) Then The global temperature has fallen .653°C (from +0.554 in March 2010 to -0.099 in March 2011) in just one year. That’s a magnitude nearly equivalent to the agreed upon global warming signal agreed upon by the IPCC (links at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/global-temperature-still-headed-down-uah-negative-territory/)
    4) result there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/
    5) If there’s no statistically significant net global warming where’s the evidence for urgent action by any nation?
    6) and then finish up with the short points outlined by Carter et al at http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/combet-innocent-of-knowledge especially the section entitled ‘the bottom line’

    Neville’s link above gives some amusing insights into the 70’s alarmism which was all about cooling

  47. John Davies says

    Just another big tax……There is no evidence that climate change is man made. Also carbon dioxide is heavier than air therefore it is impossible for carbon dioxide to effect the atmosphere hence change the temperature of the earth. FACT.

    Carbon dioxide hangs near the ground. Trees and plantlife convert this to oxygen. FACT.

    Another Fact: If you got rid of all the trees in the world and replaced them with grass you would have a very quick oxygen generator as grass coverts carbon dioxide to oxygen faster than trees. FACT.

  48. el gordo says

    From the Carter et al. article above:

    ‘Carbon dioxide is also a mild greenhouse gas that produces incrementally diminishing warming as its atmospheric concentration rises’.

    So as carbon dioxide levels rise the system naturally alters to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect. Must remember not to mention Gaia.

  49. Louis Hissink says

    Cohenite,

    I like the bus analogy – but I reckon the only way to kill this thing is to kill the greenhouse gas effect theory – no one on the sceptics side seems to have twigged that to kill it one has to kill the earlier Venusian runaway greenhouse idea. Destroy that, and the earth versions falls.

    But as long as we admit there is some greenhouse gas effect, then arguments can be directed against sceptical position. If it means resurrecting Velikovsky’s ghost, then so be it.

  50. val majkus says

    for a historical perspective on temperatures I like 2010 – where does it fit in the warmest year list?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/#more-30425
    (the first para)
    1934 has long been considered the warmest year of the past century. A decade ago, the closest challenger appeared to be 1998, a super-el nino year, but it trailed 1934 by 0.54°C (0.97°F). Since then, NASA GISS has “adjusted” the U.S. data for 1934 downward and 1998 upward (see December 25, 2010 post by Ira Glickstein) in an attempt to make 1998 warmer than 1934 and seemingly erased the original rather large lead of 1934 over 1998. The last phases of the strong 2009-2010 el nino in early 2010 made this year another possible contender for the warmest year of the century. However, December 2010 has been one of the coldest Decembers in a century in many parts of the world, so 2010 probably won’t be warmer than 1998. But does it really matter? Regardless of which year wins the temperature adjustment battle, how significant will that be? To answer that question, we need to look at a much longer time frame‒centuries and millennia.

  51. el gordo says

    Luke said ‘there is now almost a meta-debate about leadership above the debate.’

    If they gave me 30 seconds on the podium I would say there are wild rumors circulating behind closed doors that Martin Ferguson will be PM within a few weeks.

  54. val majkus says

    another article worth re reading is Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
    (a portion of the final para)
    For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

    http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html

  55. Luke says

    Give it away Val – any serious scientist would just laugh and laugh and laugh at your cites. You’re not dealing with tea party fools you know. WUWT is now banned as a disinformation source except for sceptic fools who like to be led around the pen by the nose. First thing to remember to do when visiting WUWT – disconnect left hemisphere of brain.

    But Val rest assured the crowd will applaud about anything. They’re already convinced. If you do an Abbott and say “it’s just crap” they will go nuts.

    I like Sinkers science methodology – let’s get a sophistic argument about an annoying factoid so we can win. How sceptics work illustrated in miniature. Again Sinkers thinks he’d dealing with his own dopey mates.

  56. cementafriend says

    Good one Val. Lowe was found to exaggerate by 15 times. Typical of the AGW believers. The QC on the XStrata side should have questioned him more. He is/was not a registered engineer under the Professional Engineers Act Qld which was in force in 2007. Lowe in fact does not have engineering qualifications although he has claimed he is an engineer. Further, it is clear Lowe who is president of ACF has no expertise in climate assessment. He has a political agenda and should have been pushed in court to see if he would commit perjury.

  57. val majkus says

    Thanks cementafriend – interesting comment

    and Luke WUWT was voted the best science blog in the 2011 bloggies so there’s certainly a lot of people who don’t regard it as a ‘disinformation source’

  58. el gordo says

    ‘WUWT was voted the best science blog in the 2011 bloggies’

    That’s a red rag to a bull.

  60. Louis Hissink says

    Luke,

    The venom you spit out in my direction has to be interpreted that I continue to score direct hits – do keep it up please, it’s the best advertisement for your side’s banality.

  61. val majkus says

    thanks cohenite
    that first link above was very interesting

    as to the second one what an embarrasment for the applicant’s lawyers

  62. Luke says

    Well lots of poor quality talkback radio, soapie TV shows are popular too and no shortage of rednecks either? Val’s logic – popular = right. And you guys normally do the Galileo lecture.

    Sinkers my pleasure to point out the moral intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-science nihilist cause. We’ll be back to burning witches before you know it.

  63. Louis Hissink says

    Luke,

    you really should brush up on your historical metaphors – the witch burning was the mainstream burning the heretics – except this time we heretics might just have the upper hand.

  64. Debbie says

    Luke,
    Your references to the ‘dark ages’ can be applied equally to both sides of the debate.
    If we are being fed ‘crap’ from climate scientists and government funded climate research it is just as likely to tip us all back into the’dark ages’ as the nihilist ‘crap’ you’re highlighting.
    Just because our legislators have become obsessed with climate change and hate the fact that people dare to question it, I am immediately reminded of similar tactics that were played by religious zealots in the ‘dark ages’.
    There are many of us who are definitely not “anti science nihilists”, we just don’t appreciate being fed unadulterated crap!
    I have a great deal of respect for genuine scientists and researchers and I am horrified that they are often expected to ‘morally bankrupt’ themselves in order to access govt funding.
    They can only access the funding if they accept the answer is AGW climate change.
    Therefore the answer is demanded of them before they can even pose a question.
    How dark ages is that?
    Maybe el Gordo has it pegged too.
    How George Orwell 1984 ish is that?
    Same s**t different day?
    It still reeks of ‘dark ages’ philosophy.

  65. Luke says

    “They can only access the funding if they accept the answer is AGW climate change.” what twaddle Debs – so were SEACI’s or IOCI’s findings prescribed a priori ? Much of the natural variability research that yo’all quote is done by the same people doing some of the AGW research. Methinks you lot do bung it on.

  66. val majkus says

    Luke have you ever tried to get a research grant? and if so for what and did you get it

  67. Debbie says

    Luke,
    You are a master at missing the point.
    I am not even sure why you are so antagonistic as you also dont believe the carbon tax is a good idea for Australia.
    I have not criticised genuine research that has not been hijacked by politics.
    I do not want to place genuine research and genuine peer review into the same basket as the crap we MDB residents have been force fed lately.
    We could almost be furiously agreeing with each other.

  68. val majkus says

    (not sure if the links will work)

    Past Alarm. World’s Coral: 40% gone by 2010

    On Monday 22 April 2002 ABC’s flagship current affairs program, 4 Corners, broadcast the following alarming prediction in a report titled: Beautiful one day.
    Across the world, coral reefs are turning into marine deserts. It’s estimated that more than a quarter have been lost and that 40 per cent could be gone by 2010.
    From the transcript:
    According to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, 10 per cent of the world’s reefs were lost by 1992.
    27 per cent were lost by the year 2000.
    And it’s expected 40 per cent will be gone by 2010.

    In 1997 the area of the world’s coral reefs was estimated to be 255,000km2. Reference.
    If the prediction made on 4 Corners is to be believed, then in 2010 the area of the world’s coral reefs should be around 153,000km2.
    Instead, in 2011, one year on from that alarming forecast, we find that the global area of coral reef is estimated to be 249,713km2. Reference.
    This amounts to a change from 1997 figures of -2.1%. Given the unreported uncertainties, there has essentially been no change in global reef area over the past 10 years. Within error, essentially none of the reefs are missing in 2010. This ABC story turns out to be yet another beat up, designed to scare rather than inform.
    Will Four corners now provide an update? Or will it leave this forecast of climate doom to go uncorrected?

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/past-alarm-worlds-coral-40-gone-by-2010.html

  72. debbie says

    But Luke?
    If Jen did that she would be helping to support the government’s case for a carbon tax.
    Why would she want to do that?
    I thought you didn’t support a carbon tax?
    BTW, have you looked at the foreword, qualifications, introductions and conclusions of the SEACI report that you so often quote?
    Not the models Luke, the actual ‘cognitive dissonance’ (AKA cover our butts) language that surrounds them.
    Do you notice a strange, lurking similarity to the language of the MDBP?
    The actual genuine scientists try to warn against using these models as magic prophecy but nevertheless, that’s how they are being used.

    They can’t be used as magic prophecy because… and it is a direct quote from the report

    1. Understanding the relationship between rising global temperature and
    the sub-tropical ridge intensification will require additional research.
    Furthermore, the relationships between changes in the Hadley
    circulation, the ENSO, IOD and SAM have not yet been clarified and
    remain active areas of research.
    The sea surface temperature in the Tasman Sea also affects weather
    systems such as east-coast lows. While SEACI researchers have
    determined that the Tasman Sea has an effect on temperature in all
    seasons, the effect on rainfall is less certain.
    An initial analysis has suggested
    that a 1 degree increase in temperature could account for 15% of
    the stream-flow reduction over the past 50 years. However, further
    research on the relative impacts of changes in rainfall and temperature
    on stream-flows is required.

  73. Luke says

    Debs – merely stirring in those suggestions.

    On the SEACI stuff – well it’s all risk management isn’t it. Question how lucky you feel.

  74. debbie says

    Of course it is,
    Isn’t that their point too?
    Nothing wrong with factoring in the mights and maybes, but you still need to know what it is you’re trying to achieve and indeed what you might want to avoid.
    Otherwise you have good work like this totally hijacked and used inappropriately.
    I feel a lot luckier and a lot happier than all those poor urban greenies who have been convinced we’re all doomed and that we need the government to step in and save us!
    They do the most amazingly stupid stuff and think that is helping to save the planet!

  75. el gordo says

    ‘They do the most amazingly stupid stuff and think that is helping to save the planet!’

    I know a few and your observation is correct, but unfortunately they are so brainwashed it will take a resounding defeat at the ballot box to bring them to their senses.

    To say ‘active areas of research’ is a plea to keep the money flowing, but I’m happy to see the scientists gainfully employed – for the moment.