Posted: Aug 15, 2011 11:59 pm
Can we agree then that apparently both sides of the "debate" (which we haven't actually been allowed to have) cherry pick to show thier arguement in the best light?
As for the "debate" that everyone keeps mentioning, and how it has been "settled", well the fact is that there hasn't been any debate...if you disagree, you are shouted down, even to the point of being discouraged to publish anything remotely skeptical...our own Prime Minister angrily told reporters at a meeting recently to "stop publishing crap" which disagreed with the holy party position on climate change and a carbon tax.
Here's an article on dissent...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/dissent-makes-a-smarter-society/story-e6frgd0x-1226115488941
Another interesting bit is this:
So is any skeptisism allowed at all on the subject? Are people allowed to even question why they are being taxed to death to "fix" a problem we don't notice affecting us, and ask why we are repeatedly assured of predicitions of doom which just aren't happening? I don't mean a photo of a glacier... mean the alarmist predictions we were told in Australia maybe ten years ago that the Pacific islands were "vanishing" and would be soon gone...when they plainly aren't. Same with flooding coastlines. We don't see it happening.
As for the "debate" that everyone keeps mentioning, and how it has been "settled", well the fact is that there hasn't been any debate...if you disagree, you are shouted down, even to the point of being discouraged to publish anything remotely skeptical...our own Prime Minister angrily told reporters at a meeting recently to "stop publishing crap" which disagreed with the holy party position on climate change and a carbon tax.
Here's an article on dissent...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/dissent-makes-a-smarter-society/story-e6frgd0x-1226115488941
Take the global warming debate. On one side we have the government, government-funded organisations such as the CSIRO, government appointees such as the chief scientist and various activists, non-governmental organisations and academics asserting that the science is settled and debate is over.
This reaches beyond the uncontested claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to demanding acceptance of any number of conflicting and widely varying modelled predictions and policies designed to mitigate their effects.
They've even invented a new type of science called "sustainability science" where if you can think of a threat large enough you are justified in dealing with it as a fact before you have experimental evidence to prove it.
Opponents are tagged as "deniers" or "denialists" in a clear attempt to demean scepticism as immoral and irrational, equivalent to holocaust denial, and the Prime Minister berates sceptical journalists telling them not to "write crap".
Another interesting bit is this:
We even have high-profile academics such as ethics professor Clive Hamilton and federation scholar John Quiggin claiming that to even publish sceptical stories is evidence of bias.
So is any skeptisism allowed at all on the subject? Are people allowed to even question why they are being taxed to death to "fix" a problem we don't notice affecting us, and ask why we are repeatedly assured of predicitions of doom which just aren't happening? I don't mean a photo of a glacier... mean the alarmist predictions we were told in Australia maybe ten years ago that the Pacific islands were "vanishing" and would be soon gone...when they plainly aren't. Same with flooding coastlines. We don't see it happening.