You know things are serious when scientists, traditionally non-excitable folk, begin speaking up in the media about respect. But it’s happening. And all thanks to a national debate on the science of climate change that has turned more toxic than some of the pollutants apparently in the atmosphere.
A group of 200 scientists will be in Canberra today for the annual ‘Science Meets Parliament’ event – hoping to grab the ear of the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.
They want assurances that the public debate is not being hijacked by pseudo science … an assurance that may not be forthcoming today.
The
“They will ask MPs and senators to make sure the climate change debate does not harm the vital contribution research is making to the nation’s future.
“The valuable and credible work of all scientists is under attack as a result of a noisy misinformation campaign by climate denialists,” CEO Anna Maria Arabia said.
The momentum is growing on a day when Tony Abbott will be making a real push for a plebiscite in Parliament which could force the Prime Minister to hold a $69 million referendum on whether we should move forward with a carbon tax.
He says Ms Gillard never gained a mandate at the election and is relying on severe public sentiment against the carbon tax to defeat a key Government policy.
But there are two debates here when, scientists say, there should only be one.
Focus on how to deal with climate change, sure, but not whether it is actually happening. A new campaign called ‘Respect the Science’ will be launched to – hopefully – give people a better understanding of how science reaches conclusions like human induced climate change.
And in some cases the battle lines are drawn: the meek and mild scientists on one side and shock jocks on the other, leading their respective ideological armies into battle.
Elizabeth Farrelly captured this division viscerally when she called radio shock jocks the ‘cane toads of the air’.
“They are the cane toads of contemporary culture: ugly, ubiquitous, toxic to most other life forms and adept at using their peculiar behaviour to force change in ours.
Take Alan Jones. Though it pains me to say it, he is forcing me to change my mind. Not on climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, all of which he opposes, but on censorship.
Broadcaster and ‘shock jock’ Alan JonesThese climate-change rants deliberately ignore everything about eco-balance, homeostasis, the greenhouse effect and tipping points we’ve all been taught since primary school and instead raucously promote a red herring.
Yet it’s neither stupidity nor ignorance on Jones’s part. Quite likely he’s read Robert Thouless’s list of dishonest tricks in argument, including caricature, anecdote and non sequitur. Or even Schopenhauer’s list. Bombast, hyperbole, personal insult; certainly he employs most of them.
The rest of Farrelly’s piece is a razor-sharp disembowelling of the faux-debate and well worth the read.
This feels like one of those moments in epic blockbuster movies where everyone has to choose a side.
What side will you choose? Who do you believe? And what do you think about Tony Abbott’s proposed plan for a $70million plebiscite (like a referendum but without changing the constitution permanently) where we all have to vote? Good way to spend taxpayer dollars? And that doesn’t even start to count the cost of the ad campaigns that would be launched by all sides.
Do you listen to scientists? Shock jocks?
Top Comments
Whether or not man made global warming is or isn't occurring (I do think it is) we are damaging our earth by removing too many trees and forests, adding to landfill, releasing pollutants into the atmosphere and land and using up resources that will run out. At some point we need to rethink how to manufacture things, how to reduce, reuse and recycle and how to reduce pollution and land fill. And to me a carbon tax is one step to take to hopefully reduce pollution.
Radio commentators are like most people - have an opinion, that's all. Why people think commentators' opinions are factual is beyond me! Scientists DO have the facts, but in many cases are not believed because they are politicised or the facts are cherry-picked to swing one way or the other.
Let me put my cards on the table - I am an economics/finance graduate, mid 40's. I am yet to be convinced about man made climate change, simply because nobody has simply been able to explain it to me. Wjat I do know is this:
the first time I heard about "global warming" as it was then called was about 10 years ago, was having dinner with a work colleague from NZ who had previosuly worked in the UK, somehow the topic came up. When he talked about global warming occurring, I said, yes of course, the world is currently warming (my limited science taught me we have been coming out of a mini ice age over the last couple of hundred years). I also mentioned that geologists have shown the earth has been much warmer during it's history than present. I was innocent - just stating the facts that I knew, but this guy started tio get quite hysterical, and said no, no , no, the earth is warming, no question, & it's a bad thing. When I challenged & said if the earth was warming could it be due to natural changes, his response was no way, there is no evidence for that?? I quickly left it at that, & since that time, have never had anybody been able to explain to me.
Talking about shock jocks, a few weeks ago on the converstaion hour on ABC radio (hardly a shock jock), he had a retired science professor who shared his story, part of the story was the flasw he saw in the current climate change debate, he has been shut out of debate, but is very sceptical, as the main propopents are biased as they all receive significant government funding (he was eithe UK or US based). He knows that without funding these people don't have a living, so are more likely to skew data to support their arguments, & he could see significant flaws with all teh key data so far.
Now onto the carbon tax - I actually thgink there should be a pollution tax (include CO2 emmissions, but other nasties that hurt the environment. From an economics perspective, the carbon tax is flawed - tax local emitters with some exemptions for large emitters, pay compensation to households & some emitters. It's a money merry go round, & won't chnage behaviour. Not only that, all the coal we export won't be taxed, which goes to larger emitting countries. Nuclear power seems to be the most viable alternative (I'm not a supported of nuclear energy by the way), but is discounted by the same people as being too dangerous. Wind & solar are supposed to be the answers (I have solar panels by the way, as I believe they are good for the environment), but once again, the current debate in NSW shows they are not cost-effective.
Just my thoughts, I would love for somebody to actually convince me man made climate change is occurring, rather than trot out the same old lines that it is real, the science is settled, as from where I stand, there is still actually plenty of credible scientific debate about the methadology. Just remember, just because I'm not convinced about this, doesn't mean I'm not in favour of reducing pollution & having a cleaner environment.
That was a good read, with many valid points. I am a climate change believer but I to don't fully get it. As with you I think it is great to reduce polution regardless.