AN unfortunate characteristic of most of the public discussion on global warming is the name-calling peppered with false claim suggesting that there are very few so-called “sceptics”. Last week Liberal Senator, Nick Minchin, was identified as not only a climate change sceptic but labelled a “denier” because of his stand against the emissions trading legislation which was being debated in the federal parliament. In fact, there are sceptics in Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s own Cabinet but for the sake of politics they are keeping quiet, or gagged. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Two other excellent books come from Patrick Michaels: The Satanic Gases and Meltdown (beginning of a longer title). Michaels even claims CO2 is warming the atmosphere, his concern, as with Lindzen, is that the problem has been blown out of proportion.
The Earth simply has not responded to CO2 as models project it will. The leading people behind those projections are the same ones scoffing at skeptics, making hysterical statements about them, threatening to block access of skeptical information from getting into IPCC reviews and climate journals, and fudging the warming to make it look worse than it is.
The sad part is that our gullible politicians have accepted the rhetoric, hook, line and sinker. I have tried to open discussion with several of them, either by email or in person. They fail to respond to emails, or they rudely walk away, in person. Discussion is out of the question. My concern is that even if it is proved beyond a doubt they are wrong, the politicians will cover up their mistakes to save face. The IPCC has already done that.
This is the behavior related to mass hysteria, the same kind of behavior that caused people to take poison from Jimmy Jones, of cult fame.
Excellent article. Of particular interest is the bit about labor skeptics being gagged, I believe Louis has said the same thing several times. Plimer’s book is very informative if a bit repetitive and long winded and yet attracted the same sort of savage attacks from alarmist bloggers that senator Minchin got from labor front benchers. The alarmists always defend their position by eviscerating dissenting voices with savage personal attacks. Plimer was made to look like a complete idiot by all and sundry on Monbiots blog even though there was a strong chance that none of them even bothered to read his book(s). There is an amazing assumption that skeptical scientists are incompetent and must have cheated to get their degrees because no researcher of any credibility could fall for such obvious nonsense as naturally occurring climate change.
In any case, Monbiot et al found 63 points of contention with Plimers book, many of them repeats, against over 2000 references. What does that tell you?
Derek Smith “Of particular interest is the bit about labor skeptics being gagged…”
Derek…I do not, in any way, regard the Rudd government as ‘labour’. There has not been any decent labour governments for decades, those movements having been hijacked by intellectuals such as university professors and their ilk. The Rudd government don’t represent the struggling working class of old, they represent the ancestors of those people who have never had to struggle for anything.
My dad, a Labour supporter of old, told me about his experiences. When things were bad, people pulled together with everyone helping each other out, whether it be something as simple as a handout or something more complex and lasting as legislation like medicare. When things improved, a new generation benefited from the Labour goodies, and they became too good and too stupid to appreciate them. Instead, they became snobs themselves, cloaked in a new rhetoric that made sense to no one.
BTW…my dad worked for himself most of his life. He supported Labour for humanitarian reason. Those days are long gone.
Here in Canada, our labour parties and governments are too busy kissing up to special interest movements, like environmentalists and homosexuals, than they are to looking after the interests of people in general. They don’t care about the poor anymore, they care only about their images.
I’m disgusted with the lot of them whether it be the Australian, Canadian or British form of labour. They are not labour parties. No real labour party would be sucked in by the global warming rhetoric. These people don’t even want to hear the other side of the story for fear of alienating the extreme environmentalists. They are so conscious of their images, to what they are perceived to be, than they are to the truth.
Of course, here in the province of BC, we have an extreme right-wing government in power and they are so blinded to global warming rhetoric that they have imposed a carbon tax. Further down the coast, in California, Schwarzeneggar, a right wing nut, has done the same. Gore is a right-winger too. So, this anti-skeptical stance is not the domain of socialists only. It belongs simply to people who rely on intellectualism, which is superficial, man-made intelligence, and not the real intelligence that comes in our DNA, and which we mask with ego and acquired superficial thought.
The sad part is that even the Liberal Party in Canada, who are supposed to be a bridge between the Tories and Labour, are into it too. The only voice for the skeptics is from the Tories, and they are petrified to tell it like it is because of the strong emotional backlash from the extreme environmentalists and their groupies. I say ‘extreme’ to differentiate them from genuine, moderate environmentalists (not Greens), whose causes I have no problem supporting.
I have little doubt that future generations will regard us as complete loonies.
Gordon,
I’ve been told that Bob Hawke was a labor prime minister but the commentary on Rudd suggests that nobody in either labor or the union movement thinks he’s labor, but they tolerate him because of his popularity.
Regardless of what political commentators in the media and especially the ABC say, I think that senator Minchin’s stand is an ideological one and it is gratifying to see a politician stand up for that for a change.
“there are sceptics in Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s own Cabinet but for the sake of politics they are keeping quiet, or gagged.”
I was amazed when I heard Minchin say that; where is his evidence? There is none, its just a baseless assertion and you dont make it any better by repeating it.
What do you call the ideology of making baseless assertions – lying?
Think about it for a couple of nano seconds – Minchin claims that he is sceptical because he doubts the veracity of the science and needs more facts and then brazenly starts to spread what is fundamentally unfounded gossip as “the truth”
Where is the balance?
rog “Minchin claims that he is sceptical because he doubts the veracity of the science and needs more facts…”
Here are facts from Kevin Trenberth, to help Minchin out. He said the warming has stopped and it’s a tragedy because no one knows why. He also said the weakness of models is the lack of knowledge about clouds.
That would be Trenberth from the IPCC, lead author and big shot there. What else does Rudd need, unless he’s a complete, blithering idiot?
rog, where did you come from? Are you Luke in disguise? FYI a number of people from this blog have aquaintances in the labor party who have privately admitted what Minchin has said. On Insiders this morning, Bolt claimed the same thing. Be careful rog, if you keep shooting from the hip you’re likely to blow your own balls off.
Cant you see the inconsistency?
On one hand you demand to see the data and to be told that every piece has been checked and double checked for authenticity (and then doubt it) and on the other hand you willingly believe any gossip floating around the place, as long as it suits your “beliefs”.
Andrew Bolt is not a reliable or credible source of information
rog “On one hand you demand to see the data and to be told that every piece has been checked and double checked for authenticity…”
It’s called science, and no one should need to ask for the data to verify the work. The question has arisen as to why it is being withheld. One answer given to Warwich Hughes, was why should I give you the data only to have it used against me?
Doh!! It’s science, you ninny, it’s meant to be used against you, and if your data is sound, no one will be able to use it against you.
This is a post from a CBC blog here in Canada submitted by a poster called Seeingblue. I can’t at this time vouch for the accuracy of the comments, although I know some of them to be correct:
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941
Rog,
I didn’t write there are sceptics in cabinet because I heard it from someone else.
I wrote it because I have spoken with them, because they have discussed the issue of climate change with me off-the-record.
Gordon,
I think he said it was a ‘travesty’, not a ‘tragedy’.
Tony Hansen “I think he said it was a ‘travesty’, not a ‘tragedy’”
Duly corrected, thanks. Travesty doesn’t make sense, however, since it is an imitation, or parody. I presume an event referred to as a travesty of justice means an imitation of the real thing. Tragedy, on the other hand, means disastrous event, which I think better fits the situation. Maybe I was trying unconsciously to help Kev out.
Then again, he did claim AGW was still real. Maybe in his disillusioned state he thinks the truth is a travesty of his illusion that AGW is real.