Far from questioning climate change, [Australian Prime Minister] Rudd, aided and abetted by a largely compliant CSIRO and a plethora of pandering academics eager to receive government funding, has all but shut down discussion on the issue. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
“Professor Ian Plimer … relishes the big questions.
Earth’s climate, he notes, has always been cyclical. It has warmer periods and cooler periods.
Since the Pleistocene Ice Age (110,000-14,700 years ago) was followed by the Bolling (14,700-13,900 years ago), the cycles have seen the Older Dryas followed by the Allerod, the Younger Dryas by the Holocene warming, the Egyptian cooling by the Holocene warming, the Akkadian cooling by the Minoan warming, the Bronze Age cooling by the Roman warming, the Dark Ages by the Mediaeval warming, and the Little Ice Age (1300 AD-1850) by the present.
Further, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, currently demonised, have in the past been many time higher while Earth was actually cooler than it is now.”
Piers calls KRudd “no Einstein” How do we make these people look at the evidence or is it that they know the evidence but want the Global Governance? IS KRudd’s plan for an Asia/Pacific Community similar to the EU part of his global governance plan?
Does he realise that the EU countries virtually lost their sovereignty when they joined and his PMship will be diminished. Does he realise that an economic community means Open Borders and could lead to mass immigration? Does he realise that our fragile country could not stand that?
Any evidence for this libel, apart from baseless accusations?
It’s not libel if it is true.
“Rudd encourages his fawning acolytes to denigrate those who follow Einstein’s approach to science as “deniers”, and says of them: “To stay in denial as the climate change sceptics and some members opposite would have us do, is reckless and irresponsible.”
SJT – Surely KRudd would sue if it was libelous. But then he’s a millionaire isn’t he? Maybe he wouldn’t.
Isn’t it funny that the MSM always describe Mal Turnbull as the “Millionaire Former Merchant Banker.”
http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2008/11/millionaires.html
“It’s not libel if it is true.”
I repeat, any evidence, apart from baseless accusations?
SJT,
Obviously you have no experience dealing with the university grants system or obtaining funding for research – it’s all very very PC, I am afraid.
But you initial demand was based on what assumption – that government employees do what their political masters demand of them, NOT?
Principles you don’t have SJT, starting with the dishonesty of hiding behind a pseudonym. Stops us from mounting legal action for libel by you.
“But you initial demand was based on what assumption – that government employees do what their political masters demand of them, NOT?”
Once again, no evidence, just assertions.
Perhaps I could remind you that for ten years the Howard government, which contained many deniers, including Howard himself, ran the CSIRO and set policy for it.
SJT,
You must exist on a different planet to the rest of us. And I see you confirmed me – politicians do make the rules and you public servants carrry them out. Your statement is all the evidence we need, since you confirmed it.
SJT,
just in case you missed the point, politicians want proof of global warming manufactured, so you and your mates do it. AGW is not about saving the planet but by implementing a turnover tax on our emissions – CO2.
Then there is this editorial from the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24722322-16382,00.html
Titled “unthinking dogma
Science must always be contested – even climate change”.
A good article, though I think the use of the term “climate change” rather than “global warming” is unfortunate. It leaves this editorial open to attack on pedantic grounds, which would divert from the point of the article; that before policies based on science are implemented, every bit of the science needs to be thoroughly picked over.
“just in case you missed the point, politicians want proof of global warming manufactured, so you and your mates do it. AGW is not about saving the planet but by implementing a turnover tax on our emissions – CO2.”
Howard was the politician in charge of the CSIRO for most of the past decade. He set the policy for the management of the CSIRO, which saw a lot of changes in the way it was run. It still came up with the same answers.
“just in case you missed the point, politicians want proof of global warming manufactured, so you and your mates do it. AGW is not about saving the planet but by implementing a turnover tax on our emissions – CO2.”
Once again, mere assertions. For most of the past 10 years, Howard was in power, and known AGW denier. To what extent did the CSIRO manufacture evidence pander to his demands?
“Titled “unthinking dogma
Science must always be contested – even climate change”.”
The science of AGW has been developing for over a century now. It’s basis is quite mature. It is still being contested and studied, that is the job of scientists. But to question the physical basis is quite pointless, it’s about as necessary as questioning if things fall down if you drop them. The only point of contention is the amount that temperatures will rise.