The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > When the flak gets intense, you know you’re on target > Comments

When the flak gets intense, you know you’re on target : Comments

By Bob Carter, published 12/7/2007

Consensus nonsensus! 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' is being shown on ABC TV tonight.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
This 'debate' is fundamentally driven by vested interests. Largely of a political nature.

The scientists can debate the factual differences in their dispassionately scientific way.

The politcal interests infuse the science with emotion and passion. Very usefel devices for conning the ballot box punters.

Once science becomes politicised it descends into the realm of vested interests and there's not much said by either side that can be taken with much more than a grain of salt.

The opposite ends of climate change debate are populated by socialists versus capitalsits. One wants to go on as is, the other seeks to use the 'science' to rein in and control the other. Taxing the air we breath is useful for government too. l used to joke that the govt will eventually tax us for water and air. We pay for water, soon air wont be free. How long before they contrive a means by which to tax sunlight.

The poltical 'debate' is scientifically and factually redundant. Its a complicated area of science. Silver tongued political snakes wont understand and they wont help the average punter who believes that interests rate will rise under a labour govt to understand either.

There was a line in the movie 'Thankyou for Smoking' that said that you dont have to actually prove your own position all you have to do is raise enough doubt about the opposing claimants position. The doubt will be enough to get people to scratch their heads in confusion and err on the side of caution. When in doubt... dont. And that suffices as a rhetorical victory.

Which is where this thing seems to be heading.

Which suits me, because l think its all a crock and l dont need scare campaigns and moralising appeals to social responsibility to do what l've been doing well before anyone was talking about this stuff. Who needs a reason to reduce, re-use and recycle? Since when do l need a reason not crap in my own bed?

Ploliticians sure think that people are stoopud. Maybe we should stop giving them cause to think it.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 13 July 2007 1:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A quick reply to FrankGol.

I have occasionally "played the man instead of the ball" myself, attempting to discredit the messenger rather than the argument and can understand having a knee-jerk and reactionary response when reading/hearing that a number of anti-AGW "experts" receive/have received part of their funding from Oil Companies. Problem is that this is a two-edged sword.

You may not be aware that Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC has long directly worked for TATA, the massive Indian industrial conglomerate and spent 3 years (1999-2002) as a Director of the Indian Oil Corporation. Thus he was not only funded but in direct control of "Big Oil". Should this now disqualify him from being a vocal PRO AGW voice?

Probably not. Why not? Cheers.
Posted by punter57, Friday, 13 July 2007 1:25:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin, science is about constantly assessing and testing information, if the information doesn't hold up then it is discarded. Mr. Durkin virtually indicated that scientists are unprofessional, lack ethics and are involved in conspiracy; he used rather flimsy research. A huge insult to those who have made science their life's work. It should be no surprise that his views were attacked. His ethics were attacked with examples as too why; but in the main the information he presented was assessed, nothing personal about it. His information was pulled apart in a rational manner.
Posted by ant, Friday, 13 July 2007 1:51:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
punter57

It’s an important point you raise and I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment about "playing the man instead of the ball". So, yes, I would apply the same rule to the head of the IPCC.

You may have noticed that I said yesterday: ‘While base motives don’t, in themselves, render the contents of the film invalid, they must give cause for the viewer to be more than normally alert to globalised commercial spin.’

To be clear: I wouldn’t disqualify scientists’ views on the grounds – alone - that they are on the payroll of companies that have a commercial interest in the scientific findings. But two conditions should apply:

(a) I would expect scientists to declare any potential conflict of interest;
(b) I would expect them to sign off to the effect that they have not allowed their pecuniary interest to compromise their science, and submit their works to peer review wherever possible.

Finally, I would expect all readers/viewers/audience of any science outcome to be especially vigilant when assessing the findings of a scientist who has a pecuniary interest, notwithstanding assurances.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 13 July 2007 3:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, given that you call evolution a pseudoscience, you clearly have no concept of what science is, and any further discussion with you is a waste of electrons. Benjamin, you use the expression "fear-mongering left" as if it means something. Grow up.

For everyone else who doesn't recognise that Carter is a self-serving contrarian twit: give up. You will only make fools of yourselves.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 13 July 2007 3:57:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian Dunlop is a former senior international oil, gas and coal industry executive and chaired the Aust. Coal Association in 1987-88 and the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000.

He has called for an urgent government change of policy and recommends a reduction of Australian emissions to 50% by 2025.

Dunlop's proposed policy on climate change was written in consultation with an impressive body of experts from around the world.

In contrast to Mr Dunlop's recommendations, Mr Carter wrote a paper titled "When Science Fails, just use the Precautionary Principle," endorsed by the Institute of Public Affairs (Dec.'06.)

Some of his statements in that paper on the Precautionary Principle advise:

A "disturbing lack of intellectual rigor."

"This is an acknowledgement that the audiences or at least the questioner has run out of scientific argument and refuge is sought in sociology."

"No amount of Precautionary Principle is going to stop natural climate change."

"Driven by addiction to alarmism and a false belief that the causes of climate change are understood, environmental lobby groups worldwide urge the adoption of the Precautionary Principle to solve the global warming problem."

"Put another way, all that is needed to fix the Precautionary Principle is a little more rigor. Rigor mortis, that is."

The footnote on Mr Carter's paper advises he is:

"An experienced geologist and an environmental scientist."

Given the scientific evidence to date, the Institute of Public Affairs, strictly for the purpose of salvaging its last vestige of credibility, would be well advised to adopt the Precautionary Principle and immediately gag Mr Carter ("environmental scientist") from spruiking more of his inane sophistry.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 13 July 2007 7:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy