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 > General Discussion > Should the wilfully scientific illiterate decide on the validity of scientific issues?

Should the wilfully scientific illiterate decide on the validity of scientific issues?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. All
Why do we tolerate our politicians deciding on critical *scientific* issues without even seeking appropriate, objective advice from scientific experts in the relevant field.

Abbott, on a recent Lateline issue, admitted he hadn't sought any advice from any relevant scientific expert on the validity of AWG. He claimed he was a politician (not a scientist) therefore his (and his party's) purpose was to oppose the government, who had on these issues.

Had he done so, he would have been told that unless a price is put on carbon, all other non costing options wouldn't alter anything.

Surely the opposition.
- Should be informed on the science before making decisions to oppose.
- Shouldn't they be putting the country first before their party differentiation for electoral purposes.
- Shouldn't the parties consider the overall good for the people before dogma
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 13 December 2009 5:24:13 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
Good point, Minchin once wanted his opposing view on record in a senate review.
He ask to and did go on record saying cigarette smoke was not dangerous.
He very much is, to his party as much as our country along with the ones who voted Abbot in.
We will see those who decry this subject but after the next election, just months after the climate change conference, go before March, we will have fun observing the changeling's change yet again.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 13 December 2009 6:49:44 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
Belly: "He ask to and did go on record saying cigarette smoke was not dangerous."

I thought you must have been pulling our collective legs. But no, googling for Minchin takes me to his wikipedia page, and lo and behold it quotes his statement in the Minority Report on Tobacco-related Illnesses. He actually quoted research from the tobacco institue to support his position. Anything he says on AGW would almost be an anti-climax. But nonetheless, it did come as a surprise that he opposes compulsory voting.

Now after having taken the time to read a few of Minchin's speaches, I can't help but wonder if he is a bit of a plagiarist. They almost identical to some of the comments here on OLO.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 13 December 2009 7:38:59 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
This is a real hoot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8O-E_GN0Kg
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 13 December 2009 8:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're kidding? Even I wouldn't have attributed that level of corporate amorality to Minchin.

The scientific facts don't matter to Abbott, Minchin et al. They've formed a denialist ideological view that is now so entrenched that they can't back down. Idiots.

I'm not optimistic, but I'd like to think that it's still possible for my grandkids to live in an environment like I did when I was their age. It wasn't nearly as technologically and materially profligate as contemporary expectations, but I think that we could survive quite easily a general retraction in the universal availability of all consumer goods and services to everybody who wants them, regardless of whether they can afford them.

Because I seriously think that's what's going to happen, whether we like it or not. All those climate change delusionists who babble on about adaptation ought to think about adapting to more modest material, energy and technology consumption.

I think that's the best long term scenario. Rudd's ETS had been compromised to the point where it would have had a less than positive effect on anything. Abbott's enthusiastic embrace of climate change denialism would be more of a worry if such a clear majority of Australians weren't concerned by AGW and its effects on them and their children.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 13 December 2009 9:13:08 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
I often wonder who on earth votes for
these people?

They say that we get the politicians
that we deserve - well I know I don't
deserve these guys!

What do they read? (Or do they read at all?)
How can their ignorance be explained?

"It is what you read when you don't have to
that determines what you will be when you
can't help it."
(Oscar Wilde).

How can someone oppose something they know nothing
about - and can't be bothered consulting with
experts who may be able to explain things to them?

It's beyond my comprehension.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 December 2009 9:22:38 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. All

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