"The carbon tax narrative was underpinned by moral relativism (advocates) and moral absolutism (opponents). The question must be why the wider community has divided in absolute and relative terms and why it no longer places trust in its institutions such as the criminal justice system."

No, the carbon tax narrative was (and is) a naked power grab underpinned by ignorance and hysteria. Trying to recast it in terms of goodies vs baddies is just one of the many tactics that warmists use to obfuscate the fact that their position is getting weaker and weaker every day.

As for moral relativism, surely that equates to 'Do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.' And no rational person can possibly object to that.

Very well put Jon J, the moral relativism through which we are being asked to view science has only recently come under scrutiny and question.

This “socialization of science” creates pseudo-science. The socialization approach to the philosophy and history of science has become distressingly familiar.

In his essay, The Eunuch at The Orgy, Raymond Tallis provides some insight as to “how” the socialization of science has been accomplished.

“The socialization of science requires the assumption that science is just part of life that has to be criticized by humanities academia as part of the object that the educated mind may inspect (from a great distance) and not part of the mind itself or crucial to its education. From Copernicus onwards, the findings and speculation of scientists have been a continuous threat to collective, unreflective beliefs about the nature and purpose of human life, the position of man in the order of things and the destination of the universe. In short true science is a criticism of life in the best and deepest sense. This of course is seen by humanities as “their” domain”.

Tallis observes that for many trained in the humanities;”the standards of discussion routine in science are alien to humanities. To them, science seems so remote that ignorance hardly seems ignorance at all”. Ouch!

Richard Stanton’s article can now be seen for what it is, an act of socialization.

An interesting piece. I too picked up the reference to the carbon tax. From my perspective anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become an article of faith for 'believers', and there are a lot of them, though they are a minority. Passionate minorities have effects on a democratic system, so we have a lot of organs of government whose existence is predicated on AGW, and a lot of private sector and community organisations acting as though AGW is indeed true.

But from the perspective of a non-believer, or sceptic, AGW is possible, even plausible, but not yet either shown to be true or to be harmful. The small amount of warming we are said to have experienced in the last sixty years or so has been accompanied by great increases in food production. On the whole a warmer world is better for people than a colder one.

I can't get passionate about it one way or the other, but as a political phenomenon it fascinates me. The linear ascent of temperature has ceased if you accept (which I really don't) that the notion of an average global temperature is meaningful or even measurable. We are having floods instead of the predicted droughts. Surely El Nino and La Nina are more important to Australians than average temperature. The carbon tax was the PM's delivery of her side of the deal with the Greens, but is otherwise quite silly, without effect in terms of climate, and just another way of distributing other people's income.

How much will it feature in the next elections?

A thought provoking article Richard. Reminds me of your other:

"Mr Abbott is not innovative. Nor does he appear capable of becoming innovative when Australian society is in need of change ... He seems to underpin his ideological position with the notion that all change is bad." I agree.

You say "For the advocates of the carbon tax the issue is clear - scientific evidence points to global warming. However, is it in fact clear? Is it a social issue constructed around the idea of cultural and thus, moral relativism?" Yes, yes and yes – but not for the ‘absolutes.

As Malcolm Turnbull said in 2009:

>> So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullsh!t." Moreover he knows it …

… It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for …

… The fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job (by one vote) do not want to do anything about climate change …

… They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it’s cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world …

… The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any (Liberal) policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing …

… Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated;

. the blocking of the ETS,
. the passing of the ETS,
. the amending of the ETS
. and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it,
. and now the blocking of it …

cont'd

Cont’d

… His (Abbott’s) only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but ..."

… There is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. …

… We have an Opposition Leader (Abbott) who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier...

… And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement …

… Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity …

… We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted … <<<

Malcolm Turnbull, December 2009 http://tinyurl.com/3rlvhf7

Yes, the ‘moral absolutists’ headed by Tony Abbott seem to underpin their ideological position with the notion that all change is bad.

As you have said: “To Hume's concept of matters of fact versus matters of value we can add his empirical observations that moral conclusions cannot be deducted from non-moral premises – something 'is' or 'is not'; it cannot be 'ought' or 'ought not'.

Without knowing that we do, so many of us hold to Hume's doctrine in our daily working and private lives - there is little time for prevarication - if we don't leave now, we will miss the train and be late for work. The train will not wait while we consider what ought to happen.”

in irreverance..i expose the relitive facts

""In the scientific/both sides
questioned the relevance..of the matter being put forward..by the other.""

law isnt science
its a bias...

just pick the right judge
or pick the 'right' jury..[which the marshals arnt bound to pick by fairity..thus picked by bias...[regesterd voters picked..or phone numbers..its from a selected group..picked for their bias

""For all its scientific underpinnings""
in biased jury selection
..{one might have assumed..that every piece of evidence..and every scrap of information had relevance.""

judge denies it be presented to the jury
judge has last say...persicuter has first and last say
to a hand picked group selected for their bias[and obeyance of order]

""His Honour/asserting that the criminal justice system
in NSW was experiencing a..'crisis of confidence'.""

if its not criminal
its civil[ie law of contract,..or injury]
nuthing else is allowed..[so of course this drug revenue/raising]
unliateral contract law..is unlawfull..but the face goes on..cause..its got police/jails

and courts to send ya broke
legal aid..to sheppard guilty please

""He concluded,..by exhorting his legal colleagues
to enliven debate,..to ensure information is accurate,..relevant and accessible,""

he wasnt serious
that was the joke
here was his big finish..[leave em laughing]

""and to put their trust
in citizens as jurors..to act intelligently,..fairly and diligently.""

gullible sheep..who think the law cant be wrong
[the defendant looks poor..he must be guilty]
great service marshal

you know how to pick the sheep
ignborants..not even alowed to do due study..[dilligence]

we dont want informed juries
[in fact these quickly get the chop]

read re jury nullification
ir a juries DUTY..to judge the LAW,..as well as the 'crime'

no contract
no injury

no case to answer
heck its not rocket science
movies show the bad guy..gets off
the jury makes sure..not on their watch

just like the natzies
they KNOW*..their DUTY*

guilty?
que warrento?