"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?

i note..all other comment..is re the science lie
cooling/warming/change...[its all just climate variables
as more cool grasslands..or swamps..or turned into heat sinks

changing local temp readings

we got the science
when ozone chewed holes
ooops[was said to make holes in the poles]

yep
ozone
going to make deserts

then we got carbon...thats going to make deserts/no snow...melting poles..drowing polar bears...ie science based lies

but let get back to the law
via the bad science

recall that evolution trial
that...*WASNT JUDGING EVOLUTION/creation
it judged simply...is creation science..[and found
NO creation should not be taught..as science[not in science class]

se juries..get the complicated fact
to solve a simple question

did..."X"..do this
was.."X"..doing this..lawfull

when the first question that should be asked
is who injured who...or who violated the terms of their contract

contracts bind both parties
but all you inteligent people
talking re climate...proves even you dont..*get 'law'
is about controling others freedoms..to smoke/drink/whatever
AS LONG AS THEY HURT NO_ONE..

or are not likely
to injure a party..and there by loose their standing[over the law]
and be bought before the law,..to stand under it

but again...standing*
is as miss understood..as those claiming..to UNDER stand

they dont realise..by applying..[to be on the sherrifs list]
they proove they are ignorant..of the rule of standing
thus led away..from the simple facts..

much like the lies
the govt judge and jury swallowed
for this big new capitalist bonus instrument..[the carbon tax credit]

its lies upon lies
keep them dumb

lord it over them..all

#1 - THE LAW OF THE CASE

The law of the case..is usually very simple!

No matter what kind/of case yours is,

This stuff is really easy
once you see how the separate parts fit together!

You have tremendous power
...once you know how the game is played

lack of knowing..how the game of litigation..is played to win!

Not knowing creates fear.

Knowledge displaces fear
with the confidence you need to overcome your opponent!

Take any apparently complicated thing apart to examine its component parts and you quickly see how they fit together.

When you first begin,
it seems impossible.

But!

If someone shows you how each separate part works..with each of the other parts,..even the most complicated things..are suddenly easy-to-understand.

The mystery my profession has woven disappears!

#1-All lawsuits turn on the law*..of the case.

#2- All lawsuits..are won(or lost)..by clever (or clumsy)
use of the rules of court..to cite the law of the case
and prove the facts.

That's all there is to lawsuits
every one of them!

Sadly,..too many good people..never discover
the power to win that's theirs.

Therefore,..evil people who know..how to find
the law of the case..and use the rules of court
take advantage..of them!

Jurisdictionary..wants to turn the tables
on crooked lawyers and biased judges

and protect the "little guys and gals"..that are being taken advantage of..simply because no one before has ever offered
a..self-help course.

No one ever made it this easy-to-understand!

www.Jurisdictionary.com

if you'll trust me for just a moment (and check me on this) you'll find that every lawsuit turns on what we lawyers call "the law of the case". Every last one of them. Every single one!

It's really simple
once you see

For example,..every foreclosure case turns
(win or lose)..on a very few legal principles..that control the outcome of foreclosure

the rights..of the lender versus the rights of the borrower.

We..call these principles.."the law of the case".of foreclosure.

It doesn't matter..how big the bank or lender is.
It doesn't matter..how little the borrower is.

The law of the case
is the law of the case PERIOD!

[eg...only origonal documernt/contract
the blueink origonal..is proof of contract

PHOTO-copies arnt proof..!
no blue ink contract..NO CONTRACT

The law of the case..controls the outcome
for those who know*..how to use the rules of court..(evidence and procedure)..to prove what the law requires...is or isnt present.

Automobile negligence,/contract disputes,
malpractice,..slander,..false imprisonment... whatever a case is about,

you'll find "the law of the case"..is simple and usually easy to find...[was what was done..done via crimibnal..or contract

allelse is criminal;

use online legal research..to find the law of your case!

You don't need to know..every law there is to win..a simple contract dispute....is..that what you signed[agreed to?]..

The law of the case..in a contract dispute
is usually no more..than a few appellate court opinions
and perhaps a statute..or two at most.

Once you know how to find..and can cite the official authorities that state the law..of the case of contracts,..you're halfway home!

The rest of the business..of winning
is simply using the rules to.(1) allege
what the law of the case..*requires,

and (2) prove..what you've alleged...
whether you're a plaintiff..bringing the case..or a defendant trying to avoid the line of fire!

#2/THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=183&t=12701

You also now know..what you must allege
in affirmative defenses..and what you need to do
with discovery*..and motions*..to prove the plaintiff
*cannot meet,..the burden of the law.

Guinea pig symptom wattle...garrison piano
register manuscript everyone sold magnificent

underlying global balloons! inefficieny
programmed pero culo aha... sadness infects
ready underneath..make intense enograms

glory underpinned transparency..haikus make for
good ego but fgyk argument..poo being optimal
for rigourous wnker...i love oppossums

telepathic mindlaundering of idiot on web
you no..speky...wot did you actually..try
unsuccessfully to badly ... communicate

We are indeed privileged to have one amongst us who is willing to demonstrate the schizophrenia of moral relativism.

One who on the one hand not only exemplifies the modus operandi of the “narratives” behind the socialization of sciences, but also provides their “prism” of ideology, social, political, racism, gender and environment, through which we are invited to view his personal issues.

The main issues would seem to be that the opposition is not willing to support DAGW. It is not willing (at this stage) to give the ALP any policy target to shoot at. It is not willing to get rid of our enemy, Mr. Abbott and replace him with Mr. Turnbull. There are far too many Australian’s willing to support Abbott and we will get wiped out. That those damned moral absolutists (realists), are guilty of adding their “empirical observations that moral conclusions cannot be deducted from non-moral premises”. Oh my dear God, heaven preserve us.

Who may we thank for this frank, honest, open and pragmatically based perspective?

Thanks bonmot, you are such a gem. Dysfunctional and predictable, but still a gem. We map out the model and you follow it. We already know your response to this however; please submit it as we value the entertainment.

The Simpsons still have the edge over you but keep on “tugging” away.

Another day and no questions about economy. The whole coalition is in damage control not allowing any discussion on the economy.
Mr Abbott today pledged to reverse the means testing of med; ins;
He has that many pledges now it is impossible to keep track of them all.
The coalition want an early election, but will not give any policy. the only slip up was from Joe Hockey and his 70 billion black hole. Which he admits was a mistake.

Tony will say anything to get elected...but then again, so will almost all politicians. They just have a problem of delivering once they get elected...can't see this changing in a hurry.

Ah yes, OLO’s veritable ‘Spindoctor’ – but moving on:

There is an ignorance of a few here that gives them no pain whose education has somehow failed to awaken in them an appetite for the truth. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that ignorance of science is shared by so many (like spindoc) on OLO, who not without reason, think of themselves as ‘well-educated’ and who take a lively and critical interest in wider issues and ideas.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Using his assertions as an example; spindoc purports to have understood, and then applied, works of Professor Raymond Tallis to this thread. However, ‘spindoctor’ either really doesn’t understand "Newton's sleep: the two cultures and the two kingdoms" or is deliberately trying to spindoctor a very honourable man and his work for his own warped ideological agenda.

In fact, any rational seeker of truth who reads the book, will find that Professor Tallis is eluding to the likes of Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones; or the Viscount Christopher Monckton or Lord Nigel Lawson – not real climate change scientists (spindoc calls them 'warmists') at all.

I suppose being called “dysfunctional and predictable” really is a complement coming from one so delusional.
Richard Stanton has my empathy.

bonmot, as my lovely Granny from County Cork used to say, “ Oi ‘tink ya’ may have got dat a bit up to back front me’ boyo”.

The bullshifters and the liars may hold centre stage for a while but in the end they are found out and their contributions forgotten. We now recognize the difference between the rigorous objective science of “scientific forecasts” and the pseudo-science of “forecasts by scientists”.

Like the eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin.

How’s that margin doing bonmot? You are sounding increasingly lonely and desperate out there on the fringes of reality

im noting some personal attack..[light hearted]
so will reply..the one aimed at me

the dozers/quote...""Guinea pig symptom wattle""'

clearkly wattle means waffle?

""...garrison piano""

playing by the songsheet

""register manuscript..""

dozers waffle

''everyone sold/magnificent''

empty boasting

""underlying global balloons!'''

baffons?

""inefficieny/programmed pero culo aha""

whatever gets your goat

""... sadness infects""

dont sweat on it
sadness is within
we would never have guessed

""ready underneath""

sorry mate
dont swing that way

""..make intense enograms""

make your own orgasims

""glory underpinned transparency""
yes the truth is seen under it all

""..haikus make for
good ego but fgyk argument""

yea no argument from me

""..poo being optimal""

mine is one way
the exit..[no entry]
but heck whatever swings your boat

""for rigourous wnker...i love oppossums""

we get all sorts
heck i once met a nekrophilic
and least your warm fur preferance..lives

""telepathic mindlaundering of idiot on web""

dont worry
we find you very revealing

""you no..speky...""

yes no wankey no spanky
get it?

""wot did you actually..try""

anything that didnt turn me into ben/dover

""unsuccessfully to badly""

naturally

...""communicate"'

no your too hard to read
yet we feel we are reading you loud and clear

lonely
nuthin to say
its allright ol mate
[are you still hitting ya wife"..or just the likkle spit..

anyhow
nice to think out what your trying to say
now i know its not much..but heck mate it lookes nice

good effort
i give it a 3..or maybe a 4

keep trying
i found it very trying

Mr howard the champion of the carbon price. Did not get through to his apprentices to well, One minute it was yes and the next it was no.
Mr Costello said. And therefore a strong dollar enriches all Australians, was he right.
Our economy is no one, with sound economic management, and because this is the correct time to bring about a surplus, to take us into the next 4 years.
Australia's economy is going through a massive transformation.
Mr Joyce is best to vacate his seat, so the AU flag carrier can be put back to being a responsible transport again

Ha ha ha ha.... ha ha ha
ha ha haha ...ha ha ha
ha ha hahahaha ha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ha ha ha ah aha ah ahha
ha ha ha ha.. ha

ha
ha