Lomborg certainly shouldn't be silenced. Though he's often wrong on the details, his basic point is sound and should be considered more thoroughly, particularly by the greens.

However, there seems to be a big irony here: Peter McCloy's doing the same sort of hatchet job on the greens as many of them did on Lomborg!

You can find extremists on almost every issue – and the broader the issue the more extreme views you're likely to find. But most greens, including many of the anti Lomborg protesters, are actually much closer to the Lomborg view than the David Foreman view.

Just because Bob Brown held world federalist ideals doesn't mean that it would be necessary to abandon the current political system. Firstly, progress is being made under the existing arrangements, albeit too slow to have much effect yet. Secondly federalism doesn't require states to be abolished.

And I suggest you listen to what Tim Flannery actually said before quoting him out of context. Apart from the phrase "global community" (which those who've read the Left Behind books would baulk at) there's nothing remotely scary about his statement that "We will form a global community with a set of shared beliefs" in the context he used it, where he gave "democracy" as an example of one of those shared beliefs. That was during the Arab Spring and in hindsight we can see he was overoptimistic. But is optimism really scary?

As for his ant colony quotes, he was referring to specialisation. He made the point that within an ant colony, different ants had different tasks. He correctly said that humans are even more specialised than ants. He also made the point that what holds human society together is different from what holds an ant colony together. But he certainly DIDN'T suggest that human reproduction would or should be limited to certain individuals like in an ant colony. Only Andrew Bolt and the idiots who source their opinions from him would get that ridiculous impression!

(TBC)

(continued)

Though I don't always agree with them, Tim Flannery's views are fairly sensible. Yet people keep trying to discredit him by falsely accusing him of making silly claims (like that the dams will never fill again; what he actually warned about was the unacceptable risk that they could empty).

Why are so few people willing to listen to what both Lomborg and Flannery have to say?

Hi Aidan,

Here's a really naïve idea: what if a university set up a joint Lomborg-Flannery Climate Centre ? With the stipulations that Lomborg-offices and Flannery-offices had to alternate, and that a weekly seminar had to be presented, followed by a fiery debate ?

Now THAT would be some university. A bit like they are supposed to be.

Cheers,

Joe

PS. Yeah, well, I said it was a naïve idea.

Don't be so silly Aidan. You say "Peter McCloy's doing the same sort of hatchet job on the greens".

That is of course impossible, you can't hit a fairy with a hatchet, or an axe.

Than that is a great effort, trying to take the words out of that fool Flannery's mouth, but just not possible today. Too many have copies of video, & stored writings of these fools. They can't now deny what they said, the way they once could, but good try anyway.

Hasbeen, that's uncalled for! Bob Brown's sexuality is his own business and is irrelevant to the matter we're discussing.

I'm glad you noticed those videos of Tim Flannery are so easily accessible. I suggest you try actually watching them in their entirity instead of just the misleadingly edited highlights. When you do, you'll see they support my interpretation, not Andrew Bolt's.

Thanks for your comments, Aidan. I’d just like clarify a few points.

I assert that the Greens are ideologically opposed to Lomberg. I acknowledge that there is a broad spectrum of Green philosophy (theology?) - at one extreme is Foreman.

I agree that Bob Brown’s world federalist ideals don’t mean abandoning the current political system. It just means that it becomes subordinate to a superior power, which is exactly what is happening - the EU is a good example, and it applies every time Australia signs a treaty without consulting the electorate. The IPCC springs to mind.

My source for Tim Flannery’s statements is his Guardian interview. You’re correct in saying that I didn’t know he made these remarks in the context of the Arab Spring.

I’ve followed Tim’s career since before he converted to climate change.

Within the context of his present and past career, I think I’ve treated him fairly. When he says “We will form a global community with a set of shared beliefs” I have no doubt whose beliefs he believes those will be. When he speaks of ant colonies he certainly has Plato’s philosophy of the ideal society in mind.

In this interview he expresses beliefs that are very precisely aligned with Lomberg’s, but he publicly attacks him. He calls the funding of the Centre “an insult to the scientific community”. Perhaps his unwillingness to support somebody else’s ideas, even when they coincide with his own, has something to do with them receiving funding when he’s lost his. But taken in context he is merely being, as always, responsive to his audience.

I’m afraid I don’t find the reference to Andrew Bolt relevant. I certainly agree with most of his views on free speech, and if you think this makes me an idiot, fine. I believe in free speech.

TBC