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 > Fielding's conversion to sceptic > Comments

Fielding's conversion to sceptic : Comments

By Sharon Beder, published 17/6/2009

Has Senator Steve Fielding the right to demand a rerun of the debate, further delaying measures to prevent climate change?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“He is seemingly unaware that the debate has been and gone and only a few renegades are left manning the crumbling edifice of what was once thought to be a credible sceptical position.”

Rubbish! There has been no debate. Dissenting voices have been gagged by the media, the Government and by fundamentalist activists.
Bob Carter recently quoted Prof. Fred Singer as saying:

“The battle over warming and low (carbon) politics will not be decided over scientific issues. It will be determined by governments and law-makers on the basis of politics and special interests.”

Carter himself:

“Indeed; and the greatest Australian special interest of all lies with the average voter upon whom Prime Minister Rudd and Climate Minister Wong plan to impose their unnecessary, ineffectual and swingeingly costly carbon dioxide tax”.

Unfortunately, voters have been lied too and fooled by computer models which seem very impressive to people without scientific knowledge.

The Australian voter has been mislead by the warming fanatics, and we should be very pleased that Senator Fielding has, at last, cottoned on to the lies.

It is to be hoped that Senator Fielding is able to boost the chances of having the ludicrous, useless and money grubbing carbon tax knocked out of contention for good.

Senator Fielding did not have to go to America to come to his new-found conclusions; all he had to do was read the introduction to Ian Plimer’s “Heaven+Earth: Globing Warming: The Missing Science”.
Plimer shows that, far from being scientific, the scientists who blame climate change on human activity have totally ignored most of the science related to global warming and cooling, and have concentrate one very small and insignificant element, carbon dioxide.

It is poor and incorrect science which is going to lead to an enormous and totally useless financial impost on Australia and Australians. There are more than a dozen other natural factors that have caused climate change throughout history (when there was no industrially generated CO2) which have been totally ignored by scientists.

The CO2 theory is just a theory. Nothing else has been investigated.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:05:27 AM
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
Dear me, is this sort of behavior by a politician a threat to your income from alarmist books and publications is it?

So you spray sewerage at anyone with a different point of view, or only those threatening your income?

Next we'll have kulu, another alarmist poster, here with more vague references to Senator Fielding being "funded by sources unknown" to go to this conference in the USA.

"has he the right to demand a rerun of the debate, further delaying measures to prevent climate change, while he plays catch up?"

1. Rerun the debate - what debate? We were told from the get go the "science is not to be questioned, there is a consensus" and no questioning was allowed. how about we HAVE a debate, you might even be able to get out another book.

2. You and who are going to "prevent climate change", so how are you going to change it and by how much - do you have everyone's agreement to how much it will be changed? Will it change more in the equatorial than upper latitudes? How idiotic, prevent climate change, you really are in a dream world - all we can do is adapt

I guess this sort of article works wonders on small minds in universities though, seems to be the home of cluster thought nowadays, no lateral thinking or questioning allowed anymore.

They used to accuse PM John Howard of dog whistle politics, this article is in that vein and deliberately adversarial to stir emotion.
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:27:53 AM
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
What an extraordinary article. It's one thing to disagree with Senator Fielding's views but to argue that he has no right to call for a debate is about as undemocratic a position as I can imagine. I note that Professor Beder teaches at the University of Wollongong. I hope she does not impose this sort of intolerance on her students and clearly separates her personal views from her teaching.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:39:28 AM
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
Leigh, your ignorance and/or bias is showing.
The real science has been going on for over 20 years and all *valid* theories are up for consideration. Yes, the invalid theories of crackpots that the evidence contradicts have fallen by the wayside. This is how science works. No one is going to ignore a solid lead for 20 years in case someone else proves it and gets the Nobel prize. Transparent peer reviewed journals means that the political approach of flooding media with controversy does not work.
"Nothing else has been investigated" is just plain bulls&^t.
Please read the back issues of Nature and New Scientist to see how ridiculous this statement is.
Computer models are *not* the basis of the theory, they are merely attempts to create specific predictions so as to hone the science further. This creation of simple straw men by the faux-skeptics to misrepresent the science is an unfortunate tactic: very unethical.
The recent "skeptics" seem to be upset that they cannot come along with childish theories and have them taken seriously. I laugh when teenagers come up with "deep" theories and think them original. The same attitude by adults to well established science like climate change and evolution is completely irresponsible.
Fielding was completely disingenuous going to a biased industry "Think tank". Like going to a church to ask opinions on God.
We allow Bankers and consultants to get rich while being totally wrong, yet attack the honest messengers when they warn of danger.
Disgusting politics.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:50:01 AM
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 have to agree with Leigh, and add that the author of the article should not throw stones in a glass greenhouse. She is obviously deeply commited to the green cause, to the ploint of earning royalties if not her part of her living through environment activities. Prof Beder wouild have a great deal to lose if the AGW hypothesis is knocked over. I would not hold that against her if she then did not have the appalling cheek to accuse others of saying things because they are biased or in the pay of corporations.
One of the key features of the climate change debate is that it has been driven by very vocal group of activists such as Beder. Among other activities, these activists join Al Gore's organisation and go on lecture tours - the sort of lectures that ignore the science and any developments in the debate in favour of hammering home nightmare scenarios that won't happen. And then tbhey accuse others of hiding the truth. Sadley, the ransk of the activitists include a number of scientists.
On the other hand, the sceptics are mostly disorganised, and often don't take the trouble to properly brief themselves. Fieldings comments about "solar flares" are typical - he meant solar activity.
Now look at the link below. To anyone untrained in climate science it looks suspiciously as if global temps are coming off a peak. Will they continue to go down, or is this some sort of lengthy pause (a decade to date) before they go up again? Who knows. Activists and even scientists turn themselves inside out trying to prove that temperatures have not really declined in the last decade (one scientist I spoke to tried to redefine down), but for people like Beder the trend is a distinct worry. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:50:14 AM
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
The experts have had honest debates about this subject.
It is the dishonesty in the skeptics positions, the obvious industry associations, the use of Big Tobacco style "think tanks" and the consistent use of "new" evidence that is not peer reviewed: All this does deserve to be condemned.
I can't believe the same group that supported the notion that cigarettes are not proven to be bad can be taken seriously when they say "GW is just a baseless theory with no evidence". It's called "lying" people, and when there is money involved people do it.
I'll be the first to admit that Labour's "solution" is impractical, expensive and bad for all (except the industrialists)... But to attack valid science with politically inspired nonsense and feel-good theory is *wrong*.
For the record I *do* believe we have bigger fish to fry: The population crisis will impact fresh water, forests, ocean life and finally humans. Shifting climate will make things just that much harder. Soil is like rain forest. It wont relocate to the rainy areas overnight and we are still destroying what is there. Please study the implications of exponential growth. The "crunch" is closer than common sense can perceive.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 12:10:50 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. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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