As the CAGW debate hots up, driven no doubt by the push for a CO2 tax, we are seeing the “reaction” from those who remain skeptical. Two out of three Australians now oppose the CO2 tax.

The opposition majority has now invited those who have a contrary view to speak publicly on their behalf. But one of the key unanswered questions in this debate is why on earth a contrary view or interpretation of any science should be so divisive or anti-democratic? It really doesn’t make sense.

We are told that 90% of scientists agree. But 90% of which scientists we ask? They say 90% of “credible scientists”.

So are the scientists that worked on the IPCC report “credible”? We are told yes, of course they are.

So what about the scientists, who worked on the IPCC reports and now disagree with the IPCC? Are they “credible”?

No of course not, because they have changed their minds to a contrary view.

At every opportunity, the advocacy block is seeking to shut down any contrary view.

But why? If their case is so strong and compelling, why can’t it withstand public interrogation from those of much lower intelligence, flat earthers, denialists and criminals?

Skeptics are reminded by the commentariat, government politicians, academics, celebrities, commercial opportunists, NGO’s and advocacy scientists that we are evil or discredited. So why should such well educated, well informed and intellectually superior opinions be so afraid of feeble and inadequate scrutiny?

The only constant in this debate is that there won’t be a debate; any opposition will be denied access to the democratic principles of free speech.

Perhaps the answer is that there is really no case for CAGW other than ideology. In which case we would have to ask what ideology is it that seeks to deny some of the fundamental principles of our democracy, those of freedom of speech.
Why does the MSM bleat on about freedom of the press whilst at the same time seek to suppress those same rights in the public domain?

I find it quaintly Amusing that some one with views such as yourself.
And such a forceful way of expressing them,rebutting others, starts such a thread.
All views have value, a right to be heard, including a thread I think you took part in.
One of many lets say unkind to my party me and those who follow it, we, all the above, it was said should be exiled.
Well of shore camps once used by John Howard was one suggestion.
Alcatraz another.
Other offers of punishment, for thinking differently , included taxing ALP voters out of existence.
One,well maybe 4 contributors constantly inform me by voting ALP I betray my country!
Am responsible for every bad action.
Well having told it as I see it, been kicked in the ribs for my views of late,yes spindoc I agree.
With the fact freedom of speech has been fought and died for, no man, no woman, has any right to say you can not say what you wish to.
Finally, my ace on yours,check how many say man made climate change is real.
Supplementary question Mr speaker.
Is leave granted?
As Mr Tony Abbott and his team has been driving a fear campaign,and as much of what they have been saying has been proven untrue = 6 and a half cents fuel rise.
As further information is to be released on Sunday, the full ,and more IMPORTANTLY true impacts of this tax.
Will the Honorable spin master agree to wait until the public has time to understand the real tax vs the Abbott spin.

I'm really happy you posted this comment. I feel so damn frustrated by the way media subtly promotes the man-made climate change / pro-carbon tax message without ever giving one 'credible' scientist with an alternative view a chance to be heard in a prime time slot.

For example, carbon pollution is now the only words you will here come out of the 7PM Project panel; CO2 is rapidly being reinvented as 'carbon pollution' because the masses don't believe CO2 gas is a problem or a pollutant.

Bob Carter is an excellent presenter of the alternative reasons for climate change and he would stand his own in any debate forum on the subject. Why haven't we seen him invited onto the 7PM Project or George Negus? It's because the crackpot deniers not are allowed the same level freedom of speech. Those in control don't want the masses to hear a logical alternative viewpoint from someone with respectable qualifications. Without true and equal freedom of speech democracy is weakened.

Democracy in this country and for that matter most western countries has eroded into a meaningless lip service for a system thatpretends to be 'of the peolple' whilst constantly goeing against the people's will.

sbr108, it seems recent events are overtaking this thread. There have been persistent efforts by the advocates to vilify, denigrate and abuse any that do not support this orthodoxy, particularly since Climategate.

The current situation has gone way beyond anything we have seen to date. The news that 40 academics signed a petition to prevent a skeptic from a public speaking engagement, the withdrawal of venues by some Clubs for similar events, the threatening letters sent by GetUp to companies opposed to the CO2 tax and the disgusting personal attacks upon the international guest speaker, Lord Monkton by the likes of the ABC’s Andrew Spencer.

This has now progressed from vilification to outright censorship and the erosion of Australia’s democratic values.

The good news is that this is all entirely predictable. It’s also interesting to try to determine what on earth could strike so much fear into advocates that it is worth trashing democratic values to silence it?

We have discussed the advocacy block on OLO previously, we have also speculated on its organic nature and what might make it even more reactive. It is clearly being “questioned” that upsets it the most.

If we look at the composition of advocacy it would seem that most elements have an exit plan. Political advocacy is like Teflon, it will simply do a “yes minister” to save face.

Commercial opportunists will simply go off and make money out of something other than renewables and green credits.

Celebrity advocates will do an “aid concert”, start a new religion, adopt another baby or just earn $M’s from their next movie.

Public advocacy is in decline as evidenced by the Lowey Institutes’ recent research. In fact it has been in decline for the last seven years in Australia and the developed world.

Of the previous 26 public alarm analogies recorded by Armstrong and Green, there is no record of any such phenomena ever recovering public support. The obvious reason for this is that the predicted catastrophe never occurred, most inconvenient.

Con’d

Cont’d

NGO advocates will find another alarm by which to extract public money. This leaves two very exposed groups that have no escape and it is these two groups that are driving the current censorship.

The two groups with “night horrors” are high profile professional media commentators and academic advocates.

Having nailed their “warming credentials” to the mast in such a public manner, their personal credibility, professionalism and perhaps careers are on the line. This is probably the reason for their attempts to suppress dissent and censor opposition views. These are the people with the most to lose.

It’s called the “Martin Luther” effect. Having failed to prevent dissent becoming public and ruining their reputations, they try to censor that dissent, which nicely draws public attention to the fact that there is indeed dissent and that “consensus” is self evidently a fabrication. Censorship is contrary to self interest.

So full of their own importance and panic are these advocates, that have not yet identified the seeds of their own destruction. They bring contradiction to their own orthodoxy.

Happily we can report that censorship is the last throw of the dice for these advocates, not the end of the story but the beginning of the end of them. They must facilitate a slow decline in order to save face; a collapse precipitated by public exposure is utterly unacceptable.

As with every preceding public alarm phenomena, this will most likely wither on the vine
To be replaced by the next, peak population, peak food production, peak refugees and so on.

Each will manifest as politically contaminated pseudo-science and will gather advocates as it progresses and will have strong support from those who wish to direct public attention to their own biased perspectives.

Censorship is a very ugly element in any democracy and perhaps the electorates will have been sufficiently sensitized by its emergence to avoid it in the future. In the meantime we can all sit back and watch as the advocacy block bites off its own limbs

It was never about science - it's all about politics.
Governments (not just the Australian) consider the idea of climate-change as a golden egg in their quest to obtain a monopoly on goodness. Understandably governments don't like their bone snatched from their mouth, so whether the science is correct or otherwise, is irrelevant.

For all the fuss, initially we were scared off by being told that the sea would rise by 300 meters, then by 60, but now they talk about the sea rising just ONE meter by the end of this century.

There are good reasons for reducing energy consumption, CO2 being the least of them. In the not-so-distant past, people cared for the world's environment and resources, we happily tried to reduce our energy consumption and take up green options sheerly out of wanting to do good. However, since this has become a government-business, we no longer have an incentive to help the world: it's no longer OUR world, now its THEIR world, so let them sink with it.