Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

being irrelevant « Previous | |Next »
December 29, 2012

It is sad really.

Spoonerclimatesceptic.jpg John Spooner

Spooner, shows the poverty of the climate sceptic case. He says:

The reason why scientific consensus emerged in this debate is because political activists want to get things moving, and if they say that consensus is scary and urgent, then sceptics had better get out of the way....The science was "settled", the debate was said to be over and no further discussion was required. Any media professional should have been aroused by such an excited censorship campaign, and it stimulated my first cartoon on the subject [bellow], which depicted the family TV set as mediaeval stocks with an imprisoned climate sceptic being pelted by the family with their TV dinner.

The scientific consensus has nothing to do the confirmation of the IPCC's hypothesis by scientific evidence. It's all politics and groupthink for Spooner, who has embraced an anti-science position that highlights scientific fraud, plagiarism, and ghost writing.

Meanwhile, governments have started to make the shift away from the heavy use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) that threatens the world with human-induced climate change to a low carbon future. The aim is to make the shift to a future climate with less than 2C of warming. Staying below two degrees is not a matter of science or technology. It will be determined by political and social decisions to take the necessary steps to shift to low-carbon living

The deniers have shifted from saying there was no such thing as warming or climate change, then the change in climate was a natural cycle and not the result of human interference, finally some are saying that though we may be responsible for some warming but not much it would cost so much as to send civilisation back to the dark ages. I'm waiting for them to say let “free markets determine what the science is”.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:22 AM | | Comments (4)


The world has more immediate problems to deal with. The urgency of climate change has fizzed out and it is probably no longer AS important which science people believe.

You can't be serious, Les. 'Fizzed out'???
Are you being ironic, or do you really think science is like religion?
Spooner's article is utterly mendacious - just one example is his citing of that film which was found to have made up its data, fudged its graphs - and has no place in a serious newspaper. But these days it seems 'opinion' and its free expression means you can lie as much as you like and indeed literally make science up. Perhaps you're right, Les, but I don't think you intended that.

Matt Ridley in The Australian---IPCC must accept temperature rises are small and benign-----says that some experts say that we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1C. Others he says estimate 1.6C. These are lukewarm temperature change with no net harm.

These experts, he says, base their estimates on observational data, not on the IPCC's computer modelling which is deemed to be unverifiable.

However, one of these experts whose work Ridleey uses ---Michael Schlesinger --- says that their research shows that global warming will exceed 2C, which is defined as dangerous climate change.

Denialism has recently shifted its ground--- it now acknowledges that:
(1) the globe is warming and
(2) human greenhouse gas emissions are to blame,

but now claims that the warming will be slight and good for us. So there is nothing to worry about.

My comment makes no opinion as to whether climate change is real or not.