Abbott and his Talibanist contempt for science and reason

[pietillidie]

A quite brilliant article on the insidious social reach of Abbott and Co's pathological, fundamentalist denial of reason, and along with it the education aspirations and motivation of young Australians. (See the original article for links).

[David]

Perhaps there is only space on the political spectrum for two mainstream parties? Amazing to think that one of them only gets about 15% of the vote at best while these radicals are actually in government.

In a sane world, Tony Abbott's Liberals would be on the crossbenches. Or, like, not even in Parliament at all. Good thing they're attacking higher education now because god help them if they ever face an educated populace.

[Wokko]

The Liberals are neither Liberals nor Libertarian (stupid assertion early made the piece lose credibility). They are increasing spending and taxation, are looking to return to surplus though increasing the tax burden and apart from a nod to free speech by repealing 18C have shown little to no tendency toward increasing personal freedoms or shrinking government. They are radicals, but a strange Corporatist right wing kind of radical. They're heading quickly for "worst of both worlds" territory.

The rest of the article devolved into climate change obsession. No matter your view on it, there is nothing Australia can do unilaterally to effect global climate and global action is simply not going to happen. Once renewable energy technology is cheaper and more economical than fossil fuels there will be an organic shift to lower polluting energy sources. Until then, if climate change is happening then prepare for the change, because sticking fingers into the dike down here in middle power Australia isn't doing anything.

As for Abbott lying, well that doesn't take a genius to spot and it's going to bite him in the arse. You can't run a campaign on honesty and then pull the crap this government has pulled. I don't think I've ever seen a Prime Minister lose his luster so fast. Even the truly woeful usually had a honeymoon period, or at least a "give him/her a fair go" period. Abbott's spending of political capital is the true 'debt crisis' in Canberra.

[Tannin]

^ Obsession? What utter crap. No rational person today can deny the reality of global warming, nor the reality of Abbott's contemptible efforts to make this, the worst and most urgent problem ever faced by mankind, worse still - even when it costs his government money. Paying attention to the #1 priority isn't "obsession", it is mere rationality. Anyone too stupid, too cowardly, or too greedy to act responsibly in a position of responsibility should be sacked immediately and never re-employed in any form of public life.

[David]

[thebaldfacts]

Looks like not everyone agrees that there is a consensus.

Australia's earth scientist certainly don't .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/earth-scientists-split-on-climate-change-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322#

[pietillidie]

^Can you paste the text of that article in? (We'll worry about the sincerity and accuracy of the "opinions" of local mining-dependent "earth scientists" on a matter pertaining to climate science when we see the text).

[HAL]

I've been waiting for you.

[pietillidie]

^Indeed you have, you tin-headed blighter!

[thebaldfacts]

Here is the text from the article in the Australian:

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

A position statement published in 2009 said the society was concerned about the potentially harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions and favoured “strong action to substantially reduce current levels’’.

“Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature,’’ it said.

“Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events.”

Publication of the position statement caused an uproar among members and led to a revised statement, after wide consultation. The revised statement said: “Geological evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate system is inherently and naturally variable over timescales from decades to millions of years.

“Regardless of whether climate change is from natural or anthropogenic causes, or a combination of both, human societies would benefit from knowing what to expect in the future and to plan how best to respond.

“The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards, including climate change.”

The revised statement was criticised as being too vague.

In a short statement published in the latest edition of the society newsletter, Mr Hutton says: “After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSC executive committee has decided not to proceed with a climate change position statement.’’

“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.

“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.

[pietillidie]

^To get you to do some legwork on this topic yourself before engaging in deeper discussion on the matter, grab yourself some context first by checking this list [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal ] and then comparing it to this list [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring ], in the light of this survey data [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature ], neatly captured in the graphic I have embedded below, and the nature of scientific consensus as a phenomenon itself [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus ].

Then, give us your considered assessment of the GSA's position so we have something substantial to discuss.

[HAL]

OK I will tell them when I see 'em.

[pietillidie]

^Jesus H. Christ on a bike, you habitual edit-foiler!

[thebaldfacts]

Nevertheless it is clear that there is deep division and a lack of consensus amongst Australian earth scientists.

The GSA cannot publish a consensus amongst it members which shows that the matter is not as clear cut as some would have you believe.

[thebaldfacts]

And just for some balance, other surveys put it at roughly 50/50 when you look past the first few google search results.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

Still, rather than arguing over surveys, what we can say is that the GSA has certainly shown that it's members do not subscribe to the consensus myth.