The Dog’s Bollocks

Truth is like a dog’s bollocks – pretty obvious if you care to look.

The IPA and other fossil fuel fossils

skeptics.jpgJennifer Marohasey, environmental fellow for Liberal Party think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, has been ringing in the New Year with her list of climate change sceptics – the “400 dissenting scientists”. “If 2007 was the Year of Al Gore, with his movie, Academy Award and Nobel Prize, 2008 just might be the year the so-called scientific consensus that man is causing the Earth to warm begins to crack.”

Marohasey has small coterie of loyal fans on her website eager to battle with any who dissent from her campaign to prove that global warming is not caused by human activity and to argue that climate change is a plot by leftist academics and others keen to milk the tax payer’s purse to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an evil attempt to destroy our entire way of life and the future well-being of our grand children’s grand children. Long time contributor Luke, Jennifer’s token greenie who owns an ecotourism property in the Daintree, appears to have departed with a scathing assessment of Marohasey’s blog site.

It strikes me as incredulous that Marohasey could have a PhD, conducted field research for more than a decade and yet is now happy to push a denialist agenda in the employ of the IPA. I guess it pays better than field biology.

The IPA receives support from corporations and corporate interest groups (including Gunns Limited, Monsanto and tobacco, mining and oil companies) and provides regular op-ed fodder for the MSM pushing the Liberal Party line. As the Liberal Party struggles to establish what it stands for I’d argue that the IPA also needs to look at what it believes in. Corporate Australia wants action on climate change, if for no other reason than needing to stay competitive in a changing global political economy. Yet the IPA is still pushing the denialist agenda, as if they can somehow reverse overwhelming global political sentiment. They would server their masters better, and advance the quality of public debate, by turning its attention to how Australian businesses and corporations might best respond the forthcoming carbon emission limitation mechanisms.

Regardless of the dissenting opinions of climate sceptics there is no sound scientific argument for continuing increasing global CO2 emissions at an exponential rate into a closed system. Sceptics are simply motivated by the desire to avoid the financial inconvenience that curbing CO2 emissions might entail. If, as the sceptics would argue, the science is far from clear, then the precautionary principle should apply. Curbing CO2 emissions is sensible and prudent precisely because we don’t exactly what the long term ramifications might be. In the meantime, it will encourage more efficient and sustainable energy usage and consumption which will have real long-term benefits for our grand-children’s grand-children.

Advertisements

Filed under: Big Picture, Environment, Media, Politics, Science, Technology, Wingnuttery

10 Responses

  1. laborsux says:

    YAWN… Oh give it up…

    The global warming / climate change hoax is about to crumble about your ankles and it’s about time you realised…

    My biggest fear is the damage that this will have done to the public’s trust in science and scientists when it is exposed as rubbish…

  2. slim says:

    Well good luck with that! Saying it will be so doesn’t make it so.

  3. You can’t prove or disprove global climate change empirically and it is a matter of genuine scientific complexity so a PhD graduate or a blog is not going to answer the question of whether it genuinely exists, or even get close. Scientific peer review supports the theory, with many eminent physicists (Stephen Hawkings for example) agreeing that the theory of global warming due to human causes is probably right.

    Who out there wants to take a chance that the theory is wrong?

  4. slim says:

    “Who out there wants to take a chance that the theory is wrong?”

    I find this perplexing. I can only assume that it comes down to financial self-interest. Deniers do not want to have to change anything they currently do and certainly don’t want to make any financial sacrifice.

  5. Paul Biggs says:

    “Long time contributor Luke, Jennifer’s token greenie who owns an ecotourism property in the Daintree, appears to have departed with a scathing assessment of Marohasey’s blog site.”

    I suggest you remove this false statement. Our co-blogger Neil owns an ecotourism property in the Daintree and is still very much with us. ‘Luke’ is the pseudonym of a rather too prolific non-informative comment poster who has exiled himself from the blog following warnings about his language and conduct.

  6. Caroline says:

    I’ve had doubts about JM since she posted a photograph of a very large boa-constrictor passing under a fence and reckoned it was near Nyngan. Last I knew there were definitely no Anaconda-sized boa constrictors in Nyngan or its environs. From memory she posted a retraction. But sheesh. Writing on things rural while safely ensconsed in ? the Eastern suburbs seems to leave a great deal up to wild imaginings but little left for real knowledge or experience.

    I think you might have hit the nail on the head at #4 Slim. Some people want neither change or compromise to their ‘lifestyles’ and certainly resent being made to feel guilty about wasting resources.

  7. Luke says:

    Hi Slim – I don’t own an ecotourism property and I’m not sure I’m even a greenie. Just ornery and don’t like the con in neo-con.

    A few observations – was A warning singular.

    I decided I don’t like the new JM blog ground rules. If you’re a skeptic all manner of non-informative comment is OK. As well as bad language and bad behaviour. So treatment of individuals has been most selective. And I have protested on that point.

    “Exile” is the way denialists like to over-dramatise situations.

    So I simply don’t like the new ground rules (on the basis of selective application not the rules inherently, stupid circular agruments and persistent try-ons. Solutions are ever achieved. The position is totally confrontational. So it’s better I leave them to it.

    My stupidity was to waste too much time on such an site thinking it would lead somewhere – it doesn’t. The frustration just grows over time and the same old stuff gets revisited and revisited.

    It is most interesting that many skeptics believe 100% that AGW is NOT happening, happening in a very small way, will be easy to adapt to, and if humanity attempts to do anything western civilisation as we know will stop and we’ll all perish (or become commies).

    I don’t know if AGW will be catastrophic – but from a risk management perspective there is a lot a stake – humans do NOT cope well with extremes of climate throughout history and even now – droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold outbreaks, hurricanes and storms all wreak havoc.

    So we need the research, we need caution in continuing our profligate emissions of CO2, and we need to consider all manner of alternative technologies. For my part and unpopular with many, I would add nuclear to the options mix – at least for debate.

    How much should we act – hard to say – but all governments will not push the electorate beyond their tolerance levels. That may or may not be enough. Chinese and Indians want western levels of living standards. Can we blame them. So we’ll probably find out what will happen with out ongoing alteration of the atmosphere. The probability of meaningful reductions are slim in my opinion. Even less with our denialist friends banging away every day.

  8. Slim says:

    Apologies over my confusing Luke for Neil – it’s been a while since I frequented JM’s blog. I’ll leave it as it is in the original post for the sake of making sense of ensuing comments.

    Nonetheless, Luke’s comments I refer to were scathing and many of them reasonable conclusions from a long period of trying to engage in substantive debate on JM’s blog.

    Cheers

  9. Luke says:

    Erratum: should be …

    “with our ongoing alteration of the atmosphere” (sorry)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Dog’s Bollocks

What they say

The Dog's Bollocks: "Bollocks" is one of my favourite words, and this is now one of my favourite blogs and I've only been reading it for five minutes. – John Surname

This is the person who tried to analyse Hayek. This is actually a person who needs a shrink. – JC

Shut up slim. You’re an idiot.
Just you stay honest and keep that thinking cap on. – GMB

Insightful perspectives on politics and discussion of matters epistemological? I’m sold! - Bruce

Add to Technorati Favorites

Flickr Photos

Scan-130524-0020c

Scan-130524-0020b

Scan-130524-0020a

More Photos
%d bloggers like this: