...As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct. Unlike the Greens, who with alarmist rhetoric and extreme ideology have painted themselves into a corner, I am willing to engage in this debate so that the best outcome for all Australians can be achieved....As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities.
Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive. At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government’s set of “facts”. Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis. The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media. The question of whether global warming is a new phenomenon or something that is just part of the naturally occurring 1500-year climate cycle was never raised in any of the discussions I have had with the Rudd government. Has the government considered these questions, or has it just accepted the one scientific explanation for climate change at face value?
Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive. At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government’s set of “facts”. Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis. The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media. The question of whether global warming is a new phenomenon or something that is just part of the naturally occurring 1500-year climate cycle was never raised in any of the discussions I have had with the Rudd government. Has the government considered these questions, or has it just accepted the one scientific explanation for climate change at face value?
...The "alarmist rhetoric and extreme idelogy" Steve Fielding talks about is a perfect summation of the red greens. I wonder if anyone apart from some of their deluded followers see them as uncomplicated idealists any more ?
Jennifer Marohasy writes that... "...the government, however, is likely to take the (Emissions Trading Scheme) legislation back to the Senate in late September or October and has threatened a double dissolution if it doesn’t get its way. This could mean an election with a focus on the issue of climate change. A few independents hold the balance of power in the Senate and the government has said it is keen to negotiate with them. Just last week one independent Senator, Steve Fielding, indicated that there had so far been no debate on the science of climate change in Australia...more here...
...and, in the UK, socialism takes a hammering...In the English local elections held last Thursday, the Conservatives won around 38% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats 28% and Labour 23%. That was poor enough for the ruling party.But Labour's share of the vote at the European elections has slumped to just 15.3 per cent – worse than that worst any Labour MP had hoped and prayed for. In fact, it was a worse collapse than the Conservatives ever endured, even at their lowest ebb. Across Scotland the SNP secured 29 per cent of the vote to Labour's 21 per cent. They also lost in Wales for the first time since 1918, and the Conservative Party came top in quite a magnificent achievement. Nationally, Gordon Brown has delivered Labour its worst post-war election result as the party was beaten into third place by a very impressive performance by UKIP which gained 17.4 per cent of the vote...more from Cranmer here...
