[tomder55]

Tom I am not sure why you are complaining. Aren't you a great supporter of your media? Irresponsible journalism is Ok?

I'm in favor of a free press (unlike our emperor who is tying still to sic his FCC on a free press) . If the Slimes wants to publish the cartoon I have no issues .But I reserve the right to call out their BS .

[paraclete]

Thank you for the article from Roy Spencer
Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

He makes a clear case for climate change caution

[speechlesstx]

Again, it's like I said before. It is a media problem you have. Only airing one side of the debate. You need a balanced media.

I have no qualms agreeing we need more balance in the media, but this attitude goes deeper than media bias. In fact, the "consensus" people think it's the media's fault that anyone believes there is still any debate.

[paraclete]

I choose not to believe everything I am told, that is the media's fault because so often what they have told me is B/S, neither is it their fault since so often what they are told is B/S and they have no way of checking the facts. We have here FactCheck a service the media have developed themselves and most of the results indicate the "facts" are not facts but we are still regailed with this B/S before the truth is revealed

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/

[Tuttyd]

I choose not to believe everything I am told, that is the media's fault because so often what they have told me is B/S, neither is it their fault since so often what they are told is B/S and they have no way of checking the facts. We have here FactCheck a service the media have developed themselves and most of the results indicate the "facts" are not facts but we are still regailed with this B/S before the truth is revealed

Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

That just goes to show you how out of touch I have been with Australian politics.

I didn't realize that the ABC was doing such a thing.

Let's face it Australian politics is so boring.

[Tuttyd]

I have no qualms agreeing we need more balance in the media, but this attitude goes deeper than media bias. In fact, the "consensus" people think it's the media's fault that anyone believes there is still any debate.

That's pretty much correct. However, this situation is not unique to global warming. One would need to read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of scientific Revolutions" to gain a full appreciation.

There's a bit of holiday reading.

[Tuttyd]

I'm in favor of a free press (unlike our emperor who is tying still to sic his FCC on a free press) . If the Slimes wants to publish the cartoon I have no issues .But I reserve the right to call out their BS .

The left posts BS and the right calls them on their BS. The rights posts BS and the left calls them on their BS.

That's bound to lead to a reasoned debate on any topic your choose.

[paraclete]

Let's face it Australian politics is so boring.

If american politics is anything like the discussions here then I have to say you have no idea of boring, the most daring thing you have done lately is restrict the military budget. We might be boring but we do have action a word so foriegn to american politics it is buried in antiquity

Did you realise that lately we had an election overturned and the voters sent back to the poles, if that had happened there there would be no end to the recriminations and protest but here we take it in our stride and accept a resignation, this is what true democracy is about but then you don't have a democracy, you have a Republic

[speechlesstx]

The left posts BS and the right calls them on their BS. The rights posts BS and the left calls them on their BS.

That's bound to lead to a reasoned debate on any topic your choose.

As I said the other day, CNN declared the debate is over, not once, but twice. Charles Krauthammer wrote a column on this subject last week. The opening paragraph:

I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

You can read and judge the rest for yourself. The response to his column however was pressure on WaPo to silence him.

Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: “I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier.”


He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”


How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer's column on Friday.


Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.

Brad Johnson (@ClimateBrad), the editor of HillHeat.com and a former Think Progress staffer, boasted on Twitter that 110,000 people had urged the newspaper “to stop publishing climate lies” like the Krauthammer piece.


I understand that many people are passionate about global warming and consider skeptics to be flat-earthers. Those who don't like the arguments by Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor, should by all means criticize, dispute, denounce and otherwise go at him. That's how debate takes place in a country with a vibrant media culture.


Instead, these folks believe that censorship is preferable. Why engage Krauthammer when they might just be able to employ pressure tactics to silence him? And what's the difference between this and shouting down a speaker at a town hall?


Krauthammer told me the petition-signers “showed up just in time to make precisely the point I made in the column.”


When it comes to free speech, he says, “they don't even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?


“Is there anything more anti-scientific than scientific truths being determined by petition and demonstration?”


Maybe this reflects a broader trend in which people want to wall themselves off from contrary information — and wall off others as well. Debating a complicated subject like climate change — and, equally important, what to do about it — is difficult. Attempting to silence the other side is the easy way out.


Of course, most climate-change proponents are perfectly willing to argue their case on the merits. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to everyone.

Yes, both sides spew BS, but only one side wants there to be no debate to the debate. Why might that be?

[Tuttyd]

Yes, both sides spew BS, but only one side wants there to be no debate to the debate. Why might that be?

That's probably because one side has far too much to loose if it turns out that something other than global warming is happening. No doubt too many politicians, scientific organizations and business interests have invested lots of money in the long term viability of global warming.

[paraclete]

The long term viability of global warming? I Have some idea what you mean but would you like to run that by us again? I never thought I would see the words viability and global warming in the same sentence, Global Warming, if it exists in the configuration suggested by pseudo science, makes the viability of our existing industries obsolute, and I cannot not see renewables as we know them being viable in the long term

[Tuttyd]

The long term viability of global warming? I Have some idea what you mean but would you like to run that by us again? I never thought I would see the words viability and global warming in the same sentence, Global Warming, if it exists in the configuration suggested by pseudo science, makes the viability of our existing industries obsolute, and I cannot not see renewables as we know them being viable in the long term

Sure. The green energy push has gained momentum year after year. Big business is increasingly investing money and resources into both renewable energy and clean energy.

I suspect that such industries are not going to invest long term in something that is not regarded as a settled science.

[cdad]

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amount owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.

[speechlesstx]

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amout owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.

Exactly right.

[Tuttyd]

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amount owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.

Yes, that's a good point I didn't look at that angle.

I guess that goes back to my earlier claim in terms of partnership.Big government, big business and a supportive media.

[paraclete]

Tutt there are always industries that respond to government initiatives. I worked in the energy sector when government imposed targets on state owned utilities and are now doing it on privately owned utilities. This is the only reason there has been the uptake of renewables there has been. It is imposed by government, the returns just arn't there

[Tuttyd]

Tutt there are always industries that respond to government initiatives. I worked in the energy sector when government imposed targets on state owned utilities and are now doing it on privately owned utilities. This is the only reason there has been the uptake of renewables there has been. It is imposed by government, the returns just arn't there

Fair enough, you guys would know more about economics than myself.

[talaniman]

Profiteers shapes the science. Doesn't matter what the science says.

[tomder55]

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amount owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.

yup ;we spent $528 million in stimulus money for Fisker to develop clean energy ...so they could be sold to the Chinese.

[paraclete]

Obviously you don't get it, so you throw money away. The "free" market would not waste their money developing clean energy unless they were either forced to or given incentive. This why governments all over the world have been coerced into forcing such development. Commercial development of anything means it can and will be sold to the highest bidder. Commercial development means it will be exploited

Dealing with climate change is aspirational, it is not science. The "science" of how to respond to climate change is not settled and one size does not fit all