In denial about being a sceptic

These days I listen to the radio a lot more than I used to. Steve Fielding has been interviewed many times this past week in regards to his questioning of climate science and asking whether CO2 is really the driver of global warming. He has been asking how temperature could be so flat over the last decade even as CO2 kept on rising. What has been painful to listen to has been Steve’s repeated introduction to such interviews with a deliberate statement that he is not a sceptic or an extremist. Painful because clearly he is a bit of a sceptic. And painful secondly because being a sceptic is somehow such a negative thing that Steve has to go into pre-emptive denial just to remain viable within the discussion. How did being a sceptic become so demonised?

What I also find notable is the media attention that a senator can attract. It is not as if the question he is asking has not been asked by others. In any case he seems to be handling the interviews with considerable ease. For those that have missed it here is a sample.

10 thoughts on “In denial about being a sceptic

  1. How did being a sceptic become so demonised?

    Have you asked Tim Lambert (UNSW) why a pretty good question like the one fielding is asking has caused the person’s reputation to be sacked by intellectual vandals like Lambert. He’s spent a good part of the last 7 years demonizing anyone that would dare ask a question like that.

    While you’re there perhaps you could also ask Harry Clarke- the mitigator- who would like us to mitigate now to aim for 2200 instead of 2100.

    And all told current temps have gone up in a steady undaunting trend of .7 degs per 100 years.

  2. Don’t forget John Quiggin! He means well but he has no room in his head for skepticism against his beliefs.

  3. I can’t believe Harry wants to extend mitigation to 2200.

    This would be like people in 1818 having a policy about our welfare.

    What happened in Australia in 1818?

    1818 – Governor Macquarie ordered start of breakwater at Newcastle.

    1818 – Macquarie Lighthouse constructed.

    1818 – Dam across Parramatta River at Marsden Street, Parramatta, constructed.

    1818 – Rouse Hill House built for Richard Rouse.

    1818 – Inland NSW explored by Oxley.

    1818 – Hamilton Hume and James Meehan (Surveyor) discovered Lake Bathurst (Goulburn region).

    1818 – Arrival of 22 convict ships to the colony.(10/1 – 31/12, 1818)

  4. I think harry-the-mitigator is being too conservative, we should try to thermostat down now to 2500.

  5. “And painful secondly because being a sceptic is somehow such a negative thing that Steve has to go into pre-emptive denial just to remain viable within the discussion.”

    This pretty much sums up the situation… so it’s not so much that he’s in denial about being a sceptic – just that people will even give him consideration if he admits it. An annoyingly necessary requirement if he wants attention.

    I have a lot more respect for him after this… he’s a nanny-statist on a lot of issues, and so I’d find it difficult to support him – but as I believe climate change alarmism is presently one of the biggest threats to our liberty, I’m pleased to see him take up the cause.

  6. “Even if the science isn’t conclusive surely we should err on the side of the planet..”

    Umm… well we could err on the side of human welfare but I guess that’s going too far.

    Still, Steve Fielding is too simple for my tastes. For a start a simple rebuttal would be “temperature is not all these is to climate”. And his approach to politics “examine things based on evidence” stinks of “government must try and guess the right outcomes”.

    But at least someone is asking the question. Even if it is too little too late.

  7. Yeah – the whole “err on the side of caution and endorse the ETS” is bunk anyway. You could just as easily say that we should err on the side of caution and NOT approve it.

    And it aint too late, Shem – it can still be blocked if the Libs don’t cave (which I fear they will under Turnbull)

  8. In terms of the weight of evidence required I think the science should be right on the “balance of probability” not “beyond reasonable doubt”. I think it would be quite reasonable to support carbon mitigation strategies and still have doubts. That is pretty much my own position. I’d support a revenue neutral tax reform that puts more emphasis on taxing carbon emissions and less on empahsis on taxing things like income.

    Climate alarmism need not be a significant threat to liberty if neutralised by sound policy. The real problem is the socialism that climate alarmism often (but not always) goes hand in hand with.

  9. The real problem is the socialism that climate alarmism often (but not always) goes hand in hand with.

    The real problem is how the issue is being dealt with. Rather than looking at it from an insurance perspective, people are now being harassed to look at it virtually like a religious issue. It’s almost impossible to argue against when you’re being asked if, “you really care for the planet you do this or that”. It’s basically a form of soft totalitarianism.

Comments are closed.