Abstract

The gross want of reason of the published arguments in denial of climte change is an affront to proper discussion

Article

Perhaps the worst and most durable aspect of the Climate Change debate is the grossly offensivve assault on logic and reason.

The hard Right media, particularly the Murdoch section, present the most outlandish propositions, presumably in the name of freedom of speech, though in fact in the name of deliberate propaganda in the disguised defence of the polluting entities.

A geologist, frequently cited, Ian Plimer says that there is not excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because carbon is black and we would see it.  It is strange that a geologist is unaware that a diamond consists of carbon.  As well, sodium and chlorine are both highly poisonoous to humans, yet we seem to be able to eat sodium chloride, common salt, without suffering poisining.  Carbon dioxide is colourless.

Several, Kenny, Bolt, et al, repeating the remarkable proposition of Mr A Abbott, argue that we have always had bushfires and drooughts, whicch is true except that it totally avoids the point that the issue is their intensity and frequency, an avoidance which must be deliberate.

One McCran claims that the Conservative's renowned victory in the British elections was a significant indication of disbelief in claimate change, but remarkable leaps of reasoning from that source are far from unknown, and his columns appear to be relegated to an insignificant position.

Th interesting thing is that, contrary to the plain evidence, Mr Murdoch said that "There are no climate change deniers around here.".  He may have been referring to his immediate vicinity, though the question related to the stance taken by his media outlets.  It raises the question whether he is not prepared to submit himself to the judgment which is made of a c/c denier while his agents do the work that he wishes.

At least, the discussion should be on a higher plane so that any reasonable arguments opposing the general trend may be given reasonable value, uncontaminated by their companions.

The murder of logic does not end there.  A Prime Ministeer who shall remain anonymous, but who went holidaying in Hawaii while the bushfire crisis was in full swing, returned when the criticism became hotter than the fires, and justified his going by saying that he could not handle a firehose.Of course not,but the issue was really whether he could handle leadership, which might reasonably be thought to have kept him here to provide leadership for urgent decisions and other leadership functions.  In a way, it may have been better if he had remained in Hawaii - it would have at least saved Tv viewers the nausea of watching him seizing photo opportunities of the most blatant kind.  It is strange how often it is that when he is hugging a victim his face is the one closest to the camera - but that is surely chance.