Jump to content

What your teacher isn't telling you


Recommended Posts

So rare to hear a GW opponent's view in the media/education system thought I'd give this interview a plug. Very worthwhile listening imo.

Short on time ? - view 2nd and 3rd.

[video type=youtube]QA9U7XIcgJM

[video type=youtube]rDq4IFKhXgI

[video type=youtube]7D1OSLFTHq8

[video type=youtube]fOURdz8G6C0

Also a link to some further reading - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Hope you take the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to be scared you should have listened to Parliament yesterday (AM 969) when they were debating the Emmissions Trading Scheme Bill.

Apparently, according to the reports tabled in Parliament, the Copenhagen Draft - which KRudd wants Australia to agree to "blind" - has a clause which includes the "developed" nations paying a levy of up to 2% on EVERY financial transaction (think GST) to cover the costs of the "underdeveloped" nations energy expenditure. This money goes back to a UN Environmental Council for distribution - what a cash cow they got!

China and India have just signed an agreement in which they relegate themselves to being classed as "underdeveloped" for the next 150 years - whilst declaring that they will not agree to any "third party" [read UN] carbon dioxide emmission reductions [i.e. Copenhagen Draft].

So we, poor pi$$ant little population that we are, will get sucked into this nightmare by a Labour Govt whose only real desire is to $crew us to keep their envinowhiner colleagues [the Greens] happy.

Further, as the average politician never gets past Grade 10 science, they are arguing without the slightest ability to interpret the data presented to them. The phrase most commonly used was "everbody knows that global warming is the biggest threat to our existance". As a scientist [yes, I actually CAN lay claim to degrees in chemistry and technology] the "biggest threat" I see is to the re-ellection chances of Labour politicians if the truth gets out that their politics will not only cost current jobs but will further endebten us to support the rest of the world, based on poorly interpreted data!

"Every body knows" usually translates as " I have no real bloody idea".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we get this man to australia,before we are sold up sh## creek with a recycled cardboard paddle. :angry::angry:

Just tipical of polies with there own personal ajenda where never letting a good story get in the way of the TRUTH. :(

This sort of thing really pis##s me of,and since when did lieing become totally justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is concern to you Send an email to your local federel MP and also the Climate change minister or shadow minister which ever is relevant to you.

Let both sides of politics know how you feel.

I have done this.

There is not much time left before they vote on this bill.

I beleive they have blocked the vote for now and it will happen in a couple of weeks.

If anyone knows other ways to have your say let us know

Link to comment
Share on other sites


EU climate deal angers green groups

By Europe correspondent Philip Williams

Posted Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:37am AEDT

Environmental groups have criticised a deal announced by the European Union that offers billions of dollars to poor countries to help them cut emissions.

European leaders agreed rich countries will have to subsidise poor nations combating the effects of global warming.

The EU leaders agreed that around $160 billion world be needed to soften the effects of climate change every year from 2020.

There were promises Europe would pay its way but there were no firm targets.

Poorer European countries like Poland objected to having to subsidise countries like Brazil.

Environmental groups like Greenpeace accused the EU of failing to produce firm figures.

EU leaders will meet with United States President Obama next week to attempt to get the Americans to support the subsidy scheme, which is likely to cost wealthy countries billions.

But British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says the deal makes an agreement at Copenhagen more likely.

"We agreed that the European Union and its member states are ready to contribute their fair share of the costs," he said.

"All of this, of course is conditioned on other countries playing their part too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that dude on the radio has the same rant every one who selects "facts" and manipulates statistics. he's going the opposite side and using poorly interpreted data. the truth is in the middle, and generally never ever on media outlets from the usa. fox news has been proven to make their watchers even more ignorant.

Jared Diamond wrote a book called "Collapse: why societies choose to fail or survive". The universal theme of societies collapsing was they got too big for their environment and effective change was refused or never made.

governments are corrupt and the ones that are not, corrupt ideals to remain popular and get votes. the ets and even more global options are going to be abused by nations getting money (ie big polluters like china, india and south america) and the big nations are going to have to find some kind of way to profit, either by votes (each vote for a party gets them cash funds) or by taking kickbacks from some one.

the whole issue is so complex you can argue any side and be able to prove it. it is far easier to hope that it isn't a problem and then crank air con on full, leave the massive hd plasma on and drive a hummer. this argument is consistently getting scientists on board global warming while companies like exxon that still haven't paid a cent in compensation to anyone who suffered after their oil spill in alaska will tell us carbon dioxide is life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H.O.T., I'm in the middle of reading the responses to his work now. So far I haven't seen an out and out contradiction but will see what comes of the reading and I'll post it up if wanted.

In the meantime, here's a somewhat relevant article -


CSIRO denies censoring climate paper

By Shane McLeod for The World Today

The World Today | abc.net.au/worldtoday

Posted 3 hours 59 minutes ago

Updated 3 hours 15 minutes ago

Smoke is emitted from a smoke stack

Dr Spash's paper argues that carbon trading appears to be an ineffective way to reduce emissions. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin, file photo)

* Audio: Scientist claims censorship on climate paper (The World Today)

* Related Link: Sunday Profile: CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark

An environmental economist at the CSIRO says he is being told not to publish a paper on climate change because it challenges Government policy.

But the CSIRO says it is not trying to censor the scientist and is still reviewing the case.

Fears are being expressed both inside and outside the agency that it is self-censoring to avoid controversy and to safeguard its funding.

Dr Clive Spash is an ecological economist who has worked for the CSIRO since 2006, specialising in the interactions between the environment and the economy.

In Dr Spash's paper, which he has not been allowed to publish, he argues that carbon trading - like the emissions trading scheme being promoted by the Federal Government - appears to be ineffective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

He says more direct measures such as a carbon tax or new infrastructure would be simpler and more effective.

His paper was submitted for publication in the UK journal New Political Economy earlier this year.

But in July the CSIRO wrote to the editors, telling them the paper was being withdrawn because it had not been approved through internal CSIRO processes.

Dr Spash told the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics conference in Darwin last week that CSIRO managers "maintained they had the right to ban" the paper.

No comments on policy

The World Today understands Dr Spash has been told not to publish the paper because of political sensitivities.

But the CSIRO denies it is trying to censor Dr Spash.

A spokesman says there is a long-standing policy of not publishing papers and reports that comment on policy, be it Government or Opposition, or even that of a local council.

He says Dr Spash's paper is now being reviewed by the organisation's chief executive, Dr Megan Clark.

And she has put her views about public comments by scientists on the record as recently as last month in an interview on the ABC's Sunday Profile.

"I'm encouraging our scientists to speak to the public. We're training our scientists to do that and they have my personal backing," she said.

"With it comes responsibility to make sure that we adhere to one of the most fundamental values of the organisation, which is the integrity of our excellent science.

"That's what the Australian people trust us for and we absolutely must always respect that value and never cross the line into commenting on policies.

"Lots of people out there are prepared to do that. The Australian people trust us to talk about our science."

She says if the CSIRO suddenly became aware that an emissions trading scheme was not the right way to go, it would have no problems putting it in the public domain.

"Our modelling will be out in the public domain. Our science will be out in the public domain and we should have it out there," she said.

Blurred lines

It is that distinction - between science and policy - that is at the centre of the dispute over Dr Spash's paper.

The president of the CSIRO staff association, Dr Michael Borgas, says scientists understand not to comment on policy, but he says the line is becoming blurred.

"They are certainly very aware of the opinions they give from the organisation as a CSIRO, as part of an arm of Government if you like, meant not to comment on policy decisions of either the Government or the Opposition," he said.

"The overlap between policy and science is getting extremely close in these issues, which come to an interesting point in history where much of the science is telling us that we do have to worry about the finiteness of things and that includes climate change.

"And that means working out how to manage things and deal with policies for a sustainable future."

He says some scientists worry that self-censorship is at play, where supervisors and managers want to avoid controversy at all costs.

Dr Spash is now waiting for a decision from the chief executive on whether he can publish the paper in his CSIRO role, or even in a private capacity.

In her interview last month, Dr Megan Clark suggested the public and private roles of scientists were inseparable.

The World Today's attempts this morning to contact Dr Spash have been unsuccessful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

bootyinblue wrote:

I am going to stick my neck out here and say 'I dont understand a word of this, or the politics around it'.

I just live life for today, and dont worry too much about carbon credits, emmission trading and all the other garbage being peddled.

Am I the odd one out, or are there other people who do the same as me?

I think not mate, most of us just want an easy life.

This link may be a little easier to understand


Many things to do with world politics doesn't effect how we live our lives here in Australia, this will!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my opinion global warmer is here and there will come a time when sea levels rise significally flooding low lying areas and hundreds of millions of people will be displaced with some island chains disappearing and over a hundred years of industrial fumes to blame it seams to me a small percentage of scientists clame the opposite and most likely paid by large industries while there liberal puppets nod their heads if they are wrong and these mostly poor people loose there land and lives because we can't make hard decisions and reach into our deep pockets in the developed world how selfish we will be if its all true

just my 2 cents worth


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...