Comments on: BARNEY AND NICKY’S NEVER-ENDING CARBON PARTY

By: Jane Salmon

Jane Salmon — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:21:52 +0000

Banning Christmas might be a good way of cooling the planet. The amount of ‘cheap’ polluting crap bought and sold in the name of ‘joy’ is insane. Give plants or give nothing!

By: Quentin Chester

Quentin Chester — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:04:40 +0000

If, as Mr Minchin argues, climate science is nothing more than a ‘belief system’ I’d be interested to know what exactly in Nick’s universe isn’t a belief system.
All the available evidence suggests the only world he can possibly imagine is one where everyone is as partisan, petty and ignorant as he is.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:30:16 +0000

The climate-change deniers / sceptics in politics tend not to argue the science, but use any evidence of scientific or pseudo-scientific dissent, irrespective of merit, as ‘proof’ of their position. Their position is not a scientific one; it is ideological. This is especially evident when pushed on their stance, as they don’t work with the science but instead criticise those who they see as misusing science to pursue a ‘green’ (or in Minchin’s recent words “anti-industrial”) agenda. Beyond the basics, the science of climate-change is, unsurprisingly, far too complex for most people to debate. Al Gore went some way to addressing this problem. But ultimately it doesn’t matter how well the public or politicians might comprehend the science, as psychology can all too readily get in the way. The American Psychological Association has produced a useful report in this regard http://www.apa.org/releases/climate-change.pdf

You’d have to expect those who benefit from the current regime of economic rationalism powered by fossil fuels and large corporations to be averse to the science of climate-change; not because of the science itself, but because of its implications for the dominant paradigm.

There are clearly psychological issues here as the APA point out. The fear that motivates some to act, motivates others to deny, depending on their ideology, interests, etc.

By: Jane Salmon

Jane Salmon — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:24:48 +0000

Cretins are fine so long as they are not formulating long run policy for the planet. Cretaceans and those who have studied them seem more reliable on many fronts. Food sustainability is a thorn we have yet to grasp. The whole nation needs to shift to a Cuban style economy and model of agriculture if we are to handle climate change intelligently. Joyce’s scepticism about carbon trading is valid. It is but a wobbly first step to rationalising growth and the human carbon footprint. Far greater leaps forward are necessary. Limiting reproduction among the Nationals might be necessary.