The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy.

On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’.

Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible.
This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’.

Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different.

‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it.

‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research.

Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp.

I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued.

Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us.

stryder wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:47am:


The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless.

I believe that sometime in the future, I DONT KNOW WHEN, IM NOT NOSTRODAMUS LIKE SOME OF THESE LEFTIES WHO PREDICT GLOBAL DOOM IF WE DONT ACCEPT THIS CARBON TAX.

But I believe the human race will move on from fossil fuels to maybe cleaner and abundant sources of energy which at this stage are so far expensive and land consuming, BUT I RATHER LET IT HAPPEN NATURALLY THEN ON THE LABOR/GREENS SCHEDULE THROUGH FORCE BY CARBON PRICING AND TAXING.

stryder wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:56am:


Actually the history of energy use would suggest you are right. we didnt move from wood-powered steam engines to fossil fuels because of green activists taxing forests. the technology made a new enery available. the same will happen with fossil fuels as new energy sources becme available.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:09pm:


High degree of accuracy? Like how every prediction on future climate ever made had been widely inaccurate?

HOW gravity works is not understood. Defining its actions however is very well understood.  How climate works is not understood and defining its actions and making predictions based on that understanding is extremely limited.

I might add that you are simply adopting the 'extremist position' rather than even considering the notion that the science ISNT settled.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:50am:




And that brings in the third set of people, more extreme than the Chicken Littles, as these people will fraudulently and deliberately mislead the public (Michael Mann, Tim Flannery, Julia Gillard) with unbalanced public commentary.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 1:37pm:

Why dont all countries get together and offer a bounty for the first to make a renewable solution at certain criteria. Tested and verified.

Imagine the private investment flood in for a major major bounty.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:52pm:


Climate science has been settled for the past decade. Every credible scientific prediction since then has correlated almost precisely with what has happened.

What you are confusing yourself with is predictions made by the fringe of the debate, which are not credible, but seem to get a lot of publicity. Al Gore being one of them. The anti-global warming who exagerate further to try to prove their point.