Monday, December 07, 2009

climate change

Oooh, look how topical I am! Politics, climate change...

I've seen some good articles lately, so I thought I'd put up some links in case anyone is interested.

An article from The Economist about debating climate change. I quite like this, it says that while the magazine believes in climate change, it also believes in scientific debate, and scientists with alternative views should not be silenced to support the orthodox view, because that's not what science is about. Sounds reasonable to me!

An article from the SMH basically arguing that Tony Abbot's stance on climate change is inconsistent and untenable, from an politico-economic perspective. I first came across this argument on Jordan's blog (you can find the link to the relevant blog post here) apparently Malcolm Turnbull has expressed similar views. Once again, sounds like a good argument to me. I wonder what the best solution would be?

On a totally unrelated note, I find it ironic that my blog's spell check doesn't recognise 'blog' as a real word.


  1. Thanks for the link!

    I'll have to check that Economist article out - they always have good stuff.

    Of course, debate is critical to the scientific process, and dissenting views should be encouraged not suppressed.

    The problem is climate change has now become such a politicised issue, it's hard for scientists to have a nuanced discussion of the evidence, because of the wider PR consequences.

  2. Yes, it is always a pity I think when an issue becomes so politicised- debate tends to degenerate into people calling each other names.

    In this instance I think it's a pity that some politicians use any research that suggests climate change may be effected by things other than humans to halt or pause developments in alternative energy, etc.

    As the Economist article points out, scientists rarely reach absolute consensus on anything, and by the time the climate change sceptics are convinced (if that's even possible) it will be too late to act. By all means be sceptical, but with such a large amount of evidence I think surely they could take some precautions while exploring the evidence?

  3. In other news, I'm kinda annoyed that the 'climate change debate' is not that at all, rarely do the different sides actually engage with one another's arguments. The reporting in mainstream media usually seems biased and the terms ppl call each other are not helpful ('alarmists' vs. 'deniers'). It's a serious issue, can't people try to be sensible?

  4. actually, we knew enough to take action 20 years ago, but generally the army is not mobilised till the enemy is already at the gates. IN this case, that really will be too late, and no amount of Churchillian rhetoric will stop the ice caps melting, and all the dire consequences of that. It promises to be an interesting century...