I noticed an excellent interview this morning on ABC news regarding how the new government’s choice to shut down the Climate Commission is seen globally. I wanted to find it and post it… No luck as yet.
What I did notice in my search was that the subject returns posts from the usual suspects on the first page; Watts, Nova and Delingpole, the intellectually vulnerable. All three are over the moon about the NLP’s decision.
My only thought is, if these “sceptics” really hold the weight on reality, why is this a win? Why do they need this?
I mean, the so-called climate “sceptics” have long lamented in their marginalization (apart from commercial media, but that’s only a small medium, isn’t it?), ignoring of course their relative void of higher education and scientific contribution to climate science. Yet, it’s okay when this is turned on reliable independent science.
(I can hear the obvious rebuttal here; this commission held a ‘Left agenda’, without the need to demonstrate the commission’s position at odds with the science.. the ol’ strawman)
Should the ill-informed and scientifically inept really hold the public discourse on highly complex scientific subjects? The NLP doesn’t say so, however the only avenues of informed evidence on the topic will be reduced to institutes subject to certain political pressures. On the other hand, the “sceptical” communicators are rejoicing in this action which will clear suppress expert potency in the public and political discussion.
Another concern is how quickly this new government has become tight-lipped on asylum seekers arriving by boat, after years of counting and complaining over the previous government’s record.
With evidence reduced to dependent bodies and a new level of hush regarding policy that helped to win this party the 2013 election, Australia is making a concerning shift towards a term-long Dark Age, where ideology is more important than fact.