In response to the comments by the Greens Adam Brant most media have been highly critical. Let this be one that refuses to fall for this “blasphemy” trap.
Even while in the shadows, with Mr. “Climate Crap” leading the NLP, the current government has done all it can to shut down science rich policies debate in relation to climate change. Now, they have gone so far as to dismantle the major independent political source of climate information as soon as they came into power.
If anything, this government hopes to avoid the reality of anthropogenic climate change as much as possible, while running the show.
Of course, the climate isn’t going to be accommodating, however. Who knows what this spring would have looked like were it not for the rising atmospheric CO2 levels, but come on, major bushfires in spring?
The only reason mentioning climate change is considered “political” is because those who wish it wasn’t real have turned it political in lieu of having any credible science to back them up.
Wikipedia doesn’t count as an informed review, obviously, and even if it did, pointing out that the page on Australia refers to bushfires doesn’t refute climate change.
“Won’t someone think of the… Arsonists?”
In contrast to this, that many of the fires were started by young people, the same media are consumed with what to do to avoid future arsonists.
Am I the only one who spots a contradiction here?
We have two subjects that play a role in the behaviour of bushfires, arsonists and climate change, and when people state that we need to change our approach in regards to one or the other, only one is not treated as taboo.
This strikes me as odd and should sound the alarm bells.
Blasphemy is an invented crime and a dangerous / useful tool for the control of ideas. If simply questioning an idea is considered wrong, the idea is held beyond scrutiny. This is why blasphemy is utilized in many of the most successful religions.
Stating that climate change is likely to play a role in the changing behaviour of bushfires is not politicizing the situation nor is it using hardship unfairly. It’s only making the point that this situation is horrible and that we should avoid moving into a climate more accommodating to such situations.
It’s policy, true, but based on the best available science. It’s neither left nor right as a bushfire will not take preference on what it burns.
The current government has made the subject taboo to avoid scrutiny and most media have fallen for a deliberate attack on critical thinking.