Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Stay rational on climate change

By Jeremy Gilling and John Muscat - posted Friday, 7 November 2008


Many assume that a “climate sceptic” rejects man-made global warming. But that isn’t how the term is used by activists and the media. Deviation on any of the four categories can be enough.

The third category, “effect”, concerns the repercussions of a warming world. The IPCC’s position is that none of the range of potential outcomes is tolerable. Stern and Garnaut say amen to that, but some experts differ.

The fourth category is about the appropriate “response” to climate change. The Kyoto Protocol prescribes tough carbon emission reduction targets and measures like an emissions trading scheme. Our government is going down this route. Other ways of pricing carbon have also been advocated. And some argue there are higher priorities than climate change.

Advertisement

Still, dissenting from any aspect of the wide-ranging orthodoxy can see you branded a dangerous sceptic. You can be orthodox on cause, but disagree on effect, and be labelled a sceptic. You can be orthodox on cause and effect, but object to carbon pricing as a response, and be labelled a sceptic. You can be orthodox on cause, effect and response, but question “cap-and-trade” emissions trading, and be labelled a sceptic.

We have arrived at the absurd point where you can be orthodox on everything, but disagree with the government’s timetable for emissions trading, and still be damned as a sceptic. Try criticising green shibboleths like light-rail and bicycle paths and you can be tarred as a sceptic for that, even if you are otherwise orthodox.

Clearly, it’s about framing debates and manipulating public opinion. “Denier”, “sceptic”: bludgeons to keep people in line and intimidate troublemakers. Shudder at the consequences. How many millions of dollars will be squandered, how many livelihoods put at risk, and how many opportunities lost, owing to fear of these reprehensible tags?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The New City on November 2, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

100 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Jeremy Gilling is a co-editor, along with John Muscat, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

John Muscat is a co-editor, along with Jeremy Gilling, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Jeremy Gilling
All articles by John Muscat

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 100 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy