What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,719
Props to Julia Bishop for pushing back on Abbott after he banned her from attending the Climate Change conference in Peru.

She took it to caucus who then voted in favour of her attending.

The mad monk's days are numbered.

How the Religious Right Is Fuelling Climate Change Denial

Radical religious activists promote anti-science bills, in part, because they also seek to undermine the teaching of evolution.
For the average climate science denier in the street (and there are a lot of them on some streets), there is often little correlation between the vehemence of their denials and the so-called "facts" at their disposal. The average Chuck is like Chuck Norris, who has claimed that climate science is a "trick". Not an innocent mistake, not a systemic bias, but a premeditated fraud.
Climate science denial needs disinformation to survive, but it has its feet firmly planted in a part of American culture. That culture draws on lots of different sources. But if you want to understand it, you need to understand something about America's religious landscape.
Take a look at some of the most recent initiatives in the climate science denial wars. In Louisiana, Tennessee, New Hampshire and other states, legislatures have either passed or put forward bills intended to disinform secondary-school students about climate science. Sure, they paper over the assault on education with claims that they only want to teach "both sides" of the issue and encourage "critical thinking". But, as leaked documents made clear in at least one instance, the ultimate purpose is to produce a young generation of "skeptics" whose views on climate science will happily coincide with those of the fossil fuel industry.
Who is behind these programs of de-education?
The group writing much of the legislation is the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a "nonpartisan" consortium of state legislators and business interests that gets plenty of money from the usual suspects. But the legislation has also received vital support from groups associated with the religious right. For example, the perversely named Louisiana Science Education Act, which opens the door to climate science denial in the classroom, was co-authored by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based creationist thinktank. That act also received crucial support from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the well-funded Christian legal advocacy group that has described itself as "a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel", and which promotes a radical religious agenda in public schools.
What does religion have to do with climate science? Radical religious activists promote the anti-science bills, in part, because they also seek to undermine the teaching of evolution – another issue that supposedly has "two sides", so schools should "teach the controversy". Now, you don't have to believe that Earth was created in six hectic days in order to be skeptical about climate science, but a large number of climate science deniers also happen to be evolution deniers.
What exactly is the theology of climate science denial? The Cornwall Alliance – a coalition whose list of signatories could double as a directory of major players in the religious right – has a produced adeclaration asserting, as a matter of theology, that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming."
It also tells us – on the firm foundation of Holy Scriptures – that policies intended to slow the pace of climate change represent a "dangerous expansion of government control over private life". It also alerts us that the environmental movement is "un-Biblical" – indeed, a new and false religion. If the Cornwall Declaration seems like a tough read, you can get what you need from the organization's DVD series: "Resisting the Green Dragon: A Biblical Response to one of the Greatest Deceptions of our Day."
Now, this isn't the theology of every religion in America, or of every strain of Christianity; not by a long stretch. Most Christians accept climate science and believe in protecting the environment, and many of them do so for religious as well as scientific reasons. But theirs is not the theology that holds sway in the upper reaches of the Republican party, or moves your average climate science denier Chuck. As Rick Santorum explained at an energy summit in Colorado:
"We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth … for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."
Why does this theology of science denial have such power? For one thing, it gives its adherents something to throw back in the face of all those obnoxious "elites", which they think are telling them what to do with their lives. There's no need to master the facts if all you need is to learn a few words of scripture.
But, perhaps, more to the point is that this kind of religion works for Chuck because it allows him to disguise the extraordinary selfishness of his position in a cloak of sanctimony. Translated into the kind of language that you can take to the shopping mall, it says that God wants you to squeeze whatever you can out of the earth – and to hell with the grandkids.
I hear plenty of cynicism about the choice facing people this Tuesday, 6 November. Some say that it really doesn't matter who gets elected. It is true that Obama has largely kept climate change out of the campaign. But it is delusional to imagine that Obama is just the same as Romney and the Republican party on this issue. Paul Ryan is on record as a world-class climate science denier. Mitt Romney's press secretary has been a shill for oil companies.
Romney's proposals on energy policy and climate issues, so far as they can be discerned, are indistinguishable from those of the fossil fuel industry. And anyone who thinks that Republican party policies won't be informed by some of that old-time religion simply hasn't been listening to what its candidates have to say about women, reproductive rights, and what they speciously call "religious liberty".
There is a choice. And even if you don't think it matters, your grandkids will.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/04/america-theologians-climate-science-denial
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
91,603
Science tells us the history of the climate is a history of climate change. As for the 'pro-science' climate alarmists, it's telling that their solution to climate change is increased spending on social programs. As soon as anyone suggests the toil and sweat of planting more trees they wig out and make personal attacks.
 

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
68,713
When I was a young bloke I knew a chick who ended up in jail this same way. The bloke in question was a standover man but he didn't even need to force her to take the risk - she was madly in love. So she just allowed drugs to be posted to her, the gear was intercepted and bugged by the AFP, and she was arrested receiving the shipment.

all you need is love..
 

spiderdan

Bench
Messages
3,743
Science tells us the history of the climate is a history of climate change. As for the 'pro-science' climate alarmists, it's telling that their solution to climate change is increased spending on social programs. As soon as anyone suggests the toil and sweat of planting more trees they wig out and make personal attacks.
the thing most of the climate change brigade seem to cling to is the perception of what they deem to be the baseline for normal. they also seem to throw the science in people's faces that aren't on their bandwagon, without actually being able to explain it when put on the spot.

the climate changes. it has done since day 1 and no person, short of richard prior in superman 3, has been able to control it.

the most extreme weather/climate change scientists agree happened was the ice age (the big one, not small ones since then), which was a freakish occurrence that happened with no (significant) human created pollutants in the air. it pretty much tells us that if the planet and it's eco-system want to go batshit, there's nothing we can do to stop it.

i'd be more sympathetic to the al-gore army if rather than fear mongering about climate change every time we get a day that isn't average for whatever time of the year, they talked about and focussed on the need to clean up the environment because we need clean air to survive, particularly as the population grows at a faster rate where if we use current infrastructure and resources, there will be more pollutants, less room for trees/plants that give us our air and significantly more need for clean energy.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,719
Science tells us the history of the climate is a history of climate change. As for the 'pro-science' climate alarmists,it's telling that their solution to climate change is increased spending on social programs. As soon as anyone suggests the toil and sweat of planting more trees they wig out and make personal attacks.

Um who the f**k ever proposed to increase social spending as a combat to climate change ?

You made that up.

The "pro-science" lobby in Australia wanted to tax big polluters so as to provide incentive for them to cut their omissions. Like putting a tax on tobacco. Eventually industry will work out that its best that they quit or reduce omissions.

Abbott (with his Direct Action) wants to tax you and use that to pay for programs that the big polluters (or those that choose to participate anyway) put foward as an omission cutting strategy.
 
Last edited:

spiderdan

Bench
Messages
3,743
gronk, do you believe a tax on emissions will make the big polluters pollute less? or do you think the more likely scenario would be that they would see it as another expense that they would pass on to consumers to pay for, which would filter down to everyday consumers pockets?

i'd be more inclined to think the latter is what would happen. i am a big believer in cleaning up the environment. i just don't think an emissions/carbon/whatveryouwantotcallit tax is the answer.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,719
gronk, do you believe a tax on emissions will make the big polluters pollute less? or do you think the more likely scenario would be that they would see it as another expense that they would pass on to consumers to pay for, which would filter down to everyday consumers pockets?

i'd be more inclined to think the latter is what would happen. i am a big believer in cleaning up the environment. i just don't think an emissions/carbon/whatveryouwantotcallit tax is the answer.

Well the alternative is that Abbott pays for plant upgrades etc with your money (out of a $9B Emissions Reduction Fund- ie; your money) so that the big polluters then can emit less.

Does that make sense ?
 

spiderdan

Bench
Messages
3,743
we'd be paying for it regardless i think, until cheaper cleaner (safer) energy is found that can used.

i'm not sure what the right answer would be in the short term though.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
91,603
No the alternative is for whiny merkins like you and me, Gronk, to spend less of our money on goods and services that pollute the earth.

That includes café lattes, Che Guevara t-shirts and air travel.
 

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,424

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,424
Science tells us the history of the climate is a history of climate change. As for the 'pro-science' climate alarmists, it's telling that their solution to climate change is increased spending on social programs. As soon as anyone suggests the toil and sweat of planting more trees they wig out and make personal attacks.

Science told us that the earth was flat; that the sun revolved around the earth; that the atom was the smallest particle. I take 'science' with a grain of salt.
 
Messages
19,393
I think it all balances up in the big picture. We need to tighten our belts now to avoid leaving a fiscal debt for our grandchildren (mine will be illegitimate and ethnically diverse so I don't really care too much about them). We can't tighten our belts now to avoid contributing to a broader environmental degradation that will likely impose much harsher economic conditions on our grandchildren. Simples.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
62,976
I think it all balances up in the big picture. We need to tighten our belts now to avoid leaving a fiscal debt for our grandchildren (mine will be illegitimate and ethnically diverse so I don't really care too much about them). We can't tighten our belts now to avoid contributing to a broader environmental degradation that will likely impose much harsher economic conditions on our grandchildren. Simples.

I couldn't of said it better myself
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top