“Science under siege”. That is how the ABC described the anti-carbon tax rallies on their so-called science program, Catalyst last night.
Appearing on this episode was Ian Chubb, who described the anti-carbon tax movement as a broadside on science, not just climate science but science generally. He compared protesters to those who persecuted Galileo, claiming we are still in the middle ages.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the guy who keeps failing to predict the demise of the great barrier reef, almost came to tears about the death threats he has faced. It really was quite theatrical. If these threats are legitimate, then it is atrocious behaviour, yet the attempt to use them to smear the reasonable skeptics is unjustifiable.
They complain about the politicisation of the debate, and yet a program supposedly devoted to science, has been dominated by politics.
They tried to paint the anti-carbon tax protesters as extremists, and had a go at Lord Monckon with the same brush, only thing was, they misrepresented him. They claimed that Monckton has said people should vote on whether carbon dioxide was a threat (this from the “consensus” crowd), but he was actually saying the Australian people should get the chance to vote on the carbon tax (it’s called democracy). The ABC also claim he was inciting violence, a “call to arms”. In reality he was calling for the prosecution of the scientists at the centre of climategate, not trying to start his own militia.
In their attack on anti-carbon tax protesters, the ABC denigrates ordinary Australians, the people who fund their stinkin’ organisation. They even mock a protester who had the gall to suggest carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Yet, not all anti-carbon tax protesters are skeptics, they just don’t want a carbon tax because it will do nothing to the climate regardless. It doesn’t matter to the ABC, they’re all part of the anti-science campaign.
Their argument that skeptics are opposed to science is based on the idea that the science is settled, and when you accept that it’s not, their argument really falls apart. Are the scientists opposed to the mainstream also attacking science?
Ever since I was six, I have been interested in the natural world, and soon I developed an interest in science. I take exception to these accusations of anti-science, and I’m sure so do many other ordinary Australians, who have been attacked mercilessly by the network who is suppose to serve the Australian people.