The Australian and Environmentalists


Over at Climate Progress someone called Mulga Mumblebrain (pseudonym, much?) has written this:

… it’s no surprise that Australians are sinking deeper into the slough of [climate] denialism. The media are stupefyingly reprehensible. The floods are being attributed entirely to the current La Nina, with explicit refutations that it could have anything to do with anthropogenic climate change or increased atmospheric water vapour. Indeed the latter fact I have not seen reported anywhere in the MSM. Murdoch’s apparatus is, as ever, at the epicentre of this denialism. Today’s ‘The Fundament’ (aka The Australian) has a typically disingenuous editorial which dismisses these floods as nothing new, when they are plainly, in many cases, far beyond historical records. Then it descends, typically, into ranting mode, abusing ‘green extremists’ (The Fundament always attaches the epithet ‘extremist’ to any description of environmentalists, and has vowed, in its editorials, to ‘destroy’ the Green Party which, from July, will control the balance of power in our Senate)for preventing the construction of sufficient large dams over recent decades. Of course, in the land of facts and far from Rightwing fanaticism, these dams were not built because there are few good sites left, hydrologists and ecologists advised against them, and massive grass-roots campaigns from those about to be inundated forestalled the waste of money.
‘The Fundament’ is, in my opinion, a particularly lurid example of the central factor that will make avoiding climate catastrophe, which, I believe it is plain, has already commenced, impossible. Fanatic Rightwing ideology which is capable of denying any calamity, refuting any science and ignoring the concerns of the relevant scientific authorities, all to the ends of protecting gigantic business empires and maintaining political dominance through mobilising the ignorant, stupid and those too scared to admit the wretched truth.



2 Responses to “The Australian and Environmentalists”

  1. pobept Says:

    When we talk about ‘weather’ changes, to keep it all in perspective we must be looking into historical weather conditions based in millions of years not a few hundred year time period.

    Weather world wide over a few million year time slot has been at times much warmer than now and at time much colder.

    The real question is just how much mas modern man had to do with contributing to earths natural weather variations.

    We really can’t say, we have no way of removing human influence factor from earths changing weather factors to determine with any reliability how much is natural and how much influence in weather changes can be contributed to human activity.

    • dwighttowers Says:

      A pity that the first comment on Downunderstanding is a climate troll, but you can’t have everything, can you? Beggars for attention like me can’t be too choosy too soon…

      Actually, the post was about the Murdoch papers take on climate change, not the weather. (Ironically, Newscorp in the UK takes pride in its climate stance. The news obviously hasn’t reached the offices of “the Australian”).

      Nobody disputes the planet’s ‘weather’ (and gosh darn, it’s climate too) have changed dramatically up and down during the last few billion period. To even state that, sententiously, is a dick move.

      Your claim that we can’t discern a human fingerprint in this is simply flat-out wrong. You either don’t know better – in which case you should sort out that ignorance problem – or else you DO, in which case you are a hypocrite and a.. what’s the word… troll.

      The ppm concentration of carbon dioxide has risen from about 280 to its current 384 in the space of two hundred years. We can tell from isotope analysis (pretty basic science) that this unprecedentedly rapid increase is down to the burning of fossil fuels. We know that Carbon Dioxide makes a blanket that traps heat (infra-red radiation).

      I could provide you with countless links to peer-reviewed science from the AAAS, the Royal Society, other science academies, the WMO, the UNEP, the IPCC. And you would respond by telling me those are all grant-grubbing scientists in the pay of a one world government that wants to increase taxes, and probably throw in the Oregon petition in response, claiming there is “no consensus” and that consensus is bad anyway.
      And I would then feel obliged to waste more time fisking your bloviations and then….

      You know what – go waste someone else’s mental and Internet bandwidth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: