Crikey readers were quick as ever to respond to the question of banning climate denialism from media spaces. While some questioned climate science’s track record, most agreed that there is no point in entertaining denialist viewpoints. Elsewhere, readers reacted to Sky News anchor Paul Murray’s access to Donald Trump, and questioned the fortunes of Seven West Media.
On climate denialism
Mark E Smith writes: Climate denialism is founded on the false equivalency of political issues. Sure, dealing with it is political, but the reality of it isn’t. It’s about basic physics. I could talk about the perception of the right but what’s the point. It’s also important to acknowledge the importance of the alleged 3% of contrarian climate scientists. Nothing important is ever supported one way by 100% of bodies. Any suggestion of such a case would be immediately scorned. Tax, education, healthcare, welfare, legal process and a thousand other public issues are strictly in the realm of human affairs. The interactions of physics and the rest of the natural world have no bearing on such matters. Climate change is totally different.
Julian Robinson writes: The whole debate is wrongly premised — there should be no debate at all about whether climate change is real, at least by non-scientists. But when scientists conclude that things are likely going bad, the public debate should be about risk management. Because the possible consequences of climate change are so catastrophic, any informed government should be taking action — yesterday.
Peter Schulz writes: Unlike the denialists, scientists are by nature cautious and reluctant to make wild claims until they have the evidence to support them. The fact that as the evidence increases, the reality of a looming climate catastrophe has become clearer surely confirms that the science has been correct all along.
On Paul Murray on Trump
Terry Mills writes: Paul Murray has been criticised for not conducting a more probing or newsworthy interview with Trump. From what I’ve seen, it was a fawning and obsequious encounter that most professional journalists would find completely embarrassing. Murray, of course , is not a journalist and it begs the question as to why Morrison nominated him: was it pressure from Murdoch?
Tony Walker writes: That Morrison would offer up Sky’s Paul Murray to Trump as a representative of the Australian media confirms the PM’s contempt for the true role of journalists to hold power to account in the name of the people. The next Australian journalist who interviews Morrison must ask him why he has so much contempt for real journalism, and why he’s so happy to display it on the global stage.
On Seven West Media
Wayne Robinson writes: As a shareholder in Seven Media, I’d actually welcome a takeover by Murdoch. It wouldn’t make Seven Media any less biased than it is now under Kerry Stokes. My preference though would be for Seven Media to go bankrupt completely, and to be run by new owners with no dominant shareholder. Perhaps with a cap of 5% for single shareholders. I’d even buy into a reformed media company. And even consider resubscribing to the West Australia newspaper.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
“We might already be at 1.2°C, and warming at 0.25°C per decade – well within the range of uncertainty. That would indeed get us to 1.5°C by 2030: 12 years from 2018. But an additional quarter of a degree of warming, more-or-less what has happened since the 1990s, is not going to feel like Armageddon to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers (the striving taxpayers of 2030). And what will they think then?” – Myles Allen
Professor of Geosystem Science, Leader of ECI Climate Research Programme, University of Oxford, “Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric”, The Conversation 18 April 2019.
This quote is a good example of what’s wrong with justifying suppressing debate in science. The same logic that justifies suppressing “denialists” today – because they are an obstacle to action – can be used to justify suppressing cautious voices tomorrow, if they are seen to undermine the tone of urgency climate activists demand.
Morrison’s entire jaunt to the USA is an exercise in flagrant contempt, but entirely in keeping with the weasel POTUS that invited him.
What a despicable pair they are – O’Brien nailed the Liar from the Shire quite nicely on Q&A last night, even though the master interviewer was given short shrift while we had to watch the aimless dithering of the councillor from Fairfield and Parrot Fletcher ad nauseum.
Well done Crikey/INQ for the investigation into jobs for the boys and girls at the AAT. As a former member of the eviscerated Administrative Review Council (alluded to in the article) I am appalled at the brazen lack of care of an important part of our government apparatus. While I disagree with Callinan that all appoitntments must be lawyers, non-legal members should bring special knowledge or experience of the subject matter of matters under appeal. And time served for the governing party does not of itself qualify in my view and should not passnthe legislative test (meant to be administered by the GG-in-Council – yes, well, good luck with that. What is needed is a parliamentary majority to tighten up qualification and appointment procedures to reduce the scope for blatant stacking.
Stuart Hamilton
I witnesses with my own eyes a “miracle” that is Paul Murray, a talking bed bug, a stenographer working for the Rupert Murdoch NewsCrap organisation. How good is that?