- JoNova - https://joannenova.com.au -

25 years of unscientific “action” against carbon. Don’t wait for the science…

In 1988, way back before the data was in, the CSIRO was already push-pumping the public awareness campaign against carbon dioxide. There was never a debate about the science. Nobody checked the things that matter first, they just stepped straight into pointless action. (Why?) Twenty five years later, nothing has changed. There is still no one paid to make sure the science is right, too make sure Australians are not being taken advantage of. When will conservative governments recognise that they can’t leave this vital area to unpaid volunteers without staff, funding, access to scientific libraries and full government data?

BOM and CSIRO research that suggests billion-dollar policies must be checked and replicated independently by a group with no interest but finding holes in it. In a law court, there is a defense whose job is to poke holes in the prosecutor’s case, but in science and public policy it’s like being back in the Middle Ages with only the prosecution’s accusations getting a hearing. Only with a proper science defense will the Australian taxpayers and the environment be served.

The Australian, Graham Lloyd

“…the CSIRO and the Commission for the Future were at the forefront of international research and public awareness campaigns on reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent to 2005, as decided at the Toronto conference in 1988.

And as early as 1989 the Australian government was already paying to set up vested interest groups to push for carbon reduction.

“Following his landmark Our Country, Our Future statement on July 20, 1989, prime minister Bob Hawke wrote to ministers requesting a working group be set up to evaluate options to reduce emissions.

He said it was clear “we cannot afford to wait until we are certain of all aspects of global climate change before action is taken …”

What working group would ever produce a report saying that reducing emissions was a waste of money? These would become the paid lobbyists to propagandize the issue.




9.2 out of 10 based on 112 ratings