News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Fielding visit may send climate plan up in smoke 

Fielding visit may send climate plan up in smoke

09 Jun, 2009 09:21 AM
THE organisation which has prompted the Family First senator, Steve Fielding, to question the science of climate change also believes public health campaigns against smoking are based on "junk science".

Senator Fielding, who must vote soon on the Government's proposed emissions trading scheme, has returned from Washington sceptical about humanity's contribution to climate change.

"I think all of us have just accepted without question that carbon emissions are the problem and we need to address that," he said yesterday. It was necessary to consider an "alternative view" put forward by "credible scientists", he said.

Senator Fielding attended a conference on climate change last week hosted by the Heartland Institute of Chicago, which specialises in challenging scientific norms and conventions.

Its president, Joseph Bast, also believes the dangers of smoking are exaggerated as an excuse to tax tobacco.

Anti-smoking advocates "personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places", the institute's website says.

"The public health community's campaign to demonise smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science."

Senator Fielding believes theories he heard at the conference, which linked solar flares to climate change, were plausible and the Government needed to convince him otherwise.

The Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, who is due to have discussions with Senator Fielding this week, will arrange a meeting between the senator and Australian Government scientists if he requires it.

Senator Fielding said: "If the answer is, 'It's just rubbish' … well, I think that's not good enough."

Senator Wong's assistant minister, Greg Combet, told the Herald yesterday "the science is in" regarding the impact of carbon pollution on climate change but "Senator Fielding is entitled to gain as much advice and information as he can".

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Now Greg Combet is an expert on climate change!! We can all claim to be experts now. Interestingly enough an Australian scientist working in Argentina stated on the radio this morning that Adelaide's weather was controlled substantially by solar influences and this could be a better way of predicting weather (temperatures) in Adelaide. He must be reading from a different hymn sheet, the silly boy. His grant could come under scrutiny in the near future.
Posted by John Michelmore, 9/06/2009 9:31:16 AM
Everyone thought the world was flat once and that the sun revolved around the earth also. How wrong they were. Is this debate going to turn out the same?
Posted by J.L. Farmer, 10/06/2009 5:46:14 AM
It appears that the global warming scaremongers don't have a very good argument to support their case. Why else would they feel the need to resort to smear campaigns against anyone and everyone who dares to ask for some, even just a tiny bit, of actual proof that a) we are about to suffer catastrophic global warming and b) that man-made CO2 is the culprit.

Could someone please tell Penny Wong and Greg Combet that the earth has actually been cooling for the last few years, an inconvenient fact which was not predicted by the computer models that Greg Combet says prove the 'science is in'. And does anyone really think that the sun doesn't influence the climate on earth, seriously??!! Penny Wong and Greg Combet are simply towing the government line on global warming. The government needs us to beleive in global warming because Mr Rudd, having got the country into massive debt, is now desperate for a huge increase in government revenue courtesy of his carbon tax. Pure politics.

Cue the floods of abuse from the global warming evangelists.

Posted by Arden, 10/06/2009 8:16:29 AM
A couple of years ago scientists in the USA concluded a massive study that linked lung disease to diesel fumes. Guess what? 10 times worse then cigarette smoke. Nobody denies the fact that inhaling burnt leaves vapours is not exactly very good, it might even contribute to some disease, but to assert that all evils on earth are caused by tobacco smoke, it's a bit far-fetched. Initially Government of all persuasions started to get scared, the thinking at the time was that people would start suing the government for all the pollution that they where inhaling, a bit of truth, lots of spin and "passive smoking" was born!! Guess what you can try and sue, it will not go too far, who has not been exposed to passive smoking??? Food for thought.
Posted by Peter, 10/06/2009 3:07:53 PM
A few years ago we found the hole in the ozone layer and it was supposed that it was caused by greenhouse gases. Now there is no mention of that hole which has apparently closed up. Maybe the architect who designed the world has a relief valve which releases under pressure and looks after itself. I have no doubt we are doing some bad things to the universe but there so many small good things we could do in a simple inexpensive non vote catching way to improve the situation before we bankrupt the food and fibre producers of this great land. Like, renewable energy, decreasing coal production, using alternatives to oil. This would put some holes in some very powerful people's pockets. However these people would develop alternative bussinesses to replace what were doing, just like the food and fibre producers of this country have done for generations to survive and combat nature and achieve efficiencies not matched in any other country in the world. JIm
Posted by Jimim, 10/06/2009 3:23:27 PM
It really is appalling the level of ignorance displayed by so many of the comments on the issue of climate change. Adding to the display of ignorance in some of the comments is the disparagement of the association of the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. This association is as close as the association with asbestos and mesothelioma and is vastly closer than problems with agent orange or microwaves. Overall, the comments suggest a desperate need to improve the ability to make oneself aware of the breadth of knowledge and consider it dispassionately.
Posted by Frank and Alice, 10/06/2009 6:13:24 PM
Even if one was unconvinced by the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to climate change, surely the rapid acidification of our oceans and its disastrous effects would be reason enough to realise that we need to cut our CO2 emmissions. Do some research! And no, I'm not some green lefty from the inner city.
Posted by fridgimus, 11/06/2009 10:37:17 AM
Ocean acidification is a highly deceptive term considering that with a pH of about 8.1, oceans are actually slightly alkaline. A pH of 7 is neutral, anything lower than 7 is acidic and anything higher than 7 is alkaline.

There's simply no way our emissions will even drop the pH down to a neutral 7, let alone into an acidic solution. The 40,000 Gt of Carbon stored in the ocean dwarfs the 750 Gt C in the atmosphere, which in turn dwarfs mankind’s annual 7 Gt contribution.

And given that sea life has thrived for hundreds of millions of years even when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were much higher, the ocean acidification argument is shown to be just another swindle.

Posted by Jeremy Beck, 12/06/2009 2:24:56 PM
>>> surely the rapid acidification of our oceans and its disastrous effects would be reason enough to realise that we need to cut our CO2 emmissions. <<< Because global temps have fallen over the last ten years or so the alarmists have needed to come up with another catastrophy, hence ocean acidification was born. When co2 dissolves in water it creates a weak acid - carbonic acid. To prevent ocean water pH falling below 8.0 the carbonic acid disassociates into calcium carbonate. To prevent ocean water pH rising above 8.3 calcium carbonate disassociates back into carbonic acid. When the sea warms it releases co2 into the atmosphere. When it cools it absorbs co2. The amount of co2 in the oceans is never constant yet the ph of the ocean is always between 8.0 & 8.3.
Posted by observer, 15/06/2009 1:06:16 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
08 June, 2009
04 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Should the Senate reject the federal Government's proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation?

Yes, reject it: the Senate should vote against the legislation passed last week by the House of Representatives.
(62.7%)

No, vote for it: the legislation should be passed by the Senate.
(11.6%)

Postpone it: Senate should wait till after Copenhagen Summit.
(25.7%)

Total Votes: 723
Poll Date: 08 June, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...