On Jun 5, 11:36 am, "ozonb" wrote:
ROTFLMAO, Tony Jones has his balls in a knot over this!

June 4 2009

Family First Senator Steve Fielding exposes himself to the other side of the global
warming debate, and suddenly isn't so sure any mo


Actually what he exposed was that he was both a moron and an
embarrassment to the country. He also exposed why he got to parliament
on the strength of 0.4% of the primary vote.

"We've all bought this idea that man is the problem with carbon emission and therefore man
has to change what they do with carbon emissions. That's where we're at the moment. But
there are some questions now being asked: is man the problem? And if not, then what are we
doing? "


So what he is saying is that he (since he is a subset of "we" +
"all") "bought this idea" based on no rationale at all. That's
profession of intellectual indolence. Little wonder he's now illing to
buy some other idea. In my volunteer work, I support older people
living in the community. One of my seniors is in the habit of agreeing
with the last person she speaks to. She will agree with any
proposition at all because the only criterion she has is that somebody
said it with a smile. Of course, that means her agreement is utterly
insignificant, because lots of people can smile.

This seems to be nearly where Stephen Fielding is, 'intellectually'.

He travels to Washington so lots of people can smile at him. He
prefers this to books and papers because reading books and papers
hurts his brain and requires reflection. Most important of all they
don't smile at him.

That may be one less vote for Kevin Rudd's plan to force billions of dollars on taxes on
business to cut emissions that may well not be causing the world to warm.


There are rebates proposed but no taxes. It's worth noting that
Turnbull and Robb have endorsed the target and the notion of an ETS.
Indeed, Robb was willing to go to 40% reduction if others did too.

How many others with an open mind would find their convictions shaken if likewise exposed
to a debate on, say, the ABC?

Can one have "convictions" and "an open mind"? Hmmm ...

Anyone with an open mind on this topic simply hasn't paid attention to
the science. The case for AGW (and thus mitigation policy) is
compelling albeit that there remain areas where further clarity is
needed.

would be a very interesting test for the ABC to hold a
three-against-three debate by experts on what it would claim is the greatest issue now
facing humanity.


Personally I'd like this because the deniers would be exposed as the
frauds they are ... again ... to a wide audience.

I'd prefer a format in which perhaps a half dozen key areas of the
science critical to the AGW hypothesis and also to the null hypothesis
were explained and analysed. This would be very useful, IMO. The
deniers should be compelled to come up with an alternate explanation
for the existing data -- that itself would divide them because they
want to present themselves as a unified no, even though the bases on
which they say no are sometimes in conflict.


But we know how reluctant the national broadcaster has been to allow doubt.


"We" know no such thing. Blot thinks reasserting it will make it so.


But, good heavens, is Tony Jones cross with Fielding on Lateline for daring to keep an
open mind.


I saw the interview. Jones wasn't cross. He was trying not to laugh at
the arrant stupidity of Fielding since this would have been contrary
to good journalistic practice.

Fielding and Blot don't have opne minds -- just empty ones. There is a
difference.


Fran