Today The Punch celebrates the ground-breaking policy work being undertaken by visionaries within the Coalition party room in an effort to address global warming.

Fun in Acapulco: less so, however, with global warming.

With 31 per cent of the population now signing on as climate change deniers these fine Australians are leading a national movement that can make us all feel better in the face of those flighty Nobel Prize winners who insist on preaching Armageddon.

In saving the planet by denying there’s a problem, the likes of Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce are contributing to a global body of work that has cured cancer, ended domestic violence and prevented the Holocaust.

The thing to admire about these deniers is their commitment to the science of denial-ism – the ability to reject scientific evidence as contestable, to dismiss facts as fad and to refuse to look at the long-term consequences of their actions.

Like any great scientists, their work does not occur in a vacuum – in fact, their ability to stare down scientific fact itself draws on a vast body of historical research and finely honed experimentation.
And so, as a tribute to these patriots who will this week launch their audacious attempt to save the planet by trashing the ETS, the Punch unveils its Ten Great Acts of Denial.

1. Cancer-Denial – I love Mad Men and I love the idea that sucking back the lung-busters 24/7 is a sustainable pastime. And if the tobacco lobby had stuck to their guns we could still be filling the ashtrays at work – surely ‘the jury is still out on the science’ …

2. Holocaust-Denial – the posting of Hitler videos on You Tube as a political stunt, followed by a steadfast refusal to admit that you are the registered account user.

3. Moon Landing Denial  – belief that moon landing was actually filmed in a TV studio; if proven true would slash billions off the NASA space budget with funds diverted to the alleviation of poverty in the Third World.

4. DV-Denial – A favourite of sporting WAGs the world over – “I really did walk into a broom then slipped down the stairs and landed on a broken beer glass.”

5. Google-Denial – The belief that closing off access to the world’s largest search engine will increase traffic to your website.

6. Economists – Strange sect that believes that massive executive packages promote excellence and allow funds to ‘trickle down’ through the economy to serve the greater good.

7. AFL-Denial – Breed of ex-League international who refuse to accept that aerial ping pong is any threat to their great game, even as they outspend you by a factor of six..

8. Howard-Denial – A decade-long affliction suffered by the Left who refused to recognise that Australians could ever form a spiritual bond with a bloke whose idea of fun was to go for a walk in a green and gold tracksuit.

9. Elvis-Denial – The King is still alive, performing in a trio with Michael Jackson and Mark Latham.

10. Denial-Denial – Those who refuse to accept that their denial is, itself, a cry for help, for love, for acceptance. Also known as the people who respond to my posts on The Punch ... over to you.

- Wikipedia definition: Denial is a defence mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Most commented

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • delperro says:

      05:22am | 24/11/09

      But who could deny google?

    • WHR says:

      05:51am | 24/11/09

      Denying that the climate is changing is silly. The climate has changed for 4.5 billion years and it will continue to do so for at least another 4 billion years or so.

      The only legitimate argument that can be made is with the correlation and causation of anthropogenic emissions on the increase in global temperatures observed since the late 19th century.

    • Old Clive says:

      06:36am | 24/11/09

      If you are saying that people who disagree with this farce called, ETS or Global warming are nutcrackers, you are worse than the people you are putting down,polution has been causing problems since the cavemen discovered that they could make fire by rubbing two sticks together, the rise of the petrol driven car over the Stanley Steamer, the invention of the aeroplane, to say that cows cause more polution than the motor cars is just plain stupid, just like the carbon trading scheme. When the now major poluters of the world get fair dinkum about reducing their polution and the growing industralists of the world like India, China, Indonesia start planning to reduce their polution, we with our paltry 22 million population might stand a chance with our .001% reduction contribution.

    • DigiDave says:

      06:50am | 24/11/09

      The only ones in denial, are those that ignore a significant number of scientists whose work concludes that man has not been the biggest contributer to climate change.

      Why call skeptics who look at ALL the scientific evidence, and realise we simply don’t know the truth yet, denialists ?  The true denialists are those with blinkers on who only acknowledge the scientists they agree with.

      And as to the “well, if we do something now and it turns out to be a furphy, what harm has there been ?” question, tell that to the billions in poverty who see fashionable westerners pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into what “may” be a problem, while they are their children starve to death.  You worry about your grandchildren ?  Who is worrying about the starving children and those in poverty now ?  This is the legacy we have started to create now.

    • DigiDave says:

      06:55am | 24/11/09

      By the way, it’s interesting that 31% of the population are now skeptical that man has caused climate change, yet 95% of “The Punch” blogs have been from those who deny the work of a large body of scientists that say man is not the biggest cause of climate change.

      I though this was supposed to be a balanced blog ?

    • Paul says:

      06:59am | 24/11/09

      Don’t forget the condition that makes you think Peter Lewis is funny, Humour Denial.

    • Toddzilla says:

      07:06am | 24/11/09

      As the climate change science becomes flakier and is proven to be false (as it has been), so the left hold valiantly to the debris of their false religion. You might call it Gullibility Denial… or science denial.

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:16am | 24/11/09

      Wow, I now see that I have been wrong.

      It’s quite clear that when I add the numbers up in an obscure way and stop the graph at 1960 instead of 2009 that we really all are going to die of AGW…

      Your article was yet another exercise in name-calling, still well done.

    • Eric says:

      07:18am | 24/11/09

      You left out CRU denial—the failure to mention the greatest scientific scandal of the century.

      The emails and documents leaked from one of the world’s premiere global warming institutions apparently reveal collusion to massage data, suppress dissenting voices in science, and to destroy information subject to FOI requests.

      To continue pretending this scandal doesn’t exist is deep, deep denial.

    • David says:

      07:26am | 24/11/09

      Nice line of smear you’ve got going here. As a paid Labor spinner obviously you are an expert in denial. You must be feeling ...ahem… the heat over this issue.

      Still you imagine you are having fun so lets play along -

      Nobel Prize denial - didn’t Henry Kissinger win that? He may have actually deserved it more than Al Gore, the IPCC or Barack Obama.

      Logic denial - “the ability to reject scientific evidence as contestable, to dismiss facts as fad”

      All scientific evidence is contestable in that it can be checked. A theory is just an interpretation of facts so it is doubly contestable. The facts that don’t confirm to a theory are the more interesting ones. To believe something else is not to believe in science but revealed truth.

      Which brings us to:

      Hacker denial - to write an article about climate change and not mention leaked emails show skewing and hiding of unfavourable climate results

      ETS denial - that a complicated expensive but politically motivated system of lobbying deals will do anything to stop climate change, if it exists

      People smuggler denial - that going from three boats a year to over 50 and counting was not a result of Rudd changing the immigration laws

      Reform denial - to pretend are a reformist government but embrace economic special favours such as tariffs on books and cars

      Lots more I am sure.

    • Rowdy says:

      07:48am | 24/11/09

      You’ve had it on your face before…..http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/rudds-poll-troubles-i-love-the-taste-of-egg-in-the-morning-newspoll/

      How would you like your eggs this time?

    • iansand says:

      07:50am | 24/11/09

      I think the glee with which the “sceptics” have seized on emails that, if read in context, are pretty innocuous says quite a lot about where the balance of hysteria lies.

    • mid says:

      08:01am | 24/11/09

      I for one don’t believe in anthropogenic boat people (ABP). I believe it is a construct of the far left or the far right depending on wind speed and direction, and is actually caused by sun spots and other solar activity. The majority of scientists researching this phenomena are pulling the wool over our eyes in an extremist conspiracy in order to extract more funding and send us down the path to their evil new world order in which sunny days in a park will be banned and everyone will be forced to wear bowler hats. Oh and the economy will be hurt somehow.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      08:02am | 24/11/09

      @ iansand, it’s not just the emails, it also includes the source code from their ‘models’ which has been shown to be junk.

    • Joel B1 says:

      08:09am | 24/11/09

      “says quite a lot about where the balance of hysteria lies. ” and the continual name-calling says something too…

    • Justin says:

      08:17am | 24/11/09

      A few more:

      Darwin Denial - oh hang on, that was the peer reviewers denying that one.

      Einstein Denial - no, my mistake, peers again.

      Ulcers caused by bacteria - damn it! Peers in denial again.

      Science is a funny thing, isn’t it?

    • IMHO says:

      08:17am | 24/11/09

      You forgot AGW denial: The world is not warming, but it’s not our fault !!

    • Eric says:

      08:18am | 24/11/09

      Kurisu Sonsaku is right. Read this page, where a programmer describes the incredible mess he found when he tried to reproduce the climate change results:

      http://tinyurl.com/y8obouq

      No wonder the scientists tried so hard to keep their information from the public! The workings behind the facade are really dodgy ... it’s like opening the bonnet of a Mercedes to find the engine is held together with duct tape.

    • Steve says:

      08:23am | 24/11/09

      Peter, we can see from what side of politics you represent, and with all the, its funny so you beleive because majority say its so its correct, funny how that the climate change will see the people suport it, make bucket loads of money off the taxpayers.

      Remember when the majority of the world thought it was flat it wasnt so, scients are wrong, and when agendas are at stack, and when the PM, would never admit he is wrong then yes Tony Abbot is right, climate change is not the case, climates change all the time, and the planet is cooler then it was 10 years agao

    • iansand says:

      08:33am | 24/11/09

      Kurisu Sonsaku - Link?  I read a few of the smoking gun emails, and was distinctly underwhelmed.  Perhaps the bodgy code is better.  Although as some of the emails are over a decade old I hope the junk source code is fresher.

    • Basenjirudi says:

      08:35am | 24/11/09

      It must comfort Peter Lewis and his very ‘labored’ spin article to know that Sir Michael Burton ruled at the Employment Appeal Tribunal UK that an appellant’s green views qualified as a ‘philosophical belief’ under the Religion and Belief Regulations 2003.

      The appellant was made redundant for criticising management for failing cut emissions of CO2

      Thus, anthropogenic global warming believers may now claim their own religion. Perhaps in the near future, an ecumenical strength combination with The Church of Scientology.

      I am inordinately glad that anthropogenic global warming sceptics escaped such judicial recognition.

    • David C says:

      08:39am | 24/11/09

      how about ” the earth is flat” denial? ,
      As a union guy isnt your mandate to protect jobs? You seem to be quite keen to let them go.

    • Angry Punter says:

      08:51am | 24/11/09

      There is no denying that Punch bloggers are a diverse bunch, including a healthy representation of mindless twats and conspiracy theorists who cling to the belief that all the garbage and pollution we spew into the earth’s delicately-balanced, life-supporting atmosphere is completely benign and won’t do us any damage.  I guess some things are just too obvious.

    • Joel B1 says:

      08:54am | 24/11/09

      “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

      Four pathways are possible:

      3. “Oil/Gas”: smooth transition from conventional to unconventional oil and
      gas, tapping the vast occurrences of unconventional fossil fuels, including
      methane clathrates.”

      That’s right, ” vast occurrences of unconventional fossil fuels”.

      In your face Peak Oil!

    • iansand says:

      08:58am | 24/11/09

      Read some of that, Eric.  Reads to me as though someone acknowledges that there is some bad coding and trying to sort it out.  I couldn’t find a date, though.

      Running around like headless chooks is never a convincing strategy.  Nor is cherry picking quotes that distort meanings when taken out of context.

    • Eric says:

      09:05am | 24/11/09

      “Running around like headless chooks is never a convincing strategy.”

      Which is exactly what poor “Harry” was doing as he tried to fix the broken models and dodgy or missing data.

      Better link to same summary here: http://tinyurl.com/y89n7pj

      There is just no way at all that the information coming out of that mess was in any way reliable, but that’s what nuch of the “global warming science” is based on.

      And that’s also part of the context for the emails—the ones about “hiding the decline” and destroying the data rather than allowing the public to see it.

      If scientists don’t clean up this mess, their whole profession will be tarnished.


      Nor is cherry picking quotes that distort meanings when taken out of context.

    • DigiDave says:

      09:12am | 24/11/09

      @Angry Punter 09:51am

      Sorry, but that is completely unhelpful.  CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is required for life.  If this was about “actual” polution, then fine, but it’s not.  In fact, pouring wealth and resources into trying to reduce CO2 output, is actually taking away from research and funds that could be put into reducing real polution.  This is such a waste of money.  Why aren’t we trying to fix things we “know” are a problem, such as the still too high levels of polutant chemicals found in diesel fuel ?

    • CJ says:

      09:13am | 24/11/09

      How about the denial that if we have an ETS we will all be ok? Obviously it will be the end of the world, and it is up to Barnaby and Tuckey to save us all from ourselves. And then there’s the denial that an ETS will create jobs….

      What about the denial that climate change will eventually kill us all? Didn’t the Ice Age already wipe out the dinosaurs? Ahhhhh…we will be next for sure!

    • paul says:

      10:16am | 24/11/09

      Climate change deniers in denial, I think you’re just angry that you’re wrong.

      There’s no point trying to reason with you because you’re using platforms like this to keep jibbering until you have the last word.

      I hope you don’t live near to bushland because you obviously wouldn’t bother to prepare for bigger, more intense fires because those are not happening either, right?

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      10:22am | 24/11/09

      If the alarmists are correct and the science is settled, why do they keep asking for more research money??

    • Picohloh says:

      10:32am | 24/11/09

      DigiDave, would you please enlighten us all by posting a reference to just one of the scientific studies you have read written by the “significant number of scientists whose work concludes that man has not been the biggest contributer to climate change.”

    • adam macleod says:

      10:59am | 24/11/09

      How about this one….“Nothing happened because of Y2K…..therefore nothing will happen with the environment”. 

      Logic and science denial, by a bunch of ignorant fools.  BTW….I’m a scientist and my IQ is 150.  I work in signal processing which means that I extract trend data from noisy systems.  I’d be happy to tell the climate change denialists about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but they’re just not smart enough to get it.

    • Brerfox says:

      11:11am | 24/11/09

      There is only one sure fact about global warming/cooling science and theories— and that is there is so much evidence to “prove” every side of the argument that Nobody Really Knows.  And if you dismiss and denigrate any other views rather than those held by your own side,  then you are a true denialist.

    • Grant says:

      11:21am | 24/11/09

      @ Digidave,

      And others who do not like evidence to base their arguments on.

      You will find that amongst others, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a degree of influence on recent global temperature increases

      No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

      Just saying it is not happening by making anecdotal statements isn’t sufficient as evidence; please provide me with a link to the scientists and organizations you are referring to that state that global warming isn’t occurring please.

      The scientific organisations that do agree that is occurring include, but are not limited to:

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
      International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
      World Meteorological Organization
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
      InterAcademy Council
      International Union for Quaternary Research
      World Federation of Public Health Associations
      World Health Organization

      American Quaternary Association
      American Geophysical Union
      American Meteorological Society
      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Society for Microbiology  
      American Medical Association
      American Public Health Association
      American Institute of Physics
      American Statistical Association
      Geological Society of America
      National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      National Research Council (US)
      U.S. Global Change Research Program
      US National Academy of Sciences:

      European Academy of Sciences and Arts
      European Science Foundation
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union

      Institute of Biology (UK)
      Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
      Polish Academy of Sciences

      Network of African Science Academies
      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

      Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Australian Coral Reef Society
      Australian Medical Association
      Geological Society of Australia
      Royal Society of New Zealand

    • DigiDave says:

      11:44am | 24/11/09

      @Grant 12:21pm

      Thanks for twisting my words.  Yet more evidence that you like many cannot argue reasonably.

      I never said global warming hasn’t occurred.  It has.  But it stopped 10 years ago and so far no one has explained why.

      I never said CO2 doesn’t influence climate.  It does.  But so far ALL scientists have disagreed on by how much.  This is where the debate is.  If CO2 was a linear effect on temperatures, why do we have such long declines and flat periods, while CO2 continues to gradually increase ?

      And to say I have not provided evidence is a lie.

      QUOTE - “No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”

      Correct, but many disagree on the extent of the problem, and whether a little warming is even a bad thing at this stage.

      Here is a link to a journal article produced by cooperation of several scientific institutions:

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/c47m4x8222886n12/

      Which has states,

      QUOTE - “Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.”

      So, do you retract your lie now ?

    • adam macleod says:

      11:58am | 24/11/09

      Alright Digidave.

      Are any of the denialists blogging here smart enough to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it applies on the large and small scale….could they perform a fourier transform on the weather data and extract trend information…..can they explain chaos theory and why scientific interpretations vary…. how about the effects of global dimming…..well???

      Now, I’ve been called everything from a “chardonay socialist” to a member of the “ferral left”.  I’ve been told alternately that I’m a fool, then that I’m part of a global conspiracy to raise taxes, then that I’m part of a conspiracy to create a new world government.  Some people label the green movement “shrill” and then label it a new fanatical religion, conveniently ignoring some axiomatic facts.  Then WE shouted down when we dare to voice our opinions.

    • Macca says:

      12:17pm | 24/11/09

      Football-Denial: Believing that a nation full of Asian and European immigrants will never embrace Football as their national sport

      @DigiDave, Keep up the fight mate. a bit of common sense rather than name calling is rather refreshing. Sick of hearing “you’re wrong because I’m smarter than you and lots of people agree with me” and other things along these lines.

      CPRS is rubbish. Deny that

    • Jon Walter says:

      12:25pm | 24/11/09

      Sceptical about the UN IPCC’s 20 year process of assessing the science of climate change and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers which form the basis of their work? Well try this. A recent US court case (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1) revealed an interesting internal document from the, now defunct, lobby group for the US oil, coal and car industries, known as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). During the 1990’s the GCC funded multi-million dollar campaigns questioning the science of climate change and the need for emissions reductions. The internal document was prepared by the GCC’s scientific advisory committee, led by Leonard S. Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert then at the Mobil Corporation. It stated, in 1995:
      “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” And further:
      “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”

    • iansand says:

      12:28pm | 24/11/09

      The science will never confirm AGW.  There will always be doubt.  Why?  The simple fact that we do not have a spare Earth to act as a control.  In the absence of a controlled experiment there can never be proof to the level of certainty conventionally required for scientific certainty.  That doesn’t mean that there cannot be consensus to a reasonable level of certainty, and debate within the scientific community about the extent of the effect is part of the robust testing process that makes the methodology of science so effective.

      That denialists seize on these doubts and debates is a major reason that I have trouble accepting them.  They are either completely ignorant of the processes of science, or actively misrepresent them.  In either case they should be ignored.

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:57pm | 24/11/09

      “In either case they should be ignored. “

      Well, that’s a very inclusive and socially responsible idea. And for all the “I’m a scientist” chit-chat, many believers seem to have conveniently forgotten that science is based to a very large extent on scepticism, and isn’t based on political/ideological “consensus” at all.

    • David C says:

      01:01pm | 24/11/09

      iansand that may be the case but at what point do you start to question the underlying assumptions of your models if the empirical data does not back them up?
      For example (and this is an honest question) how long would this current stable phase in global temps have to last before the consensus starts to break down?

    • iansand says:

      01:23pm | 24/11/09

      Joel B1 Why should I take any notice of the ignorant or the dishonest.  If you demonstrate by your words that you have NFI, as many denialists do, I feel quite comfortable ignoring them.  I ignore most conspiracy theorists.

      David C - Dunno.  But unless you believe in the conspiracy theory you can be sure as hell that someone with a super-computer is working on that as we speak.  If you believe the conspiracy theory rationality has left the building.

    • D'oh says:

      01:26pm | 24/11/09

      [face palm]

      11. CRU hack denial

      EPIC FAIL Peter Lewis

      Not sure whether to take you seriosly though (it sounds like you are taking the piss)

    • Joel B1 says:

      01:33pm | 24/11/09

      iansand, does my Honours degree (first class) in Science make any difference?

    • iansand says:

      01:38pm | 24/11/09

      Joel B1 - I know very few actual scientists who claim to have a degree in “Science”, honours or otherwise, so no.

    • Grant says:

      02:11pm | 24/11/09

      @ DigiDave 12:44pm

      I never twisted words; I made statements based on accurate information freely available to the public from peer reviewed, various and recognised sources my argument is then by definition reasonable.

      I am not sure what you are trying to claim, you have essentially agreed with me by no remaining scientific body of national or international standing rejects the human influence on climate change.

      I noticed that you have only quoted from the abstract of the journal article you linked from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California.

      Further reading of the journal article states that they purposely ignored data between the atmosphere and the ocean, which were intentionally neglected in the article with the focus on the atmospheric temperature.

      The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is the leading body for the assessment of climate change states:

      Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

      So basically what we have is:  All of the national and internationally standing scientific organisations agree that climate change is occurring and that no other organisation can demonstrate that it isn’t.

    • Dan says:

      02:20pm | 24/11/09

      Eric, are you a scientist? Are you an expert in climate change? No, I thought not. If you, and your fellow ‘experts’ want to believe that man-caused climate change is a conspiracy, then you are only revealing yourself to be a denier of epic proportions.

    • Joel B1 says:

      02:29pm | 24/11/09

      iansand, funny, what are those letters after my name, you know the “BSc(Hon)”?

      would that be Bachelor of Science?

    • DigiDave says:

      02:43pm | 24/11/09

      @Grant

      QUOTE - “I am not sure what you are trying to claim, you have essentially agreed with me by no remaining scientific body of national or international standing rejects the human influence on climate change.”

      Correct, but my point is that no one knows for sure how much that influence is, and whether or not it’s even a bad thing, for certain.  If further research over the next 10 years shows that even going to 550ppm CO2 wont heat the planet beyond 1 degrees above what we consider average, and that natural compensators will limit the CO2 held in the atmosphere and the extent of climate change, why panic now ?  We need more research, performed with more professionalism, and not knee jerk reactions.  And we need to solve other world problems as a priority first, such as poverty and poor agricultural techniques in 3rd world countries, rather than diverting funds to schemes that may or may not make any difference to anyone.

      QUOTE - “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

      This is exactly the sort of statement that is in question.  Most scientists may say they would align with that conclusion, but there are far too many who disagree and have written peer-reviewed articles that question this, and give other sound reasons for the biggest cause of 20th C warming, that I will for now remain a skeptic about how much is man’s influence, and don’t want hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at reducing CO2.

    • iansand says:

      02:46pm | 24/11/09

      Joel B1 Most people buy a Doctorate online.  How cheap were you? 

      My point remains - I have honestly never met a scientist who claims to have a degree in science.  The most generic version I hear is “a degree in physics” or biology, or chemistry.

    • Tim says:

      02:47pm | 24/11/09

      Joel,
      unless your science degree is in a field related to climate, then no it means very little.

    • pc says:

      03:11pm | 24/11/09

      Hi peter. Hi punchmates. Does Greg know how to party or what?

      I know theres a lot of excitement about the fate of malcolm turnbull, and like, thats important because….?

      Not hot.

      I think there are lot of people that are “I wanna parti” denialists. You know them. They never go dancing. You ask them ‘do you want to just go to a party’ (of people they dont know) and they say “I couldnt possibly.” You ask them if they want go for a drink. And they say “no I might get a hangover.” Aphrodite forbid they have a good time.

      And of course no knows how not to party like the vogons know how not to party.  Attacking the parti animals or attacking the science is like attacking reality. REALITY isnt a left wng conspiracy, or a hoax or one of an increasingly innacurately named trilogy of books by douglas adams. Its just,.. You know,,, REALITY. Because the REALITY can no longer be hidden nor ignored the vogons have had to wage war on it. I often hear “cant we just put our fixed positions aside?”,“cant we have a meaningful debate?” If you are asking those questions you havent been paying attention since the last election. How do you negotiate with someone who refuses to make peace with reality?

      I dont have many answers but Margot Oneil at abc, Shaun Carney at the SMH National TImes and Bernard Keane and others at crikey have been covering the debate beyond the science and frauds (though they do discuss these as well.) We need to keep the debate focussed on doing more not constantly fighting a rearguard action against vogons that cant admit they are wrong.

    • Eric says:

      03:28pm | 24/11/09

      Dan, I have never claimed to be a scientist. But I have read the emails and program comments from the CRU leak - and it doesn’t need a scientist to see the fraud there.

      Are you a scientist? A specialist in climate science? If not, then by your own standards you should shut up.

      And even if you are a climate science specialist—the leaked emails and data show that such people cannot be trusted.

      Let’s have some open debate on this issue, with data and interpretations available to everyone. What have you got to hide?

    • Bruce says:

      03:48pm | 24/11/09

      Deny that climate change does not exist, only means some people have not had a basic education. Climate change has been happening since the earth began. Where is the arguement ?? But if Denial mean that you are not allowed to ask a question or to accept blindly what is presented to you. ITS A HUMAN RIGHT, ITS FREE SPEACH. ITS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS and I will continue to ask questions, particularly if politicians are involved. They are the last people on earth to believe. Once most of the dumb people on earth understand what climate change really is, by its own existence it will actually mean that even more questions are going to be raised and needed to be answered forever into the future.

    • Sam says:

      04:00pm | 24/11/09

      For me, it’s not that I think nothing is happening to our environment, or that we’re not at least partly influencing it… it’s simply “I don’t care”. The Environment is a rich man’s problem. When the rich man guarantees me and my children and my grand children a reasonable life, then I’ll quite happily stop polluting his world. Until then, I’m gonna fart extra till he understands that he made the biggest mistake of his life when he started thinking of himself as an “individual”. I mean seriously, why would I help a competitor when there isn’t any help coming back the other way. The environment is my last priority, just like I am the rich man’s last priority. Suits me, two can play that game.

    • pc says:

      04:29pm | 24/11/09

      Digidave and eric and bruce all insist they are right. They say “It doesnt matter what you say, you arent a scientist and even if you are there are some other scientists that I cant tell you about because there is a conspiracy and I have the emails to prove it.”

      Who is being denied free speech? The vogons? Paris Hilton? The last chick on my super sweet sixteen? Who can get the super sweet sixteen to smarten up and fly straight?  I dont know?  (Not politicians, not scientists, not public servants.) And not the people that want MORE action on climate change. If Malcolm Turnbull and Macca cant soothe these tantrums what chance does anyone else have? We dont go to those kinds of parties.

    • Dan says:

      01:49am | 25/11/09

      Eric, so if I’m not a scientist, I should shut up, and if I am one, I can’t be trusted. Right. Yet again you show yourself to be oh so logical. You can believe that it’s a fraud, it’s a coverup, but if you do, you probably also believe that Elvis is still alive!

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:29am | 25/11/09

      The interesting thing is this, with the cancer denial the deniers eventually disappeared / died. With the AGW denial the sceptics are growing and growing. More and more people are taking an interest. They are asking questions and in the process acquiring an understanding of what is being proposed.

      The discrediting 1079 emails and 72 documents that were hacked from CRU recently give an insight into the whole AGW debacle. There is certainly a significant amount of smoke and a piscatorial stench that emanates from these documents and their authors.

      I can’t wait for Mr Gore to accept the “I’ll debate the AGW issue anywhere anytime” challenge issued by Lord Monckton. If Mr Gore was genuine and really believed in AGW then he should have taken up the challenge the instant it was issued. You would have thought that as a politician Mr Gore would have jumped at the opportunity, unfortunately, two and a half years down the track – nothing – zip – zilch.  Every day that passes, Mr Gore is discredited and his credibility is in tatters together with his “cause”.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Lucy Kippist

A story that's close to my heart - can living overseas change your life for the better? With thanks, @Alisa_reduxhttp://t.co/n6tksJstqs

Malcolm Farr

@Kittu64 That's true. Pretty sure I referred to "high salaried" women.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter