Climate Sceptics Party – oh dear!

In a democracy it is important that all parts of society feel they are represented by their elected officials and it seems there is a new political party on the scene. Well, they aren’t really new as they have been around for a few years now, but the demographic they wish to represent is quite obvious when you take a look at what they stand for. For a start, it is imperative that for this party to represent you, you must be stupid. I was going to come up with a long list of human character flaws that would appear to be a requirement but just leaving it at stupid will do.

My normal position would normally be to not pay too much attention to idiots like this for fear of inadvertently promoting them but I don’t think they have much of a chance at securing the 14% they need to get someone into a senate spot. They certainly have no chance of ever securing a lower house seat in any electorate…ever.  The reason, is that they are pretty much clueless about everything they stand for. So let’s take a look at what they are about.

Oh, I should probably mention who they are. They call themselves the Climate Sceptics Party. When you go to their website, the idiocy starts almost immediately with a blurb from their party president,  Bill Koutalianos. He begins

“Dear Fellow Australians,

I welcome you to the Climate Sceptics Party site. We began our party in 2008 when a number of climate sceptic bloggers and thinkers realized, there were no political parties that were standing on the principle of truth in climate science. The apparent politicization of science lead us to form a hard nosed common sense party, in order to drag Australian politics back to practical basics.”

Now, I don’t know about you but a political party formed from climate denier bloggers and “thinkers” is hardly a strong basis for a political party. Climate denial bloggers continually demonstrate a severe lack of intellect and understanding of very basic science. Most of them don’t have an individual thought of their own, merely cutting and pasting garbage from intellectual lightweights like Andrew Bolt, “Lord” Monckton and Anthony Watts. What I really appreciate though is the distinction between “sceptic bloggers” and “thinkers”. I would agree that the two are mutually exclusive. What I find amazing, is the complaint that science has been politicised when they themselves are a political party which is patently based on an anti-science platform. Hypocrisy?

 “We are not merely a one issue party. Our policies are based on true science as opposed to politicized science, we are pro small business, we are for minimal government, and we are against the extreme green religion (a belief that clouds the thinking of the two major parties and many policy areas) .”

Not merely a one issue party? Then why call yourselves the Climate Sceptics Party? This mob are so “one issue” they sit comfortably alongside the former Nuclear Disarmament Party, The Fishing Party, The Sex Party, The Marijuana Party and numerous other fringe elements in terms of their tunnel vision. Their idea of “true science” is scary because according to these clowns, anyone cutting and pasting misrepresented scientific papers can qualify as a true scientist, but more on that later.

“In short, we know there is no scientist in the world that has evidence CO2 will overheat the planet. Six scientific peer reviewed papers show that CO2 cannot cause dangerous global warming. We are not just against the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme but against the need to reduce CO2 emissions in any way that damages our economy. CO2 is plant food and the more there is in the air, the more food we can grow.”

This is my favourite paragraph because it gets to the heart of how scientifically illiterate this lot are. I’ll deal with the last sentence first. The denial meme “CO2 is plant food” is so simplistic it beggars belief. Deniers will quote this or that glasshouse study as evidence for their meme, failing to understand the fundamental rule that you cannot extrapolate a glasshouse experiment to real world situations. In the real world, increased CO2 comes with increased temperature, altered rainfall, changes in nitrification, increased pest and disease susceptibility not to mention changes in the latitudes or elevation at which plants can grow. No, it is much more convenient for these idiots to wilfully ignore these things and just spout the meme knowing that some equally illiterate members of the public will agree. But let’s get back to the “six scientific peer reviewed papers” link. Clicking this link takes you to a Senate Submission where the Climate Sceptics Party repeat a number of denialist memes. I won’t bother listing them here but here is their list of references for their assertions.













































This could potentially be the most impressive list of garbage I’ve ever seen. Blogs, newspaper clippings, opinion pieces, industry websites etc. The only lists of garbage that outstrip this one for garbageness are Popular Technology’s list of 900 and the Oregon petition. If, on the off chance that there are six peer reviewed papers, I will be 100% certain they are being misunderstood or misrepresented in some way as is the usual thing when deniers meet science.

“We reject the Murray Darling Basin Plan because it is based on flawed climate assumptions. Instead, we support bringing a percentage of the freshwater that flows into the sea from Northern Australia, into our Murray Darling basin.”

That’s right, this mob seriously wants to take water out of northern flowing rivers and divert the water into the Murray Darling catchment. I can only wonder if they have considered what the effect of reduced environmental flows would have on those rivers, not to mention any important wetlands downstream? Do they even know what an environmental flow is? Would they have cease to take levels and where would they place them and on what basis would they decide on those levels? Would it be an ecological one or economical one? I think I know, but let’s pretend they got their way, how the hell would they pay for it? There’s no mention of cost or feasibility.

This is only the start of the craziness. I could go on, but I think I might make these guys a pet project and focus on one or two things at a time so consider this a teaser. I will endeavour to engage them and see if they have any actual policies they plan to implement or if their policies are just simple one paragraph statements filled with non-descript rhetoric based on false premises, as it appears on their policy webpage. Watch this space.

Comments Off

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Comments are closed.