Comments on: Time to clean out the sceptics from the Business Council

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Interesting to note that the word 'sceptic' is used by Mayne here in a derogatory sense whilst in a truly scientific and in an intellectual sense it is viewed as a requisite.

I suppose we should be grateful that he desisted from using the 'denier' sobriquet.

I would certainly hope that leadership in this country not demonstrate gullibility of the rubbish peddled on both sides of the AGW debate.

And much rubbish on this topic has been peddled by Crikey.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Skepticism is a good thing, it makes us question things that should be questioned. Pretending skepticism for commercial reasons is not.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

FYI Marion Wilson, "Global warming", global cooling and "extreme weather incidents have been happening all over the world for at least 10" million years and more. And human beings for 10 million years have believed that they could influence the weather or the gods to influence the said weather also for 10 million years.

Now Rudd, Wong and Garnaut says we can influence the weather for the good of the planet....... Well it must be true because nice Mr. Rudd says " the scientists, the people who know about these things" have told him.
But there are other respected climate scientist who do not agree.

Which climate scientist do you believe or which climate scientist do you want to believe?

By: Julius

Julius — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Stephen: if you are not being, as you too often are, frivolous, you are disqualifyingly ignorant in referring to carbon (sic - the same objection would be open to your saying “carbon dioxide”) as a poison (sic). You quote a journalist Giles Parkinson who is supposed to be a worthy well known figure but whose name is unknown to me, and of course Bernard Keane, none of whom inspire me with confidence that they/you have a clud what you are talking about in relation either to climate change, to global warming and its causes and possible remedies (if any), or to the policy Australia should adopt in its own long term interests (who else’s?). The silly ad hominem attacks ought to give way to some evidence that you have followed the IPCC reporting and the criticisms as thoroughly as Hugh Morgan et al. And surely your economic nouse, such as it is, is up to working out what Australia adding seriously and unilaterally to its business costs is going to do to us all, and, not least, a government which perpetrates it. And that is without considering whether you are one of the fantasists who imagines that what Australia does or says could have the slightest influence on what China and India do, or more than the most marginal and trivial influence on what harm we can avert by what we do. You don’t happen to be one of those who also fantasises about the growth and employment opportunities for Australia from embracing change do you? Why not just increase tariffs on TCF again, subsidise research, and ban imports of cheap clothes and shoes???? Seriously, on this one, you ought to be clobbering those Green innumerates and economic illiterates who abstract us from the real compeitive world where others will be doing the same thing and where we can make profits out of selling technology regardless of the home market.

By: David M

David M — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The qualifications for being on the BCA is the ability to run a big business…..not to hold anti-carbon views.
This will change, but I am confident that these people will be the first to know when it is best to do so…for the benefit of their shareholders and employees. Not because of the outcries of those who think this issue is cost free to them.

By: Steven McKiernan

Steven McKiernan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What was that David M? I didnt hear you first time. The qualification for being in the BCA is expertise in making costs external to the enterprise and therefore improving the bottom line and hefty renumeration for doing so. Business always seeks to minimise its exposure to externalities like environmental degradation, public health and pollution. Its only by Government acting to protect the public interest that externalities are brought back into the operating costs of running an enterprise. Licences to emit pollution, penalties for failure to comply with environmental guidelines and ultimately shutting down polluting practices are what Government SHOULD do. The application of environmental compliance costs should then ensure enterprises become ever efficient. The Esperance Port lead debacle in WA is an outstanding example of why environmental compliance should be rigid and strong, and also shows how BCA stooges run away from their responsibilities.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Which climate ‘scientist’ do I want to ‘believe’ ? Why, the one that isn’t selling indulgences. He’s more likely to be telling the truth, not having a vested interest in making money out of the deal.

By: Marion Wilson

Marion Wilson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ted O’Brien you haven’t been keeping up with your serious reading or else you’ve been listening to Andrew Bolt . Global warming is here, extreme weather incidents have been happening all over the world for at least 10 years. The cost of doing nothing has already been very expensive, plant and animal species are at risk, people have died and property has been damaged in historically extreme weather conditions - floods, ice melts, hailstorms, tornados, droughts, heatwaves and bushfires.

By: Jack Brown

Jack Brown — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hear, hear Mr Mayne. Business is a key element to any concerted effort to solve the climate change puzzle, and we need a this element to be open and optimistic about doing this better and new ways, rather than continuing on the old and broken track. Lets hope that combating climate change can be embraced and an opportunity rather than a burden.

By: David M

David M — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

By: Ted O'Brien

Ted O'Brien — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Global Warming” is rapidly becoming the world’s biggest business. This business is founded on unproven scientific hypothesis, not on scientific fact. This has been justified on the basis that failure to act may bring catastrophe. Note that the claim is may, not will cause catastrophe.

Despite many billions of dollars having been spent over the last decade and a half trying to establish a link between the moderate rise in temperatures that we saw over the last century and the increase in emission of carbon gases into the atmosphere that has occurred no proof has been found that there is in fact a significant link. Without that proof the basis for an emissions trading scheme is increasingly unsound.

Should the hypothesis of global warming prove to be no more than a hypothesis, which is appearing increasingly likely, this world’s biggest business will collapse. The economy as we know it will have been destroyed. An EFT will be bring massive regressiion, this for no gain whatsoever.

Fully half of the devaluation of the Australian dollar that we have seen in recent weeks can be attributed to the announcement that Australia will unilaterally introduce an EFT by 2010. This is just the beginning.

By: David M

David M — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000