One of my students has drawn my attention to a presentation titled “A Cool Look at Global Warming” given by Mr. Philip R. Wood, Managing Director & CEO of Intec Ltd, to the Roseville (Sydney) Rotary Club on 11 February this year.
The content, and even the title, are not particularly original, consisting of purported evidence and arguments against mainstream climate science which have been refuted ad infinitum at LP and elsewhere, and arguments against the Federal Government’s Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and CPRS, the latter being described as a “Multi-billion dollar per annum carbon tax by another name” which “Creates [sic[ massive distortions in our economy, Directly reduces [sic] international competitiveness [and] Produces [sic] grinding bureaucratic intervention to redistribute impact for political expediency”.
What is most interesting about the presentation is its list of “Leading Australian [climate change] Sceptics” which places the following politicians in this camp: “Martin Ferguson, Cory Bernardi, Barnaby Joyce, Michael Costa, Peter Walsh, Ron Boswell”.
In the case of the latter five individuals, their climate change “scepticism” is more or less public knowledge. However, in the case of Marn, whilst many of us lefty-greenie types may have our suspicions and may even have voiced these suspicions, there is basically nothing in the public domain which can be used as evidence against him.
In this light Mr. Wood’s characterisation of Marn’s position is, perhaps, significant. Mr. Wood is the CEO of an Australian company in the resources sector, and so it is not completely improbable that he has been involved in discussions with Marn in his capacity as Federal Resources Minister. If this is the case, it is also possible that Marn has made an unguarded statement, in Mr. Wood’s presence, of his actual views on the science of climate change. In any case, it would be rather strange for the CEO of a resources corporation to be going around publicly characterising the Resources Minister as holding such a controversial and unpopular view on such a topical issue without having some basis in fact for so doing.
It is a matter of public concern that a minister of the crown should hold such unscientific views. I hope this reaches the ears of the ABC, and they challenge him on air about his views on global warming. Being realistic, however, this is not likely to happen as the ABC is somewhat under the sway of the denialists.
If the public cannot get access to Marn to quiz him on his views, then pressure should be placed on Rudd to answer the allegations against one of his ministers.
Mar’n is a skeptic, but he also toes the Government line on climate change policy, so his skepticism isn’t as much of a problem as it could be.
Paul, you might remember a long time ago we both blogged about the online magazine The New City (now defunct as far as I know) put out by the Labor Right. It was pretty clear at the time that Martin F was in the climate change denialism camp.
Excerpt from your 2006 post:
Helen, it might have been inferred from the praise he received from The New City that Marn was a denialist, but at the time it might just have been his general anti-environmentalism and conservatism which earned applause from that quarter. What we have with Philip Wood is a specific public assertion that Marn is a denialist from someone who is quite likely to have discussed the matter with him directly.
Interesting that as I read this post the column advertising is for a documentary called “Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria”. You can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your advertising, apparently
Jeez, the Chatswood Rotary Club meetings must be fun times.
Actually I wouldn’t place much credence in a bloke who categorises Peter Walsh and Michael Costa as politicians, even if he does run a company. So do lots of people who understand nothing about politics. The whole PowerPoint, which I have to concede is remarkably pretty and a credit to his staff, is just a collection of stuff he (or his staff member) has been told by someone else.
Who TF is Cory Bernardi and why does he get a mention?
Ken, Cory Bernardi is a Liberal Senator from South Australia.
Ah I see. Learned everything he knows about climate change from Nick Minchin then.
Ken, “Jeez, the Chatswood Rotary Club meetings must be fun times.”
Don’t know about Chatswood, but having accidentally joined a Rotary Club once, they are so stuffy as to be asphyxiating. It would not be an environment conducive to the examination of anything more recent than the bible.
Intec (ASX code INL) is not exactly a resources star, either, as far as I can see. More like a penny-dreadful. It is worth less than 2 cents per share (can’t go much lower, can it?), doesn’t pay dividends, hasn’t made any money in the last 5 years, is valued at less than book value (P/B < 1), and has negative interest cover (can't pay off interest on its loans).
If you are looking for a way of getting rid of excess savings, Intec would be a wonderful opportunity of doing so. It is no end of amazing how the "executives" of penny-dreadfuls can spin wonderful tales to draw in hopeful investors.
Perhaps their best asset is the ability to spin wonderful tales, especially to the likes of superannuated Rotarians?
Just a bit of shameless plugging – I have a thread (the first of a few) on the science behind the models being used for supporting AGW.
http://www.blogocrats.com/index.php/top-menu-sections/climate-change/129-climate-models-i
This is an attempt by me to get some facts into the discussions about whether AGW is real or not.
Ken Lovell @8, as I tried to write (but got deleted for some reason), that CEO is not exactly speaking from a position of authority on the subject.
“Mr X, Managing Director and CEO of a resources company” makes him sound like someone we should respect. The bloody company is a basket case; a penny-dreadful. It doesn’t make money, it burns money.
Why in the name of all reason would anyone care what this man tells some local Rotary group? Or even debate here whether he exaggerated his list of leading sceptics? We may as well report and debate on what we overhear in the queue at the local Coles?
“Why in the name of all reason would anyone care what this man tells some local Rotary group? Or even debate here whether he exaggerated his list of leading sceptics? We may as well report and debate on what we overhear in the queue at the local Coles?”
Nice one Elise at 10. The best thing i have read recently on the issue is Herve Kempf ( Le Monde) ‘How the Rich Are Destroying The Earth’. Delightfully provocative title but actually soundly based on a revisiting of Thorstein Veblen. The idea being that the oligarchy is wedded to excessive sumptuary consumption in order to maintain sense of superiority and sets damaging example everyone else feels forced to follow.The psychology of denial once you investigate the issue is a lot more complex than you might think. In the medical examples doctors see some patients when told they have fatal cancers go into denial and according to some studies it does have a certain positive survival effect. This is worth knowing when interacting with such types, not every denialist is necessarily a complete idiot. They maybe merely subject to their own compulsions in this area.
Having said that I am reminded that it was the much loathed Margaret Thatcher who was one of the first major western leaders to take a stance on global warming. She was an ex-chemist who did not have difficulty understanding the serious message of the scientific consensus on the issue all those years ago.
The general education level of politician here does leave a lot to be desired. Democracy does not appear to help, except to highlight the difficulty the public has in keeping up with the argument and the soundness of the multiple forms of evidence on the risk of dangerous climate change.
The mass media in Aus is daily and deeply culpable here. But a reading of Kempf also helps by pointing out the media themselves identify with the oligarchy and likewise feel their privilages may be threatened if ideas of growth at all costs are rejected by the public. Economic growth as it has been conducted up to now appears to be suicidal. The rich feel may feel tempted to engulf us all in their grotesque Potlach. Mobilisation will require imaginative alternative means to get the message across.