ACM quoted in "The Sunday Age"

Set the agenda

As part of The Sunday Age‘s Climate Agenda (see here for ACM’s question), I was asked to comment on one of the other questions, concerning the issue of “fruitful public debate” on climate change.

You can read the article here.


  1. yes, they need it to be as ‘fruity’ as possible.

  2. I read the linked article, I am so sick of the warmists starting off with “climate change deniers…” It is very hard to undo years of slimey misinformation and no-cost attitude moulding in a gullible public, and this kind of starting comment means you have explain even the basis of the arguments before you can debate at all. Keep up the good work Simon, reality eventually wins over blind belief, even if the believer won’t accept it.

  3. Rob Griffith says:

    What a sad little article that was. The assertion that ALL scientists support Climate Change and Evolution. Sadly we hear nothing from the numerous Scientific reports that disprove MMGW and the impact of CO2, or from the authors of those reports. More of the usual leftist rhetoric tripe we have come to expect from The Age. Bring back the days when Reporters actually researched and investigated the facts.

  4. ACM makes the news again! Good one Simon.

    Interesting quote from ‘the other side of the debate’ Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, “In the US, for example, the more educated you are as a Republican, the more likely you are to disbelieve climate change science. The reverse is true for Democrats and independents.”

    In other words … educated right leaning voters (ie: Liberal/National) are more likely to disbelieve climate change science than uneducated left leaning (ie: Labor/ Green / Independent) voters.

    Hmmm … good ‘mob mentality’ observation by Lewandowsky.

  5. If the media simply displayed all the data then people could make up their own minds. Like the temperature being measured in four different ways which come out different whoever does it as it’s so complicated, but all agree it’s gone up a fraction of what the IPCC guessed in the 90s, ie it’s still so insignificant then the increase of CO2 can’t be dangerous. Those figures are agreed on at least, but falling sea levels and studies showing solar influence rarely make the papers.

  6. “We found that no matter what scientific or proven points or counter-points you presented” … When will these alarmist morons tell us EXACTLY what “proven points” there are that man has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age ?

  7. mike williams says:

    Logical fallacy time.
    ” 22 per cent think witches exist”

    Witches DO exist..I know seveal people that are witches.
    Now whether there beliefs are logical or scientific is a completely different matter.
    This same trick/stupid question was in a psychology questionnaire I was sent last year.
    When I pointed out the absurdity of the question(which was supposedly done to elicit my belief levels of unusual phenomena) I told the student that the question had zero relationship with my belief or disbelief about fringe ideas.
    The person did not get it

  8. It appears that ever since journalism has become a university subject, that the left agenda that prevails at a great number of universities has seduced a great number of journalists that present points of view in the modern media. Gone are the days of doing an cadetship and learning on the job.
    Nope, go to uni and get indoctrinated into the bleeding heart left mentality. Its quite sad.
    This is what we have to fight to be heard on the issue.
    I dont feel that Simons point of view was very well presented, all the writer did was say he was moderate then tried to discredit him by the mentioning the links to “skeptic” site on his blog.

  9. Simon, the Sunday Age tried to bury you in the middle of its throwback narrative, which was attempted by US social sciences academics about this time last year: there is something wrong with you if you don’t “believe” in climate change. Well, we’re not interested in The Establishment’s new religion, just the facts. How about laying out the data that proves CO is the primary driver of global temperature? What, no data/missing data/doctored data …? Sheesh. Climate “science” has become badly acted leftwing street theatre.

  10. The MSM promotion of global warming is an argument from authority never have I seen anything else. Okay I am a skeptic that does mean my my views are fixed and the same as a creationist, believe in uf0s, witches or god. Reasons are the same as for global warming none are falsifiable and all are an argument from authority. I see obfuscation all the time, the phrase climate change certainly, when was it last static? I sit at my desk and on the wall is a graph of science’s best estimate of CO2 and temperature over geologocical time. It does not correlate at all CO2 was as low as today 245 million but at least 6 degrees warmer! I am willing to listen to the why because I am a skeptic but all I get is believe, even from those who falsely call themselves skeptics. Few see “clean energy” as a false god or the futility of Green “Solutions”. It seems we should say “If it works it is not Green”.

    • OOPS
      I mean’t
      Okay I am a skeptic that does NOT mean my my views are fixed and the same as a creationist, believer in uf0s, witches or god.
      I do not believe in dangerous AGW for same reason that I do not believe in the others.

  11. So Graeme Pearman is reported as telling people about Arctic ice loss and its “negatives.. for people living on Pacific atolls”

    Hmm. Is this an example of the “science” presented by warmists, which us idealogues are incapable of grasping?

  12. Richard N says:

    The Age warmist reporter seems frustrated with the existence of skeptics.He is amazed that there are people out there who would question the integrity of the IPPC or the question the logic of Gillard Brown carbon taxing Aussies to the max while se nothing wrong to shipping as much coal as we can to China and India with a 0% carbon tax on ot.Hey warmist it’s called democracy and people are actually allowed to have differing opinios on the AGW theory and not be likened to flat earthers.

  13. well that was a shallow article , nothing short of mud gathering really .
    oh and yes , witches do exist , they may not be the warty old crones on broomsticks but they are out there .

  14. Uhavitbad says:

    Maybe you should define agnostic for them.
    A non; bandwagon jumping, debate deleting, attention seeking, carbon tax consort.

  15. Tony Burns… who works for Micro Multimedia (CEO?)
    Man, u say many things, but the reality is that is very hard to find a CEO from almost any industry who agrees with the theory of Climate Change. I’m not saying that Climate Change is real or not, just saying that if it is (real), u are probably among the last 5% of the worlds population to be affected by it.
    And besides, how many times in history did we have the people on two sides of the fence? Doctors used to recommend cigarettes for coughs, then some scientists said that that was wrong, and it was harming peoples health, but so many other doctors denied completely for years and years saying it was just a way to undermine the “smoking” industry. Now a days Tony Burns, what would you say? Is it bad to smoke?

  16. Paul Ingoldby via Facebook says:

    Jeez Jose were you about to supply proof that man has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age ? (apart from your smoking analogy and distrust of all company CEO’s – especially multimedia production companies) Very scientific argument mate. LOL

%d bloggers like this: