Science and its Left-wing Bias

Mitchell Goff – Opinion

It’s been a little over a week since the passage of the suite of acts which makes up the Clean Energy Future legislation and the wolves of the Murdoch press are already beginning to circle, desperately hoping that if they smash their collective faces against their keyboards often and hard enough, their fickle, vapid words will make one ounce of difference to the progress our country has made.

Journalists, or perhaps more accurately opinions columnists, from the country’s firebrand Right frequently make fools of themselves by making assertions which they are not qualified to make, backed up by sources that are no more qualified than they, and can be consistently recognised by the dummy-spitting way in which they refuse to accept that other people are not as moronic as they are.

You may be able to tell due to the very restrained and even-handed nature of my prose that I am referring, in this instance, to one of Miranda Devine’s latest gems. Oh Miranda. Miranda, Miranda, Miranda.

What would we do without our Miranda to defend us from the omnimalevolence of government, what would we do without her noble, inadequate attempts to destabilise 400 years of the scientific method, or her ability to always come down on the Right side of ethics?

This time Devine is mad because the ACCC, through powers consigned to it by the Labor Government, are now able to fine businesses who blame price hikes on the carbon price:

“There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”.

Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.

It’s all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken.”

As you can see what Devine has very tactfully done here is link the totalitarian dystopia masterfully portrayed by George Orwell in his political thriller 1984 to the Australian Government’s approach to guaranteeing consumer protection under the ACCC. Oh Miranda! What will you think of next?!

Clearly, this is a fair link to draw given the endless similarities between life in a totalitarian technocracy vs. life in Australia. Of course, in order to maintain the defence which Devine utilises in her defence of the omnibenevolent business community, you genuinely have to believe that any price rise they might justify or every ‘carbon price everything-is-going-to-die’ sale they have, can be genuinely and proportionately attributed to the carbon price. We know from both the tendency of businesses to want to make a profit and drive down expenses (shock horror) combined with their tendency to always blame external factors, that it is a pretty safe assumption to make that price rises, while in part attributable to market forces, cannot be justified.

Read enough of Devine’s musings or the musings of any columnist whose opinions are abhorrently uninformed and you’ll eventually come to believe that this price mechanism is just being introduced for the sake of it. So it perhaps pays to remind ourselves at this point that there is a purpose to this price and the purpose is to mitigate the effects of climate change. ‘Price rises’ and ‘increases in the cost of living’ are happening anyway and they will keep happening ad infinitum. In fact the only way to stop them from happening is by transitioning to renewable, base-load power circa Beyond Zero Emissions. And the only way to economically and seamlessly achieve this is through a combination of pricing, for the market, and direct investment, for research and development. These are the twin pillars on which Australia’s globally acclaimed, Forbes endorsed, CEF legislation is built; designed, of course, with the help of the best Treasurer in the modern world.

There would be some among her number that use the throwaway line ‘I believe in climate change, I just don’t think we should be putting our economy at risk to try and tackle it’. Of course it may be reasonably inferred that if you in fact understood the science behind climate change and understood how much of a time sensitive, economy blind issue it in fact is, you would shudder at the thought of engaging in any such cop outs. In order to maintain the force behind the argument, you must necessarily choose to disbelieve certain irrefutable conclusions reached by 97% of the scientific community about this multidecadal, politically neutral, phenomenon. This is why Devine’s article is laced with toxic, unsubstantiated hearsay about why climate change is wrong this time.

Climate change sceptics are necessarily deniers of established facts. This means we don’t have to listen to them any more than we would seek the advice, as Plato so elegantly put, of the mob when diagnosing illness.

This may have been caused by human activity but it is a problem that is not sentient. It cannot be negotiated, strongarmed, threatened or bought-off; it must be mitigate. The way to do this is not by simply stopping our destructive behaviours, but actually reversing them. This will impose a cost, but, contrary to the claims made by Devine, it is one that is due.

Of course this information is available to Devine, and of course she knows about it, but the folks at News Corporation, specifically the Daily Telegraph, have been at war – as Senator Conroy so aptly put it – with the Labor Government ever since it won office in 2007. Devine doesn’t care that she’s withheld information from you, she doesn’t care that she’s treating you like you have the scientific understanding of a Nationals’ Senator, the only thing she cares about is her dogmatic, blood-oath commitment to the destruction of progressive values and our planet’s future.

And she will attack science, ethics, reason and justice if they stand in her way.