Now Australia is not the first and not the only country to dabble with carbon tax, but it’s citizens are probably more vocal than most other countries in either their support or opposition of this tax. This strong sentiment seems to be reflected in the larger political parties too (kind of a chicken and egg situation). The one introduces a carbon tax, the next one abolishes the tax and makes some dubious claims about the science of climate change. Who to believe? If only we had some way of finding truth, of discovering reality. Oh, wait… science claims to do that!?
Now I have to say firstly that science is not a dogmatic religious order that imposes new findings on the citizens of earth. Rather, science is a method. It is a method of discovery and inquiry. This obviously means that scientists can be wrong, and they often are. There are lists and lists of things scientists got wrong, just Google it. We all understand the importance of finding out new things by using science. It is the method that took us out of the dark middle ages and into the enlightenment. We cannot deny it’s power.
Unfortunately there seems to be a distinct lack of understanding as to the mechanisms of inquiry which have brought us thus far, even among educated people who should know better – like politicians. Just recently Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott accused the senior UN official of “talking through her hat”, claiming bushfires were not the consequence of climate change, just a fact of Australian life. Hot on his heels was his environment minister Mr Hunt. Mr Hunt said he’d spoken to Ms Figueres and she’d indicated “very clearly and strongly” that there wasn’t evidence the fires ravaging parts of NSW were caused by climate change. “She felt that that had been misrepresented,” Mr Hunt told BBC radio. The environment minister said he “looked up what Wikipedia” says about bushfires and it was clear they were frequent events that had occurred during hotter months in Australia since before European settlement.
Wow, Wikipedia you beast. You have overtaken the scientific method as our modern day source of investigation and inquiry. You provide us with peer reviewed research on which we can rely. We can even make laws and base policy decision on Wikipedia information. Why did we not think of this earlier? It is so much easier for politicians to form an argument based on a platform of information that can be edited and changed by anyone. Who wants to go through all the hassle of finding the truth? Nope not this neoconservative bunch of dimwits. (Nothing against Wikipedia – best place for a quick reference, just not the source of the information)