Australia rejects carbon trading according to a report in OneNewsNow, 18 Aug 2009. The Australian Senate has rejected proposed legislation that would have set up a cap and trade scheme for carbon emissions. Pete Chagnon of OneNewsNow writes that Marc Morano of claims the bill “was defeated due to an outpouring of scientific facts refuting the link between man-made carbon emissions and climate change.” He then quotes Morano as making the following claim: “So the Australian public and the Australian leaders were faced with this onslaught of skeptical scientists refuting…the need for this bill,” he explains. “Plus the fact that the bill would have had no impact on the climate and the fact that it would have been very costly to Australia’s economy made this bill go down — and go down rather easily.” Chagnon then adds: “Morano contends the U.S. bill is facing similar skepticism from the scientific community and the public, and that the U.S. Senate needs to learn a lesson from Australia.”

Editorial Comment: The editors of this newsletter live in Australia and have noticed no public “outpouring of scientific facts refuting the link between man-made carbon emissions and climate change”. The reason is a lack of the mainstream media to pour them. The Australian media continues to portray those who question man-made global warming as idiots and not worth listening to. Although some politicians on the conservative side of Australian politics have tried to engage Al Gore and other climate alarmists with scientific facts, the reason the emissions trading legislation was rejected was politics, not science. The reason the Senate rejected the legislation is the left of centre political party that has the majority in the House of Representatives does not have majority in the Senate. Therefore, it must have support from some of the members of other parties to get legislation passed. In this case the more conservative politicians wanted a better deal for business and the environmentalist party wanted even more restrictions of carbon emissions. The rejection of the legislation does give an opportunity to get some scientific facts out, but unless people are prepared to stand up for the truth, politics will again triumph over science when legislation is put to the vote again. (Ref. controversy, journalism)

Evidence News, 2 September 2009