Intellectual access
to the anthropogenic climate change discussion is governed by how the matter is
framed.
 |
| Attorney General George Brandis. |
Frame it one way your opinion is subsequently shaped, frame
it another way and your opinion shifts accordingly.
Judith Brett illustrates this dilemma perfectly in her piece
in The Monthly headed: “Must we choose between climate-change action and freedom of speech?”
She discusses the ABC Radio National interview with former
Australian of the Year, Fiona Stanley, and that in the public affairs magazine,
Spiked, with Australia’s attorney general, George Brandis.
Ms Stanley has described herself as “anxious and angry” because
the politicized climate-change conversation had led to the denigration of
climate science and scientists.
She has criticized by Labor and Coalition governments for their
inaction on what the science unequivocally says will happen and within what
will happen to her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
George Brandis cites two recent examples that had convinced
him of the “mortal threat freedom of speech faces in the modern era”.
One was the racial vilification case brought against the
conservative commentator Andrew Bolt, and the other was the climate-change
debate.
Thoughtful writing by Judith Brett, who can also provide copies
of the Monster Climate Petition and can be contacted at judymbrett@gmail.com
The website for the Monster Climate Petition will go live on
August 8 at monsterclimatepetition.com.au.
No comments:
Post a Comment