What I have found interesting is the way this government has 2 standards when it comes to a
ccepting or rejecting scientific data. Prior to this week’s decision to ban the trawler for 2 years the government’s own department had approved the trawler based on scientific evaluation. Prompting Brian Jeffriess from the Commonwealth Fisheries Association to say after the announcement that “the move to block fishing in Australian waters goes against all the current scientific data”.
So let me get this right:
Government Scientists say that the trawler should be allowed to go ahead based on best scientific evidence. Mass protests erupt against the trawler. The Government cancels the project, not based on any scientific evidence but protest groups. The Government says that there needs to be more work done on the science indicating the Government scientists got it wrong.
The Government Scientists say global warming is real based on best scientific evidence. Mass protests erupt against a carbon tax. The Government goes ahead to introduce a carbon tax despite saying it would not introduce one saying the jury is in and there is not more research needed. This is despite contrary scientific evidence from around the world to say that there is no conclusive evidence that humans directly cause global warming. It looks like this government is happy to accept their own science when it best suits them.
The same government rejects the science from its own government scientists that says the trawler is not damaging to the environment saying they got it wrong and accepts local environmental groups claims (not science) that it is damaging and cancels its agreement. The government accepts the global warming science despite credible scientific evidence to the contrary and say their scientists have it right. Why did the government accept one report from its own scientists and reject the other? I wonder if the government could make as much money off the trawler as they will off a new tax if they would make the same decision?
So let me get this right:
Government Scientists say that the trawler should be allowed to go ahead based on best scientific evidence. Mass protests erupt against the trawler. The Government cancels the project, not based on any scientific evidence but protest groups. The Government says that there needs to be more work done on the science indicating the Government scientists got it wrong.
The Government Scientists say global warming is real based on best scientific evidence. Mass protests erupt against a carbon tax. The Government goes ahead to introduce a carbon tax despite saying it would not introduce one saying the jury is in and there is not more research needed. This is despite contrary scientific evidence from around the world to say that there is no conclusive evidence that humans directly cause global warming. It looks like this government is happy to accept their own science when it best suits them.
The same government rejects the science from its own government scientists that says the trawler is not damaging to the environment saying they got it wrong and accepts local environmental groups claims (not science) that it is damaging and cancels its agreement. The government accepts the global warming science despite credible scientific evidence to the contrary and say their scientists have it right. Why did the government accept one report from its own scientists and reject the other? I wonder if the government could make as much money off the trawler as they will off a new tax if they would make the same decision?
No comments:
Post a Comment