Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Rebecca Huntley, a prominent Aussie academic, is concerned voters choose politicians with inadequate climate policies. Her solution is for people who dismiss the urgency of the alleged climate crisis to be driven from positions of power, and prevented from making donations to political parties.
Climate change splits the public into six groups. Understanding them is key to future action
ABC Radio National By Rebecca Huntley for Big Ideas
Updated Wed at 10:14am
In Australia there is now widespread public acceptance of the reality of climate change; we seem to see its effects almost hourly.
But the electorate still votes for political parties with environment policies that I would call recalcitrant, and with significant groups of climate deniers in their ranks.
…
We need to increase the Alarmed cohort, absolutely no doubt.
But we also need to develop and hone their skills of talking to others not of the same mindset.
And we need to provide social and emotional support as many of them — many of us — struggle with feelings of grief, dread and burning anger about what’s happening to the planet and the response of many of our political leaders.
We need to shift more of the Concerned group into the Alarmed group.
We need to find a way to convince the Cautious that urgent action is necessary.
This, very difficultly, often requires language that isn’t fraught with tones of crisis. More on this in a moment.
We need to engage the Disengaged — probably the hardest task of all, because it requires us to rebuild their faith that our democratic institutions are capable and willing to do something about it.
And finally — in my opinion, and I say this with no trepidation whatsoever — we need to drive the Dismissive group out of positions of power in our government, stop the flow of their donations into our political parties, and find smarter ways to engage with them in the media, including social media.
…
This will then expose those who dismiss both the science and the solutions, the denialists — who are today a minority, albeit a powerful one — as what they are: out of step with the rest of us, determined to put our collective wellbeing and our way of life at risk.
We must not let their voices be the loudest in the public arena.
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-29/climate-change-global-warming-six-groups-rebecca-huntley/11893384
Rebecca is advocating that a group she doesn’t like, “climate dismissives”, be excluded from full participation in the democratic process, by “stopping the flow of their donations to political parties”, and by “driving the dismissive group out” of power. Her justification for these extreme views is the alleged urgency of the climate crisis.
There is a name for this brand of political ideology, and it isn’t a nice one.
Rebecca Huntley (born 1972) is an Australian social researcher and expert on social trends. She is an author and researcher with degrees in law, a first class degree in film studies and a PhD in Gender Studies. She has been a regular columnist for Business Weekly Review, a feature writer for Vogue and a radio presenter for ABC’s RN. She regularly features on radio and TV.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why is it that the alarmists (almost always also leftists) are always demanding that we skeptics be ostracized, disenfranchised, banned, or worse? We would never even think to do such things to them.
It’s precisely because they are leftists. Leftists view those who oppose them not as wrong, but as evil, and evil must be destroyed.
The essence of Marxism/Communism is not the community benefit rather it is the aggregation of power to the ‘elite’, the party members and particularly those elected to positions of power in the party and the compliant administration. It is assumed that from such an arrangement community benefit will automatically follow or should I say automatonically accordingto the programming.
Re the person in question, “She is an author and researcher with degrees in law, a first class degree in film studies and a PhD in Gender Studies”. Hmm, clearly an ‘expert’ in climate science then by official edict./sarc. What an arrogant, fascist imbecile.
Wow, just another humpty dumpty PhD. Lenin would classify this imbecile as a useful idiot.
You are so very right… The gentlemen who keep talking about «leftists» are just showing their abysmal ignorance of Ideology, Political History and «what have you»… Rather than stick to Science and empirical evidence of Climate variations, they seem to need some kind of a «boogyman» of sorts.
Paying attention to facts, is now ignoring science?
Have you ever heard of Communist China and the hundreds of millions of poor people that were «raised from poverty» over a period of 3 decades?…
Nobody was lifted out of poverty until China started adopting capitalism.
Communism pushes people into poverty, it doesn’t lift them out of it.
Maybe this is a joke. If it is, it’s not funny. Back to history class, dumbass!
““She is an author and researcher with degrees in law, a first class degree in film studies”…
Are there first, second and third class degrees in “film studies”?
lol
Brown shirt fascists are the enforcement cadre of the green socialist elite.
“We know what is good for you and we will punish you until you agree! Because We Are Saving The Planet.”
It’s the fascist in them.
I suspect it may be because they know, deep down, that there is no objective case for alarmism. They can’t beat us skeptics by rational argument, so they want to silence us.
We should start. Why do we tolerate those in denial of the data facts to teach children their failed doctrine?
“Aussie Academic: “we need to drive the [Climate] Dismissive group out of positions of power”
Or come up with the answers to their questions maybe.
To ask a question – any question – automatically makes you a DEN1AL1ST.
(pro tip – don’t hang around waiting for a considered answer)
Exactly who does Rebecca Huntley, this “expert in social trends”, think “we” are?? Are we the government? Are we the academics? Are we perhaps society as a whole? (though you cannot pinpoint such beast). Are we the news agencies. Are we the children? (viz. Saint Greta).
Please be specific, Rebecca Huntley.
All too easy to throw an insult or several Rebecca’s way – but I’d hazard a guess that she might well be somebody who identifies as being on the left of the political spectrum and she probably agrees with that other Aussie harpy / scold / harridan Dr Helen Caldicott.
– and they are both well out of their depth
Rebecca in action
“Listen, and understand.
That Climate Catastropharians are ‘out there’.
They can’t be bargained with.
They can’t be reasoned with.
They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear.
And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you acquiesce in silence.”
Kyle Reece, 1984
She’ll be back!
What did Johann Sebastian say to God prior to coming to the Earthly Realm?
I’ll be Bach
They certainly do feel and promote perceived fear and impending doom,
Other than that, you got it
“…an author and researcher with degrees in law, a first class degree in film studies and a PhD in Gender Studies.”
There you have it. No scientific background what so evah!
She likes to produce motion pictures and study masculine and feminine physical and mental attributes (“gender”).
Patrick
A real woman of the people this one…
Went to Sydney Girls High which only takes the cream of the State primary students as part of its selective admission program…a Private School masquerading as a State School…
That crucial Film thesis centred around the… un-banning of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s controversial film Salo….deep and meaningful… and I respect Pasolini for his promotion of young nubile females in European cinema who all just seemed to prefer going around semi naked most of the time….but artistically so of course
…she worked with several federal politicians in the ALP, acting as an active member of the National Committee of EMILY’s List Australia and the ALP’s federal policy committee… Dr Huntley is a committed republican and worked for the YES campaign during the 1999 Australian republic referendum…She is also on the board of The Whitlam Institute
She was a member of the UNSW Arts and Social Sciences Advisory Committee. In 2016 she was appointed as an adjunct senior lecturer at The School of Social Sciences at UNSW….
Maybe its just me but I reckon it be unlikely that snookums is a fully paid up member of the local Conservative Liberal branch…
My bet is, with that law “degree”, she will be able to blame everything on white, middle aged, men (WMM). How DARE we make a better work for everyone (Including WMM).
It’s amazing how the left promote people like this in to positions of influence so very quickly.
I bet Rebecca talks about sex all the time too and not in a good way.
I’ll bet she incorrectly uses the word “gender” instead of the correct word “sex”.
On the plus side, for all her fascist tendencies, at least she’s not a grammar Nazi. so she’s not all bad /sarc
She could be, you don’t know.
This is just the theory of practical politics.
If you want to put your policies into practice, you have to drive the other side out of their seats of power so that you can take them over.
However, this just goes to show you that global warming is all about politics. Science is secondary, if that.
MarkW,
Science departed climate science long ago… circa 1995.
Joel, I assume the year 1995 pertains to the bureaucrats rewriting the IPCC SAR.
But didn’t climate research that promotes the climate change/global warming scare cease to be scientific when the UN founded the IPCC in the late 1980s to support political agendas?
Regards,
Bob
Anyone who isn’t alarmed at the rate of AGW has placed ideology above science. The science is clear, most of it is settled. The unsettled questions include: how will continued exponential CO2 rise affect the rate, for how long will warming continue and how warm will it get before it plateaus? If you think questions like these are in any way political, then you are in for an unpleasant surprise.
The projection is strong with this one.
Yet you’re still using the fossil-fueled infrastructure to post your inane comment. You obviously aren’t alarmed enough.
Loydo, it is YOU who is for “unpleasant surprise”, since your programmed propaganda drivel is boring.
Many People in America flock to the warmer areas of the country when they retire, even in Hurricane, Tornado, Florida. They know something you haven’t figured out yet, it is nice to be warm all year long, no snow and freezing temperatures to worry about…..
Your consensus/authority fallacies makes clear you have nothing intelligent or rational to offer to people who have Science, Engineering degrees, they don’t take gnats like you seriously, since your shallow and often ignorant babble are not worth reading.
Here is a published science paper for you to learn about how warm the Climatic Optimism was:
A new reconstruction (Martin et al., 2020) shows peak mean annual temperatures (14°C) were 7°C warmer than today (7°C, 2009-2017) ~7800 years ago in France. In the last 200 years temperatures have fallen by ~3°C.
LINK
I am supposed to be alarmed at a temperature rise of ~1degC in 180 – 200 years. Could you please prove in science that this 1 degC is anthropomorphic or even what % is down to humans. Will you acknowledge that your scenarios of RCP8.5 has been withdrawn soon to be followed by RCP 6.0. Your alarmist doctrine is being quietly dropped before your very eyes.
drednicolson
The *stupidity* is strong with this one.
Loydo is just brainwashed idiot.
If it is too hot for you, then get out of the kitchen…
Loydo, thanks for the laugh. BTW, I’m laughing at you, not with you.
Regards,
Bob
You have to remember that with people like Loydo, the message isn’t aimed at you, it’s aimed at himself.
Cultists do tend to have to spend a lot of their time shouting their common sense down
There is nothing unusual about the very mild warming over the last 150 years or so.
If the planet continues to warm at this rate, by the end of the century it might reach levels last enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period.
200 years after that, the planet might reach levels last enjoyed during the Roman Warm Period.
If we are fortunate enough for this rate of warming to last for 1000 years, we might be able to get back to the average temperature the planet has enjoyed for the most of the last 10,000 years.
“Loydo January 30, 2020 at 8:45 pm
The unsettled questions include: how will continued exponential…”
I think you need to go look up what that word means and apply it to what we know about CO2 concentrations through actual measurements.
Hi loydo. More word salad from you. CO 2 has little effect on world temperature, possibly none. Is that what you mean by settled?
A rise of 0.1c-0.2c per decade has never been alarming apart to the ignorant.
The only thing settled is the increased behaviour towards fascism from the left wing/alarmist activists supporting climate change.
Global temperatures have hardly warmed during the past 20 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000
There is no scientific evidence that humans have caused just 0.1c-0.2c per decade warming. They maybe at least a minor contribution from environmental change and data corruption. To disregard any change from natural climate is just ignorant and they probably is a minor CO2 contribution.
To prove this, you and nobody else can provide the conclusive scientific evidence that is required and never have.
Science has progressed as the handmaiden of sociopolitical polls of the plausible.
I thought Australia’s so-called “climate change” did not turn out well for the alarmists.
Rebecca Huntley is clearly an ignoramus. Education does NOT, in her case, equate to any semblance of intelligence. Her’s is nothing much more than emotion-laden, spittle-spewing rants.
Don’t hold it in, tell us what you really think.
Heck of a good idea – just don’t allow the other side to speak. That will solve the problem. Until the tables are turned and the other side is in charge and they don’t allow YOU to speak.
Be very careful what you wish for!
From the article: “In Australia there is now widespread public acceptance of the reality of climate change; we seem to see its effects almost hourly.”
This reminds me of the old Red Skelton comedy sketch where the delusional character would imagine birds were dive-bombing his head, and he would duck his head, and he would point with his finger and exclaim, “There goes another one!”
I can’t remember the character’s name off the top of my head 🙂 He saw nonexistent birds, just like the author of this article sees nonexistent human-caused climate change almost hourly. “There’s another one!”
Tom
My Dad was a Red Skelton fan and I recall from long ago a character called Crazy Guggenheim plated by Frank Fontaine that may have appeared on the show or a Skelton version of that ‘Crazy” Guggenheim character.
I think it may have been “Crazy Guggenheim”.
There’s a channel on Dish Network that shows old Red Skelton tv programs.
“There goes a flock of them!”
It was ideas, emotions and urges like those of Rebecca Huntley that enabled the Nazis to rise to power and capture a Nation that in a previous Century had been a bastion of education and rational thought. These people are always with us waiting for the opportunity to erupt and destroy civilisation like a relentless virus.
“… we seem to see its effects almost hourly … knowing what we know about human beings … not that we have much time to spare … we should not assume that as … … the language we need to use to convince people to take action … we need to increase the Alarmed cohort, absolutely no doubt … we also need to develop and hone their skills of talking to others not of the same mindset … we need to provide social and emotional support as many of them … “.
On and on she goes, by my count there are ~50 ‘we’s in the article but at no point does Dr Huntley define who she writes on behalf of.
‘Nosism, from the Latin nos, “we”, is the practice of using the pronoun “we” to refer to oneself when expressing a personal opinion’ (Wiki), it is a favorite tactic of the opinionated self-important ‘pain in the ass’.
listen to the podcast of it if you can bear to
it was played twice yesterdy on abc rn
and didnt do my temper any good on a 45.1c day
stinker again today and now soaking rains;-)) just before the tanks ran dry
and snow forecast for tasmania in a couple of days after 40c down there
try n find an average or normal for that!
“… we seem to see its effects almost hourly … not that we have much time to spare … we should not assume that as climate change becomes worse, these divisions will start to heal … the language we need to use to convince people to take action … we need to increase the alarmed cohort … we also need to develop and hone their skills of talking to others not of the same mindset … we need to provide social and emotional support as many of them …”.
On and on it goes, by my count there are ~50 ‘we’s in the article but at no point does Dr Huntley define who she writes on behalf of.
‘Nosism, from the Latin nos, “we”, is the practice of using the pronoun “we” to refer to oneself when expressing a personal opinion’ (Wiki), it is a favourite tactic of the opinionated self-important ‘pain in the a$$’.
“In Australia there is now widespread public acceptance of the reality of climate change..”
Yeah – that’s why we’ve had two(2) “Climate Change” elections and the alarmists lost both.
Denial alright, just not where you think it is!
Remember now, it was Global Warming, not Climate Change, that is the supposed problem. Let’s not let the Left keep changing the narrative; and the goalposts.
I thought it was global heating now?
Didn’t they try out Global Weirding, last year?
Climate catastrophe seems to be the latest one. I suppose an ice age would be a catastrophe but I’d love a Roman warm period and so would the crops.
They should just say DOOM. Makes it easy on everyone.
She obviously does not realise that there are very few skeptics in positions of power. We need more, not less. Or does she not think that both sides should be heard?
Rebecca writes:
“In Australia there is now widespread public acceptance of the reality of climate change; we seem to see its effects almost hourly.”
Really? And they call ‘our side’ Denialist?
If, dearest Rebecca, this spread is as wide as you claim, then why do you even need to write articles like this. Clearly if your claims are correct then a significant and dominant percentage of Australians would be taking this ‘acceptance of the reality’ and working in lock step and/or snazzy uniforms to ensure Australia has no freedom beyond Climate Freedom.
Except, by both your own argument and the hard proof of the recent ‘Climate Election’ they don’t.
I put it to you, dearest Rebecca, that the public HAVE accepted the reality of climate change and accepted that the reality is it is not the end of the world. The winters are still cold. The summers still hot and the sea level on the beach is the same height as when we were kids. Climate Change is just a thing that happens. Pointless raises to the cost of living however is something to push back against.
Maybe you should go back to editing your own WikiPee pages and leave the rational discussion to people who don’t contradict their own opening statements.
She can see the affects of climate change. Just like Saint Greta can see CO2.
”Except, by both your own argument and the hard proof of the recent ‘Climate Election’ they don’t.”
That’s right Craig, just like the Greens can never muster more than 20% of the electorate.
Maybe she gets her opinions (hard proof) from twitter. After all out of a population of 25 million there is only an estimated 3 million twitterers in Australia. And most of those would be latte sipping urban elites. But that’s wide spread public acceptance right?
Not 20% try 10% there is 5% with one nation and that is the major blocks out side Lib/Nat/Labor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens
The details in the support base tells you probably everything you need to know about why they have hit the wall.
There is huge pressure on state Permiers and the federal PM to take action on climate change, invest more in renewables and finish coal off for good. No sure how any one has manged to show that will stop bushfires, but talk is cheap.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-government-backs-new-renewable-energy-projects-20200130-p53w6u.html
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-government-strikes-major-energy-deal-with-nsw-20200130-p53wak.html
Renewables to the rescue!!!
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/east-coast-heatwave-threatens-national-power-grid-20200130-p53waj.html
I am glad it is Friday.
latest is to add 20% hydrogen to our mains gas supplies
how?
well using all the solar and wind thats stuffing the system around they reckon
they DID admit it takes a lot of energy to make hydrogen at least
and hydrogen fuel cells for cars
chap reckons theyre supersafe
but thats the tanks testing NOT the lines and connectors to the engine
” researcher with degrees in law, a first class degree in film studies and a PhD in Gender Studies”
Well I suppose that qualifies her to be fascist #1 … and demonstrates that she is a red socialist. Maybe Venezuela would be to her liking or maybe it’s too mild for her ?
Yep, and she wouldn’t know science if it rooted her left ear.
Just a muppet with a bit of sociology and an uneducated opinion.
ABC Journo in other words.
“PhD in Gender Studies….” What the **** is that ? Must have taken all of 2 minutes to write the thesis .
Abstract
There are two
Section 1
There are two
Conclusion
There are two
my wife,
her working life,
a wonderful happy midwife
never had an hermafrodiet
2 should be changed to 3 (ignoring trisomy)
“There are two”
There are two sexes. Gender is behavior, so there’s really no limit.
Inside the science-free mind of a climate zealot describing her tipping point: ‘This transformative moment, the moment I tipped from concerned to genuinely alarmed, didn’t happen because I read an ICCP (sic) report or sat through a presentation from a climate scientist about CO2 levels.’
It was kids nicking off school.
“…the reality of climate change; we seem to see its effects almost hourly.”
Amazing how she can ‘see’ the average of 30 years of weather.
Much like Greta can ‘see’ CO2.
So, some education in “Law”, “Gender Studies” and “film studies” and therefore eminently qualified to lecture on the issue of “climate change”. I have no qualifications in any of those disciplines, but I do have an opinion on the subject of “climate change” but my opinion, being what some might term a “denier” she believes is invalid. I certainly believe in climate change, because there is ample evidence of ice ages, warm periods etc. If anyone wants to disagree with my opinion, good on them.
“And what is your argument, ma’am? ”
“If you disagree with me you are to be denied a forum.”
“Touche. ”
Manufacturing doubt should be a crime. There is entirely too much doubt already, and it is toxic. People need certainty. Certainty is a public good, like clean air or safe streets, and those who would impair certainty are inflicting harm on society and, in the case of the climate crisis, are endangering the lives of people today, and exposing future generations to the certainty of extinction.
And especially you, Anthony Watts. Did you steal Greta Thunberg’s childhood? Her hopes and dreams for the future? It was you, wasn’t it? You’d better put those hopes and dreams back, pal. We’ll give you two hours, no questions asked, and then we’re calling the cops.
Lol. Dry. Very dry 🙂
she an abc darling
they already allow NO dissent or question