Government by hysteria
Sir: In the world where science and politics interact, we see the dismissal of science at the expense of political survival and expediency. Our Chief Scientist Alan Finkel may be well qualified as a neuroscientist, but he knows very little about climate science and sceptical arguments as he enthusiastically endorses an insane push to an economy-sapping 50 per cent or more renewables target. We see delegates at the current COP 23 Climate conference in Bonn restating the discredited notion that “A consensus of 97 per cent of the world’s climate scientists believe that climate change is real”, and ignoring the IPCC’s own data showing that in the US for example there is a downward trend in all extreme events such as cold waves, heat waves, droughts and hurricanes. Now Professor Ridd at JCU (the Australian, 17th November) is being threatened with expulsion because he said some scientists were exaggerating the extent of coral bleaching on our reefs. Ridd’s scepticism has been confirmed by a recent international expedition to the bleached areas which said “It was some of the healthiest reef systems I’ve seen in the last five years of diving”, and “Everywhere we went it was some of the healthiest, most abundant, and colourful coral cover you could hope to see.”
The current rejection of valid science by our political bodies is a dangerous trend reflecting government by hysteria and belief in the supernatural rather than acceptance of objective science conducted by real and independent scientists with no links to massive government funding.
G M Derrick
Sir: They sit in their granny flats, back rooms and at shopping malls (often, as if they were/are invisible)! They lay in their hospital/nursing home beds, or, spend their twilight years in nursing homes/retirement villages – so often feeling forgotten!
They’re ridiculed, sneered and sniggered at by the ‘clever people’ so-called, elites of the MSM, sporting/showbiz, entertainment industries!
They are called “homophobes” (they all, love Mankind; of any kind), “bigots”, “hate mongers”, etc, etc!
They are our “Greatest Generations”: made up of our “Gallant Generation” who, in Australia, through the deprivation, squalor and suffering of Great Depression building; and then went and fought for our “Aussie Eden”: safe haven for peoples of all genders, colours, religions, classes, etc.
Along with our “Gamest Generation”:
Those coming from WWII war-torn Europe with little (or no) English and money; bringing such wonderful gains, for all Australians of all origins; not to mention their, gifting, to Australia their greatest gifts possible: their children!
How the vast majority of these so precious, elderly Australians, grieve at seeing the memories (and value) of their marriages demeaned by the retrograde, and counterfeit, step of same-sex “marriage”! Because those, we should show the most veneration of (and respect to) know, that the love, of two men (or two women) for each other; is not (and never can be) the “equal” of the love, of a woman for a man; nor, the “equal” of the love of a man, for a woman!
Chirnside PK, Vic
The medium is the message
Sir: In his piece about the tech-savvy Labour party, Robert Peston writes: ‘A party’s values and messages matter. But in today’s digital Babel, they are probably less important than how the message is presented and to whom it is communicated’ (‘Corbyn 2.0’, 18 November).
Some of your readers may remember the late Marshall McLuhan who in the 1960s coined the phrase ‘The medium is the message.’ I’ve always thought this to have been prescient for its time and it has become ever more pertinent. It is an enormous downside to the digital age that the means of transmitting data is more important than its content.
Sir: Robert Peston’s piece on elections and social media was sensationally well written and researched. He made one wrong assumption, though: that every ‘follow’ on Twitter is an endorsement of the politician or party’s views. I followed Mr Corbyn on Twitter in the run-up to the 2017 election to receive regular updates on his policies and views, as well as to get out of my social media echo chamber. Of course, the more followers Corbyn has, the greater likelihood that his views are retweeted. But many of his base are there for intrigue and at times irony.
Sir: Toby Young (‘It’s a jungle in there, Stanley’, 18 November) is wrong to warn Stanley Johnson of the ‘complete absence of intelligent conversation’ on the set of I’m a Celebrity. On my sojourn there in 2014, the only other graduate was Tinchy Stryder, a rapper, son of Ghanaian immigrants. He talked me through the social development of modern music; we got to Dizzee Rascal before he was voted out. Michael Buerk, former BBC Africa correspondent, spoke of Robert Mugabe and Nelson Mandela; Vicki Michelle, actress and wicked mimic, gave us ’Allo ’Allo! and other shows. And I had fierce intellectual arguments with a former Playmate of Hugh Hefner.
Nor should Stanley’s age (77) be a barrier. He’ll manage happily without a phone or Facebook; he’ll excel at mind games requiring concentration and a good memory, all refined in pre-internet days. His old-fashioned courtesy will make him a star. As for the food: I didn’t have to eat anything particularly horrible, but was ready with a line, if necessary: ‘This reminds me of my husband’s cooking…’
Edwina Currie Jones
Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire
Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free