What: A panel discussion on communicating climate change, in association with the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute
When: 6pm for 6.15pm, Monday 1 November 2010
Where: Abel Smith Lecture Theatre (Building 23), University of Queensland, St Lucia. (Located at the top of Campbell Rd. Click here for a map.)
Cost: Free event, for Brisbane Institute subscribers and partners only. Registrations essential by Wednesday, 27 October. To register, please click here. To subscribe to The Brisbane Institute, please click here.
Climate change has been variously described as everything from “the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation” to “a monumental scam”. While the scientific evidence of changes in the earth’s climate appears overwhelming, the political, economic and social responses to these changes are confused and confusing, and media reporting rarely helps. How do those of us who are neither scientists nor lobbyists know what to believe? Should we be worried? And if so, of what? How do we choose what to do about it, as individuals, families, communities and businesses?
ABC Lateline reporter Margot O’Neill has been researching the challenges of communicating about climate change. In this absorbing and provocative panel discussion, she is joined by Global Change Institute director Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Ernst and Young sustainable business expert Vanessa Sullivan and other panelists as we explore the issues of talking about climate change… and doing something about it.
Proudly presented in conjunction with University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute.
While this meeting sounds interesting, the list of speakers seems seriously skewed. All are from the one camp. Don’t you need someone like Bob Carter or Garth Paltridge? The science is not settled as writers like Carter, Plimer, Paltridge and Nigel Lawson have so eloquently pointed out. An ABC representative is questionable as the ABC (of which I was once a senior Committee Chairman) is totally unreliable and politically motivated on this subject. Is it too late to make this a real debate rather than discussion of an orthodoxy surrounded by fear-mongering and censorship. Surely the Institute does not want to be seen as an alarmist organisation?
Don Munro
While the evidence that the climate is changing is overwhelming, the evidence that human activity is causing it is extremely thin. Enough already. This scam has run its race.
You are foolish to think that its only a communications problem. The science is flawed and the piublic is smarter than you think. They smell the fruad for what it is.
Don, thanks for your comments. You’d be aware the Institute held a debate about the science at the beginning of this year, and we don’t think it’s necessary to replicate that event. This forum is not about the science. It has a very different focus; it’s specifically excluding the extreme messages – the fear-mongering and censorship, as you put it – from both sides of the climate change issue which cause confusion and alarm in our community, and looking very practically at what people can do to benefit themselves. I do hope you take the opportunity to subscribe to the Institute so you can come along and share your views.
Cameron, thanks also for your comments, which I have edited to remove the personal attacks. Whether or not human activity is causing climate change, there’s strong interest from our subscribers on how responses to the changing climate can be managed – from an individual, community and business perspective – and how potential opportunities for economic, social and environmental improvements might be achieved.
Joseph, we don’t believe for one minute that communication is the only issue in the climate change debate. We do believe there is a place in our society for forums where people can listen – and speak – about current issues without fear of being attacked for what they understand or believe.
Regardless of the science, put the fear of fear-mongering aside and answer this: who can honestly say they are living a sustainable lifestyle?
If no one can put up their hand and say yes, it means two things: 1) our lifestyles depend on others going without; 2) our lifestyles depend on future generations going without.
Climate change is a symptom of unsustainable living. If the end goal is to live sustainably, to ensure there is enough resources for others and future generations, then anything that encourages individual agency to reach this goal is surely useful.
I believe that the Brisbane Institute has been more than balanced in providing space for man-made climate change sceptics; Jay Lehr, Lord Monkton and others have spoken recently at Brisbane Institute events.
So Don
If you are ever diagnosed with a life threatening disease will you go doctor shopping until you get the advice you are seeking, from 1% of Dr’s, that you are not ill and have nothing to worry about, or will you seek therapy.