Most one- sided debate
AS FACILITATOR of local group Young Conservatives North Queensland, I recently spearheaded an attempt to engage prominent conservatives and environmentalists in a public discussion about the economy and the environment.
The format was soft debate/ forum, and the premise was simple: “Can we find a balance between the two?”
We aimed to have scientist matched with scientist, politician matched with politician, and two young adults of opposing views.
As young conservatives, our primary objective is to engage and educate. We like to do this through the discussion of all ideas so people are able to make informed judgments after hearing both sides.
We had a date set, a venue hired and a solid conservative line- up of Professor Peter Ridd, MP George Christensen and a Young Conservatives member.
Only problem was, no environmentalist wanted to debate us. We tried to secure the best speakers we could for the event so it was balanced.
We spoke to JCU hierarchy, CSIRO, the Greens, NQCC and GBRMPA to name a few.
Two lovely girls from among these organisations were excited about what we were doing and tried desperately to help us find speakers. They found a couple of students, but no scientist or no politician would attend to speak.
We were dismissed, denied, brushed off or handballed.
For four weeks we tried every avenue, eventually conceding defeat and having to cancel our event which had already generated a lot of interest, particularly among young people.
The big question is why? It is not the first time this has happened: think Al Gore and Christopher Monckton, Malcolm Roberts and Dr Karl.
On the home front, Dr Ridd is not surprised and informs us this is a common thing – the late Dr Bob Carter encountered this difficulty on many an occasion.
Climatescience. org. au claims that many climate scientists now refuse to take part in public forums debating climate change because “it is impossible to do justice to the science”.
Well, I don’t think that quite washes with many people.
So many millions of taxpayer money is being thrown at environmental science ( much of which is theorised and peerreviewed as opposed to actually scientifically tested).
Nearly $ 450 million was just given to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation as a spontaneous “captain’s call” by the former Prime Minister.
Problem is, many people question whether all of the money being poured into this environmental discussion is going to a cause that is credible and legitimate.
An issue which, if overplayed will be detrimental to the economy, and worse, damage people’s livelihood.
That is what we were trying to find out by having a fair and balanced discussion from experts. Maybe another day.
Meanwhile, they better find a way to “do justice to the science” because they need to find a way to communicate this obsession to your everyday worker funding this cause.
KATE HORAN, Senate Candidate Australian
Conservatives.