Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The costs would be borne—and make no mistake about this—by every man, woman and child in Australia. It would particularly impact on those who are struggling. That is why I am so concerned about the religious aspect that AGW has taken on, which has carried through to this very committee and this very report.

Stephen Schneider, one of the strongest AGW adherents now and one of the coming-ice-age prophets of the 1970s, has explained exactly how the AGW fraternity is approaching this. He has stated:

To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Therein lies the entire problem with the debate: being unethical in a scientific sense in order to forward an agenda. There is only a double ethical bind with dishonest scientists. An honest scientist would never bend the truth to push an agenda.

See this speech in context