Legacy media horrified by conservative candidate’s climate heresy

Caption: Celia Hammond, a shocking climate heretic.

I reported recently on Celia Hammond, the candidate chosen to replace Julie Bishop in the West Australian seat of Curtin. That post concerned Ms Hammond?s rejection of Third Wave feminist rhetoric. In another blow for common sense, she has rejected the almost religious orthodoxy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Quote:

The Liberal candidate in the prized seat of Curtin, former university boss Celia Hammond, has declared her ?belief that humanity?s contribution to global warming has ?likely been ?very minimal?.

Ms Hammond, who was preselected last week to contest the safe seat, acknowledged that ?climate change was a major concern among voters in Curtin, but said the issue must be addressed in ways that did not harm the economy. End of quote.

Naturally, the legacy media are aghast at such heresy. Quote:

She rejected scientific opinion that the burning of fossil fuels was the main factor behind global warming.

?I believe man has contributed in some way to climate change ? the exact extent is probably very minimal,? she said.

When asked whether her ?belief was backed by scientific ?evidence, she said: ?I don?t believe it goes against the science. There is a lot of science and a lot of contradictory science.

?But I am always open to evidence-based approaches and I?m always happy to actually, if need be, change course, to change ?direction.?

The consensus within the scientific community is that human activity is the primary cause of global warming and that continuing greenhouse gas emissions will increase the severity of climate change. End of quote.

There are a number of problems with the preceding paragraphs. Not least is the insistence on a bogus ?consensus?. There might be a ?consensus? among a small, noisy clique of activists posing as scientists, but in the scientific community, discourse is much more agnostic. Climate scientist Judith Curry testified to the US Congress that ?[Humans do] influence climate to some extent?but I don?t think its a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability?.

There are plenty of dodgy ?surveys? (such as the borderline fraudulent ?97%? claim) of scientific opinion. One of the better ones, by the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, found that only a minority of climate scientists agreed with the so-called ?consensus?. That minority was a large one admittedly, and even then that doesn?t mean that they are therefore right or wrong. But the point is that Hammond?s position is entirely scientifically valid. To insist that ?the science is settled? is not. Quote:

Ms Hammond is widely respected for her success in running the University of Notre Dame for more than a decade and she impressed Liberal preselection delegates, who gave her 62 per cent of the first-preference votes cast.

It emerged before the preselection ballot that Ms Hammond had spoken out against ?militant feminism?, casual sex and contraception. She stood by the comments yesterday.

?The reason I don?t call myself a feminist is that there is within the feminist movement now a very large militant feminist voice which is essentially saying unless you believe X, Y, Z you?re not pro-women,? she said. End of quote.


Hammond?s statement on climate change is perfectly reasonable. You or I may think it right, or wrong, but that doesn?t matter. The point is that it is a belief that is as consistent with the scientific evidence as any other. Hammond is clearly an intelligent person and an excellent candidate who deserves better than these cheap gotcha attempts from a scientifically-ignorant legacy media.