I am Australian.
The Prime Minister of Australia (in June 2015), Tony Abbott, is
single-mindedly opposed to renewable energy and in favour of any
non-renewable energy form, particularly coal, but also oil, gas and nuclear.
He has notoriously said "Coal is good for humanity" and has done his best to
destroy the Australian wind power industry, successfully reducing investment
in wind power by around 85%.
(More on PM Abbott's personal dislike of wind power can be read on
another page on
So, here is a man who has every reason to deny the reality of climate change
(he did once, before becoming PM, say "climate change is crap", but has
accepted climate change science since becoming PM).
It would very much suit his love of coal and hatred of wind power to deny
that the earth's climate is heating up and that the burning of coal and
other fossil fuels is among the main causes of that heating up, but no,
officially at least, he accepts the reality of what the great majority of
climate scientists are telling us.
PM Tony Abbott has a very strong incentive to deny the reality of climate
change, yet he does not.
So, is an argument based on the standing and statements of a Prime Minister
who has every reason to deny the reality of climate change but does not, a
strong argument in favour of that reality?
Or is an argument based on the statements and opinions of a man who is
apparently stupid or corrupt of very little value at all?