Opposition leader tells scientists that political consensus needs to be built and their findings on climate science defended

This article is more than 6 years old

This article is more than 6 years old

The climate change debate has been abandoned to “conspiracy theorists and keyboard warriors, the social media trolls and the angry shouts of talkback radio”, Bill Shorten says, and scientists should feel insulted their peer-reviewed research is being subject to “feelpinions”.

The opposition leader gave a speech to a “Science meets Parliament” event on Monday in which he said the Labor party would not walk away from action on climate change but the debate had suffered because of people using one-off weather events to justify their science.

He said consensus needed to be built on climate change, with scientists defending their findings more vigorously.

“I think the degradation of the climate change debate is the cautionary tale for what happens if we abandon the field to the conspiracy theorists and keyboard warriors, the social media trolls and the angry shouts of talkback radio,” he said.

“On climate change, I think too many scientists – and indeed, politicians – made the mistake of projecting the strong consensus within their academic community onto the population at large. Too many of us took the popular support for action on climate change for granted.”

He said Labor would not bow to the will of a prime minister “who offers cynical nostrums that emissions trading is rendered meaningless because it deals with an ‘invisible, odourless substance’”.

“In this age of self-publishing platforms, it has never been easier for people to broadcast their opinion to the world – regardless of its veracity or foundation,” he said.

“On scientific matters, this means any outspoken blogger can pit their anecdotal ‘evidence’ and ‘commonsense’ reasoning against years of painstaking, peer-reviewed research.

“What’s more, the idea of ‘balanced’ reporting often requires that the ill-informed view from the fringe be presented as a counter to the scientist’s theory.”

Shorten said he was sure it was of immense frustration as well as insulting for scientists to see their work subjected to “feelpinions”.

Shorten cited the National Disability Insurance Scheme as proof that political consensus could be reached on important issues, but scientists needed to be “ready for a fight”.

“A great deal of harm has been done by environmentalists using individual extreme weather events as proof of climate change in and of themselves,” he said.

“An argument that is far too easy for climate-change deniers to rebut by seizing on any unseasonably cold weather. All of which only serves as an unhelpful distraction from the real matter at hand – the future of our planet.”

Shorten said while climate science was a key policy challenge, every facet of policy-making could benefit from a new engagement with science.

“We need new ideas in health – driven by human genomics,” he said.

“New ideas in education – informed by neuroscience and psychology. New ideas for our economy – underpinned by innovation, research and development. New ideas for farming and food security – working with cutting-edge and productivity-creating technology.

“And new ideas for our environment – shaped by a recognition of the scientific consensus, not some ideological repudiation of it. History tells us that the policy imperative alone will not be enough.”