You are here

Challenger Space Shuttle disaster was caused by similar tactics to the ABC on Climate Change and Population Growth

Back in 1986 after the joints on the Challenger Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) leaked, causing a catastrophic explosion, a Presidential Inquiry found that both the contractor supplying the equipment (Morton Thiokol) and NASA had failed to act on the advice of engineering experts working for Morton Thiokol. Damages were paid to the families of the 7 dead astronauts and NASA suffered a major setback.

In an almost perfectly analogous scenario, the ABC is launching Australia on an extreme population growth trajectory when all the scientific and economic evidence supports grounding this "population rocket" until due diligence can confirm whether it should be cleared for take-off.

"The Challenger accident has frequently been used as a case study in the study of subjects such as engineering safety, the ethics of whistle-blowing, communications, group decision-making, and the dangers of groupthink. It is part of the required readings for engineers seeking a professional license in Canada and other countries. Roger Boisjoly, the engineer who had warned about the effect of cold weather on the O-rings, left his job at Morton Thiokol and became a speaker on workplace ethics. He argues that the caucus called by Morton Thiokol managers, which resulted in a recommendation to launch, "constituted the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation." For his honesty and integrity leading up to and directly following the shuttle disaster, Roger Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Many colleges and universities have also used the accident in classes on the ethics of engineering."

The above quote comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

All the data prepared by the engineering experts supported the conclusion that launching at a temperature below 37 degrees Fahrenheit was dangerous and risked catastrophic failure of the seals. The lowest temperature of a previous launch had been 53 degrees.

The ABC has adopted a far worse contempt for the truth in its illegitimate deconstruction of the Australian Climate Change debate; which has not even put the facts on the table for discussion. The ABC has deliberately omitted from its "Carbon Tax Debate" the relevance of one of the highest rates of population growth of any country combined with one of the highest emissions per capita of any country. Emissions growth in Australia dwarfs even the most optimistic economic "tricks" proposed to reduce them in the short to medium term.

On 16 September 2014 on RN Breakfast Greg Combet was reiterating his belief that a Carbon Tax was the solution. As usual no facts were provided to support the opinion; just "belief". That's OK; but it's not OK to suppress all counter arguments.

A week or so earlier on RN Breakfast Sheryle Bagwell lamented that with the Carbon price now so low it would have been a very cost effective strategy (???). The European experience has been that the low Carbon price has rendered Carbon Trading less effective.

A counter argument is that in the last decade the prices of PV Solar and low energy light bulbs have dropped far further, in percentage terms, than the most extreme level of proposed Carbon Tax would increase the cost of coal fired power. Economic "tricks" like a Carbon Tax haven't worked, but it is economic "tricks" that have been driving the global economy on a course of environmental destruction for the last century or more.

Another counter argument is that the Economic panacea of Globalisation is, in fact, the antithesis of sustainability. What more ironic solution could occur than an Economic solution based on globalisation of Carbon trading?

Yet another counter argument is that extreme population growth drives extreme emissions growth far faster in the short term than any form of emissions trading strategy can reduce them. Therefore population growth management is relevant to emissions management in Australia (and globally). Every migrant that arrives in Australia roughly triples their emissions, on average, the moment they arrive.

So perhaps the ABC should stop relying on Economists and Politicians to solve this problem?

Germany is open about its recent increase in emissions, which has resulted from expansion of brown coal fired power generation and closure of 8 nuclear power stations. We have not heard such transparent commentary from the ABC's front line propaganda tools: QANDA and RN Breakfast.

Their propaganda over the last 6+ years has been analogous to broadcasting that the sole cause of obesity is lack of exercise (emissions reduction measures) and that obese people should not reduce their calorific intake (population growth driving emissions growth).

The ABC is guilty of deliberate, destructive propaganda against the public interest; yet apparently it cannot be called to account by the legal system. The ABC accepts endless population growth as inevitable; which is inherently absurd in a country with one of the highest rates of population growth on earth driven primarily by an autocratically imposed mass migration (self colonisation) program.

2014-15: Migration program set at 190,000 places; humanitarian intake 13,750 places.

The ABC seeks to launch Australia on an extreme population growth trajectory (like a Space Shuttle that should never have been allowed to take off) by stealth and without consensus. It deliberately and unlawfully insists on breaching its Statutory Duty of impartiality to this day. The ABC knows with absolute certainty that the metaphorical O-rings on the population growth rocket are going to fail, but is it "the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation" that drives the ABC's misconduct? In this case is the ABC's "customer" the Government rather than the people that it has a Statutory Duty to serve? Has the ABC unilaterally decided to elevate itself to the role of self proclaimed politician in flagrant disregard for its role as taxpayer funded broadcaster dedicated to impartiality in the public interest? Do Liberals, Labor and Greens all support the same dumb growth policy? Yes. They have all categorically stated this.

The ABC appears to be unaccountable for its misconduct; and all Australians continue to be betrayed. Ignorance is no excuse for the gravity of this unlawful and irrational skulduggery. You cannot engineer a solution to a problem if you ignore the relevant facts. Engineering 101.

How is it that the ABC's Chairman reported this conclusion in his public statement of 12 March 2014; after Vote Compass, pro population and pro carbon tax bias complaints remained open at the time:

"The first review, by Andrea Wills, found no breaches of editorial policy but made a range of suggestions about ways to improve our content. The second review, by Gerald Stone, identified four items out of almost 100 separate pieces of content that raised concerns. He asked for further investigation of these programs, which were conducted and the results reflected in his conclusions."

No mention was made of either pro Carbon Tax or pro Population Growth bias despite the evidence presented in numerous complaints over the last 6 years.

AttachmentSize
Image icon abc-of-climate.jpg5.69 KB

Comments

Federal Health Minister Sussan Ley has three tough problems. She needs to cut growth in healthcare expenditure. Health care is basic to our well-being, and not something that should be politicized and subject to economic rationalization.

How can health care funding be cut while we have population growth? It means that each person will have less and less spent on them. If we have 1.6% population growth each year, mainly due to net overseas migration, then surely health care spending should increase by the same rate - and everything else.

Our Ponzi style of economic growth is becoming less generous, and more expensive to maintain. The "surpluses" generated are becoming increasingly inadequate to service the weight of our population's needs, yet the "growth" is not about to end!

The ill-fated Titanic didn't sink because it was overloaded by passengers, but because there were inadequate safety features for even their lower numbers. Our planet is already under stress trying accommodate the explosion of population since the 19th century - and can't assure the safety of the existing inhabitants.

Clearly, population growth isn't paying for itself, and not producing the promised "prosperity"! We need to backtrack to 2006 Costello Productivity Report, that only showed weak support for ongoing immigration - and limited benefits. It's been ignored by successive governments. The sheer numbers of people needing public health care is overloading the system and causing dis-economies of scale.

The population "Rocket" is carrying too many people to be efficient, and provide for human welfare. Population growth now is inter generational theft - of banking on the Nature's benefits and consuming them now, instead of leaving a deposit in Nature's "bank" for future generations.