Ask Piers Akerman a question

Gawd, it's hard to know where to start, isn't it?

Thing is, everyone, the program will be on in about 24 hours from the time of this post, so you will all have to be quick in order to register on the ABC's radar. I reckon that posts closer than a few hours before the program will be lost in the noise.

Now, what to ask...

If the quote in the speech bubble is a direct quote, I'd like to ask if he is confused about sunlight and earth IR reradiation.

CO2 doesn't stop sunlight.

Good luck getting a seat in the QandA audience. I get the clear impression, and have for a while, that first rights are offered to Liberal Rent-a-Crowd private school prats. Look at last week's effort, a clearly stacked audience.

I miss the days when ABC audiences were stacked with CEC stooges shouting about "carbon 14!"

That speech bubble just keeps on giving. I'm still laughing writing this comment.

When is that GMT?

and how can non-aussies see/hear it?

Hi everybody,
Would you care to volunteer how much interest you showed in the sciences when you were younger, let's say while you were still at school, and how important (or not) do you believe is science and technology to your life today, and to the future of a modern economy?

Australian EST is GMT +10 hours, so it should be Thursday 11:30am GMT by my reckoning. Hopefully you can access the live stream here.

It's not a question, but I'd pay money for someone to say "You will bring Captain Solo and the Wookie to me."

I got a suggested question you could ask to a political commentator :-

Q: How do you think Penny Wong will cope in the very near future, when she realizes that although she was the Minister for 'very little' that she will soon be Minister for 'nothing' ?

On a ore cheery note, today is your big day in the Senate guys. I hope it all goes well. :-)

she (Wong) will soon be Minister for 'nothing'

Promises promises.

today is your big day in the Senate guys. I hope it all goes well.

Today is the first day in the process of getting idiots like Fielding out the way of rational action.

Billy Bob is still cheering, based on his [supreme confidence!](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/two_weeks_from_blog_post_to_pa…)

Marion Delgado

You can vodcast it from the abc "qanda" site:

www.abc.net.au/tv/qaanda

Transcripts typically appear the following Monday

Fran

Ooops ... should be

www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda

Akerman gets regular coverage [at Loon Pond](http://loonpond.blogspot.com/2009/08/piers-akerman-one-eyed-barrackers…).

Actually, Tobias @ 8, EST is GMT + 9 hours, unless it's daylight saving time. But 10 is close enough for government work.

Sitting here in London I've only just picked up this thread - nearly 24 hours after Q&A went out so can anybody tell me what happened before `i have a look at the ABC's website?

I'm glad to see people were talking about getting involved in the broadcast as too often lately the deniers have been letting their egos rip by pushing up front of any public discussion where AGW might come up.

And so the ETS has gone down for now. Double Dissolution anyone?

No AEST is definitely GMT+10 [Time and Date.com](http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/est.html)

Actually Jeremy, Q&A will be on in just under three hours. At 7:30 AM according to scienceblogs timestamp.

I'm confused. It's Thurs 11am in the UK. Have I missed it??

This is useful, assuming it is correct??

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

>Quote ABC: "...Piers was raised in Perth and had an inconclusive education before finding his feet in journalism..."

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/coming_up.htm#PIERS_AKERMAN

I assume that is a polite way of saying he has no qualifications.

Hmmm, seems to be working, just got a short intro clip.
I assume we don't see the advert breaks??

Am I the only person watching online!
Well I'm looking forward to the first AGW denial question...

And Piers doesn't disappoint! I counted about 4 red herrings... "independent" scientists like Plimer and Kinninmonth... global cooling in the 80's (I always thought that meme was that the global cooling scare was in the 70's), someone "very high" in the CSIRO agrees with him.. blah blah blah.

Wait... missed one...

He also mentioned no hot spot and the IPCC is full of liars....

Another way to engage in the G&A debate is to comment on the [message board](http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/MessageList.aspx?b=114&t=14&te=False), alhough be warned - it swarms with fundies even more than the QANDA audiences do!

frankis writes:

Would you care to volunteer how much interest you showed in the sciences when you were younger, let's say while you were still at school, and how important (or not) do you believe is science and technology to your life today, and to the future of a modern economy?

I've loved science since seeing the film 2001, A Space Odyssey in 1968, at age eight. I was very into science fiction from then on, and at about age thirteen I started studying astronomy intensively. I majored in physics and computer programming, was briefly president of the Tripoli Science Association, and have published some articles in (non-peer-reviewed) science journals.

Science is absolutely essential to modern life. High technology keeps our agricultural system going, enabling our present huge population to exist. Some particular technologies, in company withe the growing population, are wrecking the ecology we depend on. We need science to find out the extent and nature of the problems, figure out how to fix them, and switch to the appropriate new technologies.

OK, I'll watch the download of Q&A over the next day but before I do can anyone tell me if Akerman's denialist stuff was put down?

Oops. Tobias and Zarquon are correct. I zigged when I should've zagged, basing it on Adelaide time.

Well the transcript is up already and my question wasn't put (sob). However Michael Ashley, who I'm presuming to be UNSW's own, did ask a good one:

MICHAEL ASHLEY: Yes. Just about every right-wing columnist, not just Piers here, but also Miranda Devine, Janet Albrechtsen, and Andrew Bolt and so on, they are convinced that human CO2 isn't affecting the climate; whereas every relevant scientific organisation on the planet disagrees. My question is why is the right-wing so determined to oppose the science?

PIERS AKERMAN: Well, I think that - yeah. I think that I .... blah blah blah ...

Great question, the two panelists representing the delusional-right made complete prats of themselves in attempting to respond to it.

Regards Q&A I reckon Piers done alright. The ALP and Union bolsheviks were just frightening however.

And what about poor Indira. I was in love with her once (perhaps I still am ?).
I am very disappointed though. It's true it seems, she has turned into a mindless Al Gore clone. I hope she can still be 'saved'.

Billy Bob still has [supreme confidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/two_weeks_from_blog_post_to_pa…) about his own ability to decern truth, regarless of the science!

It must be very comforting for Billy Bob to have such unwaverying faith, in the face of such overwhelming evidence. I suppose it helps that Billy Bob knows the evidence is wrong with the need to even read it.

I get by Janet and I do try to struggle on. I still claim to not know everything. I read what I can though, and as such,
I just noticed this. Granted it's just from another blog, but I was intrigued. (re : Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit).

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html

>"I do try to struggle on."

Oh, false modesty dosen't suit you Billy Bob. You've obviously read less than Indira or Gore, and still you know more.

It's so miraculous it evokes thoughts of religion. Well matched to your unwavering faith.

If any of you had stuck around for Lateline, you would have seen Barnaby Joyce who gave Piers a the run the mad-as-a-cut-snake stakes. Had to turn it off before my screen ROFL'd.

Just a quick note ...

I read through the Piers Akerman contribution to QANDA in the transcript and there was nothing new.

Silliest comment: "they predicted global cooling in the 1970s"

Very poor form ...

I thought that Akerman was much more restrained in this episode, than in the last one he appeared in.

That episode was a number of months ago, and except for the fact that it's so implausible for a post-primetime program, I could have sworn that ol' Piers was as sozzled as a sailor at the end of a barrel of rum.

Anyone else see that episode and have a similar impression?

>Sitting here in London I've only just picked up this thread - nearly 24 hours after Q&A went out so can anybody tell me what happened before `i have a look at the ABC's website?

It was pretty boring and tame to be honest.
Very predictable. As is often the case, these people say a lot less on screen than they would write or type.

frankis,

I can only agree with Barton on the role of science in modern society -- not only the economy, but civilized society and our way of life generally. Yes science -- or more precisely, the powers that be that get handed all these shiny toys without really understanding them -- causes all kinds of problems; but only more and better science can solve them, as we live by our wits and will die for the lack of it.

About myself, I was into space travel and SF at primary school age too -- Kennedy made his speech when I was eight, and I knew it was going to happen -- the technology was there, and Americans had the attitude, as testified by my idol Jules Verne. As a SF freak and devourer of popular science I knew of course also about the greenhouse effect and Arrhenius and the tropical rainforests on Venus...