E = mc2

Einstein's theory of relativity. It led to the belief nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

This has been the undisputed science of physics for nearly 100 years.

Well well you'd think that science was well and truely settled, wouldn't you?

But maybe not so, experiments with the Large Hadron Collider show neutrinos travel at 60nanoseconds (One 600th billion of a second, and yes it was measurable) faster than light.

Was Einsteins theory wrong? Who knows? Einstein also said strange things happen at the speed of light.

My point?

Is climate science settled? If the very basis of modern physics can be challenged and over turned, justs as some of Newton's theories were overturned by Einstein, then it is a very brave person who maintains the science of climate is settled and that the planet is warming because of human activity.

Me, I'm currently swayed by new experiments, literature and empherical data from climate science.

1.A Large Hadron Collider experiment that lends empherical evidence in support Henrik Svensmarks theory of the influence of cosmic rays on climate.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

2. The work of Phil Watson, Principal Coastal Specialist, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. His peer-reviewed work released empherical data showing rises in sea levels are "decelerating".

Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 2: pp. 368 – 377 .

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

I'd say both these which are based in actual evidence do call into doubt the old Climate Science theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Tony Abbott not wedded to a hugely costly scheme which attempts to limit climate change ... hmmm I think that is very sensible.

In response to the article, I have to wonder also whether John Howard's ETS which was promised at the '07 election would have received so much ignorant public opposition as Labor's has. Alan Jones and the rest of the mainstream media didn't seem to have a problem with theidea when their pin-up boy was putting it forward.

Abbott supported the ETS until he became opposition leader and quickly went into "no" mode. Then he was forced to provide an alternative. If what he came up with is representative of the quality of abbotts policy ideas and budgeting, I have to wonder how inept the rest of the party are that he's considered their best person for the job!

But in today's democracy, it's not the quality of policy that counts. Thanks to a lazy journalism industry, it comes down to what Murdoch and other big players want voters to think counts that counts.

I think if you want to look at the facts TrashcanMan, Abbott only became Opposition leader because he opposed the ETS. He knew the general public had woken up to the global warming scam thanks to the dishonesty of the IPCC, the hopelessly failed predictions of the gw High Priests and a few people demanding real science. Abbott had been quoted as saying that man made climate change is c_ap. He now being nearly as dishonest as Gillard when he says he believes in it. Gillard now believes in anything as long as she can cling to power. She now believes in the Pacific solution, marriage between man and woman and even democracy when it suites (except for the carbon tax).

Nutter,

You've been deceived. Phil Watson, who you reference, completely disagrees with you and his department disputed the claims made about his paper. Maybe you should change your sources of information. The New Weekly would be an immediate improvement on The Australian for a start.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/the_australians_war_on_science_67.php

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/media/DecMedia11072205.htm

And there is a hell of a lot of debate over the extent of effect of Svensmarks theory on global warming.

Déjà vu TrashcanMan

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356#213729

[Deleted for abuse.]