The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A climate change text book for our peers > Comments

A climate change text book for our peers : Comments

By Graham Young, published 15/10/2013

Accepting expert opinion at face value is a failure of due diligence and dereliction of duty, constituting negligence in a public official.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
So; “Professor Bob Carter wants to know why, then, when it comes to climate change, so many "experts" say we shouldn't apply the same due diligence to their expertise as our legal system applies to any expertise? What's the difference?”

Scientists do apply due diligence in their work, the difference (and the ‘good professor’ knows this) is that science is not 'judged' as in a court of law.

Only one scientifically robust alternative explanation to AGW is required to debunk the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting it. This has not been done (Bob knows this as well).

For what it’s worth, alarmists from both sides should stop playing the “catastrophic” dog-whistle – it’s not catastrophic, yet.
Posted by ozdoc, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:34:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dilemma is to understand how such supposedly highly educated scientists claim to be expert on things climate & evolution etc. yet they haven't got what I would call enough sense that change is on-going, be it climate or otherwise & no tax can stop it. Surely, as a climatologist one would realise that climates change ? Does it really matter if it's man-made change ? we can condemn ourselves until the cows come home but it will do zilch so far as preventing climate change is concerned. Managing to exist with this change is what we need to focus on & for that we don not require expensive experts.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, individual,

As far as the subject of AGW is concerned, your post ably demonstrates why Graham's comment ".... the court of public opinion is actually better placed to ultimately tell who is right and who is wrong...." is utter nonsense.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:45:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
don't u luv the way the likes of Poirot demonise the Murdoch press. No doubt she forgets luvvies like Phillip Adams (no doubt a true believer) has written heaps of stuff (usually crap) in the Australian newspaper.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:46:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
when it comes to beginnings evolutionist make it up. They dishonestly call it science so it becomes clear that much of what they report as fact with a straight face is nothing short of garbage. Anyone interested in true science knows this.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:57:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Only one scientifically robust alternative explanation to AGW is required to debunk the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting it. This has not been done (Bob knows this as well)."

It has been done; many times:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179&page=0

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

AGW is supported by ideology, belief and a lot of money; it has been scientifically invalidated but it has left a legacy of corrupt peer review in climate science as has been admitted to in the emails, huge waste of money, misdirected research, particularly in respect of alternate energy, and a growing mistrust of science.

I'm genuinely intrigued by the pathology which compels seemingly intelligent people to support it. I think the best explanation is that belief in AGW is akin to religious belief with all the attendant hostility, arrogance and aggression that belief generates in believers towards those who question the tenets of the religion they believe in.

I don't get any money from fossil fuels or indeed any corporation. To say otherwise is stupid and defamatory.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:38:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy