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 > How the message gets embedded > Comments

How the message gets embedded : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 28/6/2019

Scientists like Lindzen, Happer, Curry, Kininmonth and Paltridge in our country, and many others around the world, cannot be dismissed as ignorant, so the orthodoxy simply takes no notice of them.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Don, You, a handful of coal-fired, retired academics Engineers etc. Are entitled to your opinions!

As for global warming as caused by man. Seems that as many of 97% of the climate scientists around the world share that opinion, reject yours/other fossil fuel advocates.

One also notes that many if not all the scientists employed by the THREE TRILLION a year fossil fuel industry, are like the former asbestos/tobacco industry, saying one thing privately, another quite different to the public at large!

Those with their moral compass, ethical standards/honest interpretation, still intact, the decency to resign.

Nor are the majority of these experts receiving grants or monetary reward for their principled stance!

Although the same cannot be said for all those retired academics speaking for the fossil fuel industry?

If we are to have a rational discussion on future energy policy, it has to be limited to economic outcomes only!

Should such sanity finally prevail? There can be no other choice than MSR thorium, which among other things, can be tasked with the reduction of the world's entire stockpile of nuclear waste!

Thereby reducing the halflife to just 300 years and making long-life space batteries from what remains.

The energy generated from MSR thorium will be carbon free and cost far less than a single cent PKWH! Moreover, there's passive safety in the design/normal atmospherics

The safest, cleanest, cheapest energy we could ever produce, delivered with the added benefit of having others pay for all the R+D/infrastructure build! As annual billions!

[ If one includes graphene highways, one also excludes most of the 75% total transmission and distribution losses?]

I suppose you'll have a problem with that or as is your current practice, just ignore that which quite massively outperforms coal at all levels, safety, economy and carbon pollution.

Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet, has a half-life of around 15 billion years or 2 billion years more than the projected life of the universe, which means, we'll never ever run out of it!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 28 June 2019 11:38:23 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
Don, it is worrying that you can't tell the difference between the positions of the scientists and the alarmists.

Back in the early '90s, the scientists examined the data and rejected the alarmist position. It was clear to the scientists that although changes were occurring, they were on a much longer timescale than the alarmists were saying.

Fast forward to today: the original alarmists have been proved wrong, but now the denialists are accusing the scientists of being alarmists!
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 28 June 2019 12:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A superb article Don

Right on the button.

Only the gibbering knuckle draggers, who populate OLO,

would doubt your profounditudinosis.

Your academic colleague

Poida de Eric
PhD VD STD (and Bar)
http://youtu.be/NqFcdz4gGKA
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 28 June 2019 1:50:55 PM
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
Anyone, with an alphabet soup after their name, can subjectively select cherry-picked data and label other scientists finds as fraudulent. The cooling you claimed as fraud Don, wasn't any such thing. The sun as reported by NASA as being in a cyclical waning phase and since the mid-seventies, CORRECT!

And if the climate was normal as you seem to want to believe? Would have ushered in a cooling phase or new ice ae of indeterminate length.

That this has not happened should have sounded, alarm bells for the intellectually able! Whereas you and your ilk just condemn out of hand, scientifically collected data, as fraudulent?

Should you have any evidence of this alleged climate fraud, Don? How about tabling it rather than inferring it exists and in so doing slander/impugn the good names of a number of participating NASA scientists?

The fact that you once advised a PM, should explain why our parliaments are largely science free zones and the troglodytes that inhabit the Canberra bubble are by and large, (rubbish in, rubbish out) stupidly welded to coal and coal-fired energy?

OUTCOME?

Among the highest, economy-crippling, record energy prices, in the world!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 28 June 2019 3:16:45 PM
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
consensus opinion is now considered science. Everyone else is a 'denier', a nazi, ignorant. I mean all the brilliant minds in the Labour party believe we are frying the planet so they must be right. Ask Kev07 'the biggest moral issue on the planet'. Just don't ask Zali to drive a small car or pay for solar panels or Al Gore to give up him multi million massions or private jetting around.
Posted by runner, Friday, 28 June 2019 3:38:30 PM
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
Congratulations Don on your well thought-out and accurate description of the very unfortunate ‘politically correct’ academic regression our society is progressively now sliding into.

The deleterious consequences will likely build and reverberate for many years to come to everyones ultimate cost, if it continues.

It can be validly argued that the ‘enlightenment’, the rejection of ‘hierarchical authority’, the adoption of the scientific method and freedom of speech, more than any other factors, was responsible for the amazing advancement made by mankind over the last few centuries.

Do we really want to regress at this time of exponentially increasing world population and the problems and tensions that this brings? I don’t think so.

If not, what can we do about it?

Government’s, if they wish to be returned at the next election, will find it increasingly difficult or impossible to speak frankly about this, (and other controversial issues), irrespective of their person views or the veracity of the relevant underlying science.

As Aitkin has correctly pointed out there are many reputable scientists and others who hold valid, but opposing views. Both sides simply cannot be right, we urgently need to sort this out.

Another way has to found.

My suggestion is for government to set up an Independent, major Inquiry into ‘Climate Change’, charged with a Terms of Reference of, as Aitkin suggests, starting right from square one, doing the necessary due diligence, examining all the evidence of both natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, and coming to a clear, informed view.

Funding should be provided to invite top global experts in their respective fields, from both sides of the argument, to make detailed presentations to the Inquiry and answer follow-up questions.

The detailed, Referenced, Final Report, written in language that can be readily understood, would then form a sound basis for future, evidence based, climate related policy development and implementation.

Climate Change is such a disputed, complex, costly area that crucially needs to be clarified. With such an Inquiry we could then look forward with much greater confidence to a future built on sound intelligent foundations.
Posted by Ian McClintock, Friday, 28 June 2019 6:15:34 PM
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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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