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 > Climate change issues: the problem of unwarranted trust > Comments

Climate change issues: the problem of unwarranted trust : Comments

By David Henderson, published 2/2/2007

There are good reasons to query the claims to authority and representative status made by and on behalf of the International Panel on Climate Change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All
dickie: "Exxon are sponsers (sic) of the Think Tank who are offering $10,000 to scientists and economists to dispute climate change. Between '98 and '05, Exxon gave $16 million to a network of 43 advocacy organisations in attempts to confuse the public on global warming."

And according to its communications manager, Greenpeace receives $12 million every year from people in the Australia Pacific.

dickie: "I am pleased that the author reassured us that he is an economist - not a climate scientist."

I don't understand your point, given that the climate projections of the IPCC and the Stern Report draw on economic assumptions. On what basis do you make your claim that "The longer the delay, the greater the impact on the economy."

dickie: "Again we have an author with vested interests clouding the issue on anthropogenic climate change."

David Henderson, along with the other contributors to the Dual Critique of the Stern Report, explicitly states that "We represent no interests, and we have neither sought nor received any financial or institutional support for our work. We write as independent commentators." Yet, AGAIN, we get the vested interests line.

I like the "clouding the issue" part, though, as clouds are, in fact, still clouding the issues of climate science.
Posted by Richard Castles, Monday, 5 February 2007 11:05:33 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
CJ Morgan and Kang persist with this moronic ploy of suggestingg that anyone who does not buy the ross extrapolations to doomsday scenarios is somehow denying the existence of any anthropogenic climate change. This is pure bollocks and evidence of the presence of ideology rather than science.

And to then carry it on to the surveys of scientists in a way that implies that every one of them supported the worst case scenario (the way Al gore did) is downright dishonest.

It sugggests that there is a serious misnomer here. It should be called "Gullible Warming".
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 5 February 2007 11:22:16 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
Hi Richard,

Greenpeace receives its donations from the public. Hardly a vested interest in the manner of a large and very, very rich polluter. The public tends to like its rivers to contain water, not toxins.

Your assertion that “the climate projections of the IPCC and the Stern Report draw on economic assumptions” has got to be arse-end about. The IPCC report has at it foundation a great deal of scientific research. So does the Stern report, though that is not a scientific report. (and haven’t we had this conversation already?)
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 6 February 2007 8:37:30 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All

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