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 > Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate > Comments

Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate : Comments

By Ian Plimer, published 26/7/2007

Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 26
  10. 27
  11. 28
  12. All
"But in those time scales the Earth didn't have 6.5 billion people living on a knife edge"
Always thought people from Tassie were living like there was no tomorrow.

"I would have thought that the example of the dinosaurs shows how it can all go wrong quickly."
Probably not much anyone could do about meteorites slamming into the earth or super volcanoes, you may be being a little unfair on the dinosaurs.

"Instead, he should try reading the thousands of scientific papers from hundreds of different fields of science that all come to the same conclusion."
Obviously you haven't read them either.

"Climatologists such as Tim Flannery"
Flummery is not a climatologist. He holds bachelor degrees in English (where he gets his creative writing skills from) and Earth Science (otherwise known as a geologist oooh the same a Plimer), a doctorate in Palaeontology (still not climatology)

"Maybe Plimer should start at the beginning and read “The Weather Makers” before spewing out such nonsense. "
Then he'd really know his nonsense.

"So what, exactly, does the learned gentleman mean by "the latest scientific view is only transitory"?"
I think he means the theory of AGW.

"Runner, I'm a Christian and yet maintain that modern science is quite clear on human caused Global Warming. "
Oh yer....God did it?

New Scientist just hasn't been the same since Nigel Calder left.
Posted by alzo, Thursday, 26 July 2007 12:52:41 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
For more information on the "swindle":
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

I find it comical that dogmatists (sceptics is far too generous a title) refer to "uncertainties" that have long since been put to bed and attempt to claim the high moral ground. Science is indeed dynamic and referring to an old view of science is not meritorious.

I found the panel discussion fascinating when even after having their opinion presented (note the qualifier that it was broadcast as opinion and NOT documentary) the dogmatists were still unable to get a credible toehold in the debate. Every "point" was clearly and articulately debunked. I also think it was quite telling that many who supported the dogmatists were making incredible half baked and ill-conceived conspiracy theories about eugenics and how the environment movement is "out to kill Africa".

Tragic really but hardly inspiring enough to invest in beachfront real estate.
Posted by Voevod, Thursday, 26 July 2007 1:03:42 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
Dear Ian

I hope you take time from your schedule to read these comments and maybe reply to them. I think the malfunction lies with the problem of linear thinking and the linear demands that we humans place on our non-linear world.

Example: Thoughtless water usage. As water levels fall due to increasing demand, evaporation of the remainder becomes more of a problem. At the same time our pollutants which once were dilute, are becoming more concentrated in the remaining water even as it becomes more precious. Thus we accellerate towards the end-point.

Question: Under what level of stored and artesian water should we have drawn the line? (30%? 50%? 70%?) How long ago should we have addressed the problem? (10 years? 30 years? 60 years?) Would anyone have listened? Could you have convinced a merchant banker, a treasurer or a prime minister?

All these things ARE perfectly measurable with the aid of yardstick and rear-view mirror, but our predictive abilities are limited by our insistence on clinging to our comfortable world-view. Thus we may hit the buffers, because we have devoted the other 90% of our brain power to indulging in the man-made myth of the economy.

One day, this may be known as the white man's dreaming.

Gore is guilty of daring to suggest that our world-view is no longer tenable (no matter his own "fortunate" life, so far). Some of us think that he was too passionate, while others think he was not passionate enough.

We have to remove the pollution of excessive self-indulgence from the stream of human consciousness. Nothing can happen until we change the way that money works.

As an example, check out the Prime Minister's water scheme for elements of water privatisation. Money is a hell of a pollutant where water is concerned.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 26 July 2007 1:13:52 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
So if you smarty scientific side-kickers are right - then all this craze about getting the Business Mafia into carbon trading is really just a racket for them to keep on making zillions whatever way the GW cookie crumbles?

Might be thankful that I'll be out of this cheating global rat-race in a year or two, out in the nether somewhere with my dear dead wife.

Cheers - BB
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 26 July 2007 2:00:22 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
Oh don't go just yet Bushy.

- here, I'll put the kettle on -

:)
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 26 July 2007 2:13:26 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
EclipseNow is just hilarious. He controls the sun just like so many who do not believe the sun is a star because you cannot see it at night. Out of sight equals out of mind. During that "debate" following the Durkin doco, I believe David Karoly said something similar.

Just love these greenhousers who are off their face with CO2 original sin, and who ignore anything and everything outside the troposphere. Lovelock is a good example .... (and like thatcher the rodent will simply take advantage of people's stoooopidity.)

Frankly, I agree with Ian's thoughts about science and particularly that we should be seriously embarrassed with the manner in which our national broadcaster handled this doco. It points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy.

ps Bushy, I enjoy reading your posts ..... so hang around old boy.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 26 July 2007 2:41:28 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 26
  10. 27
  11. 28
  12. All

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