The Forum > Article Comments > A climate catastrophe or a carbon agenda? > Comments
A climate catastrophe or a carbon agenda? : Comments
By Ian Read, published 1/4/2010The climate change debate does not follow the principles of scepticism, repeated independent measurement and analysis, or open communication.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
It demonstrates that those that do are only out to spruik right wing propaganda. I was hoping you were above that.
Aside: It’s the same with right wing media shock-jocks; aka Andrew Bolt - or Piers Akerman, or Miranda Devine ... or anyone, add your own.
You should understand that science is above politics (and religion) – but when you do this yourself, well ... it belies an agenda (or rose coloured glasses) - whether you believe it, or whether you don't.
Amicus, the vast majority of scientists are straight shooters - politics (and religion) don’t compromise their science, despite what some people may want to believe. A scientist’s integrity must be beyond reproach, otherwise their whole reason for being is null, it is void - their career would be finished.
I respect genuine 'contrarian' scientists' research - however, some have backed themselves into a corner - Plimer and Carter come readily to mind, particularly after emboldening the 'Lord' Monckton - notwithstanding they are respected longstanding 'ambassadors' of the Lavoisier Group.
So called ‘sceptics’ of AGW may pounce on this, they will be wrong. If there is incontrovertible science that dispels human activity significantly influencing climate, it would have been found, analysed, reviewed and substantiated – it hasn’t.
You talk of AGW believers and the ALP (further demonstrating a belief in an ideological agenda) but I am saddened that you don’t understand that politicians (and countries) all over the world, from whatever persuasion, are having a stoush, not about the science, but ... what, when and how to do something about adapttion and mitigation.
Some people will never acknowledge that we (humanity) can influence the Earth's climate. But we're 7 billion strong (getting bigger) with a ravenous and rapacious desire for increased energy - primarily dependent on fossil fuels. This does not bode well, whatever you may think.