The Forum > Article Comments > Finkelstein, AGW and the Coalition > Comments
Finkelstein, AGW and the Coalition : Comments
By Anthony Cox, published 24/7/2012It is understandable that the Coalition should support Finkelstein.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 12
- 13
- 14
-
- All
Posted by Roses1, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 9:19:39 AM
| |
If only 98% of climate scientists agree with the theory of global warming then the science isn't settled.
Science has never been about consensus. Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 9:54:02 AM
| |
Well said, Roses1,
Here's a timely article on the subject: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/dick-smith-writes-scathing-letter-to-news-ltd/4149136 Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 10:04:58 AM
| |
"98% of the scientific establishment" I thought it was 97%! Where did the 98% come from? At least get your exaggerations correct.
As for the scandalous Doran Zimmerman 'survey' from whence the fake 97% figure came from, can you really base a justification for AGW on this: "a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with." See also this link for a comprehensive demolition of the AGW 'consensus': http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/#more-60090 If you are going to convince the vast majority of people, scientists and otherwise, that AGW is real then the consensus and authority and the precautionary principle arguments will not cut it. Do better ladies. Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 10:25:12 AM
| |
cohenite,
Can't you do better than "What's Up Doc"? - isn't that the guy who's qualified to be a weather presenter? Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 10:28:55 AM
| |
Thank you Ms Poirot; I had forgotten the ad hom which rounds out the various 'evidence' in the AGW supporter's quiver.
Anthony Watts is a nice guy; but the point is what he says about the Doran 'paper' and its consensus, which you have ignored. Now, Ms Poirot, you appear to be a thoughtful lass, are you really saying that you are content for your position on AGW to be nourished by an argument, consensus, which is fundamentally unscientific? Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 11:08:54 AM
|
I'll do likewise - I'm a warmist along with 98% of the scientific establishment. But it's great to read your opinion in this here opinion blog. You as I have a right to our own opinions on global warming but should we expect parliament and indeed the mainstream press to take on our opinions?
I urge you to read, as I have, 'Scientific American' on the subject of global warming (its advisory board is some 40 professors and CEO's from US universities such as Harvard and Berkley). It is just one of the myriad peer reviewed science journals that publish the truth of GW and dire warnings of the consequences of 'business as usual' scenarios.
Do you, a lawye) expect us to believe that the 'evidence' presented by your disparate band of unqualified sceptics carries equal weight to the scientific journals? Should our leaders act on denialists' opinions rather than the facts established by science?
'The Australian' evidently thinks so because it censors out factual articles about GW.
All power to Finkelstein; his suggested system of an oversight panel of judiciary may prevent propaganda /opinion being presented as 'analysis of facts' in the likes of 'The Aus'(i.e. Rupert.