The Forum > Article Comments > A short response to Robert Manne's A Dark Victory > Comments
A short response to Robert Manne's A Dark Victory : Comments
By Tim Florin, published 6/9/2012Repetition of the oft-made assertion that there is scientific consensus about the cause of global warming does not make it true.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
-
- All
Posted by Sydney, Thursday, 6 September 2012 8:23:36 AM
| |
Bravo Tim Florin!
Excellent stuff. And this just after I read this rubbish today - Herald Sun "Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) chief executive Dr Megan Clark says scientists these days are working in a 'fundamentally different' environment that makes it difficult for them to properly inform public debate." Read that to mean dificult to tell porkies. And then later in the article - "She said the CSIRO was taking a step back to ensure it was clearly communicating with the Australian public about the issues 'they need to hear about'." Go figure out exactly what that means. But I do like her phrase "they [the public] need to hear about". What about telling us the real science like it is and not just what we "need" for her purposes? It's all way too much like Gillard telling us that "we must eat our vegetables". A bit like they're coming from the same place. Like I said before, bravo Tim Florin! My only criticisms are; 1 - earth is dirt, rock, soil but Earth is the proper noun that is the name of the planet we inhabit. Please show respect; and 2 - the link to the list of scientists has had an accident and is now broken. Someone put a space in "scie ntific". Fix that and the link will work fine. Cheers all. Posted by voxUnius, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:17:06 AM
| |
Good article; AGW, as a theory, is dead and buried, despite it being based on certain scientifically valid principles; the primary reason why it has been disproved is that it was driven by ideological imperative and that does not make for good science; the methodology of GW was also fatally flawed; it relies on modelling and when observational evidence contradicts the modelling the modelling is preferred; astounding!
On the issue of the consensus, as though that were a legitimate criteria for determining scientific truth, I would challenge anyone to find a scientist who is not government employed or funded who supports AGW. Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:33:07 AM
| |
I have a lot of admiration for James Lovelock but I feel that as he has aged, so has a certain amount of dementia crept in. This is a man who now says that nuclear power is the only saviour for the world. And what is it to be saved from?
Why global warming/climate change of course. Of Patrick Moore, I have not knowledge except memories of his TV appearances, talking about astronomy, not a subject that has any bearing on AGW. Here is a list of some prominent persons who do not get an airing on our ABC's Science Show but who are either sceptical or who believe that the AGW – carbon dioxide story is poppycock In answer to the above, the link takes you to a wiki page that states; "The page "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scie ntific assessment of global warming" does not exist. A figment of Tim Florins imagination perhaps? I am sorry that a man who probably was and is a brilliant medical doctor, physician, and Professor of Medicine but is out of his depth on the subject of AGW. And why not. We all have opinions about it and a very small percentage of us has any real scientific knowledge of it. What is apparent to me and anyone else who takes the time to investigate, is the amazingly rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice plus the Greenland ice cap and also disturbing changes in Antarctica. I would throw in the extremes of weather that is happening world wide but I know I would be howled down and told that "there is nothing unusual going on, it has all happened before and there is no proof that this is to do with AGW. Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:05:59 AM
| |
Thanks to voxUnius. I now have a wiki page that states as below.
So there is obviously some controversy on this list. "This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions." Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:27:07 AM
| |
I was howled down on another thread for linking to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming seems its ok for some and not for others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change for balance, of course :) Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:27:51 AM
|
I was fortunate to have the following letter to the editor published in The Age on Monday...as its lead letter.
In the media, truth can be seen as the clear barrier to journalists being “kept in the (political) loop”, and there seem to be too few to dare risking that loss.
With regards,
Brian Haill,
Frankston.
……………..
SEPTEMBER 4
Repeat it often enough and a lie becomes a truth
The problem is the lazy journalism we witness every day when politicians go unchallenged
WE STILL struggle, some 2000 years on, to answer Pilate's question: "What is truth"? For too long now, lies have not been challenged; it's still "unparliamentary" to even use the word in the national Parliament, let alone call anyone there a liar (''Read all about it: journalism has a future!'', Comment, 3/9). This should change.
The problem is the lazy journalism we witness every day when politicians go unchallenged as they repeat long-discredited claims. I long to hear a journalist at a news conference to one day say: "Excuse me, Prime Minister, that's just not true and you, and we here, know that. Why do you persist in saying it?" The reason, of course, although the prime minister (especially) and other offenders will never admit, is that if it's repeated often enough a lie comes to be regarded as the truth.
Brian Haill, Frankston