ant,
I'd regard E&Y as almost as untrustworthy as LNP politicians!

Plastics do indeed break down into very small particles. And there are many fish and birds dying due to ingestion of plastics. But those are the result of relatively big pieces of plastic clogging their digestive tracts. Do you have any evidence of creatures dying as a result of micro plastic ingestion?

Ho hum, If Don writes an article about science you can pretty sure it's about climate science. He may include 'supporting evidence' (mostly irrelevant anomalies) from other fields, but the conclusion is always, always about climate science.

What about this one Don?
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/23/flawed-climate-science-paper-exposed-potential-weaknesses-in-peer-review-process/#more-64459

Theres a lot more examples coming from the anti-climate science brigade, yet not one in your article.

I wonder why?

PELL Off Topic: Now decided today Cardi PELL today "committed to stand trial on historic sex offence charges"

see http://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/05/01/10/22/george-pell-going-to-trial-on-historic-sex-offence-charges

curmudgeonathome

My main point was in relation to using google scholar was to show how much research has gone into the study of plastics; I did acknowledge that the research Don referred to might have been corrupt. Having looked further into NAS I believe "might" was the appropriate word on the basis of the reference source. To make disparaging comments about science shows no acknowledgement of just how much research has been completed, my google scholar examples shows just a small fraction.

The NAS makes bold claims with little evidence.
I read an article about Trump from a NAS source, where the introductory comments were about being non-partisan, the article itself was extremely partisan towards Trump.

Do a little research and it soon becomes clear that it is political ideology that drives NAS.

Ant if ever you did any serious research you could not possibly be a believer in the global warming scam.

Hasbeen, you wrote " Ant if ever you did any serious research you could not possibly be a believer in the global warming scam."

Quote:

"A thorough review of climate science literature, including acknowledgement of fossil fuels’ dominant role in driving greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, ... contribution to global CO2 emissions.
A detailed analysis of potential climate impacts, including rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and human migration.
A discussion of the potential impacts to the fossil fuel sector itself, including legislation, changing public sentiment, and infrastructure vulnerabilities. ... concludes that active engagement from the energy sector is desirable.
A cautious response to uncertainty in scientific models, pressing for sincere consideration of solutions even in the face of existing debates.
A warning to take policy action early, even before major changes are observed to the climate."

Do you agree, or otherwise with the quote, Hasbeen?

I'll provide references once you have commented.

An analogy from Real Climate:

" Imagine there has been a forest fire. The police have extensive evidence that it was arson. They know the place where the fire began. They found traces of fire accelerants. Witnesses observed a man whose car was parked nearby. In his trunk the police finds bottles with fire accelerants, and in his house they find even more of it. He has been convicted for arson several times before. Plus some further evidence. In court, he defends himself: forest fires have always occurred lit by lightning, even before there was any man on Earth. Therefore he must be innocent. Does the argument convince you?"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/the-climate-has-always-changed-what-do-you-conclude/

A number of science disciplines support climate science, which equals consilience.