Jennifer here's your chance to practice an evidence-based approach to environmentalism.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7488

So one can expect you to support the worlds's leading science acadamies who say '"is clear and increasing" and that they must act immediately to begin addressing its causes and consequences.' and the science behind their statment.

This alone will be enough to benchmark your credibility.

Please reply

Neohuman,

Can't see the evidence or science in the link you have posted - looks like a lot of politics?

Jennifer if you cannot trust the world’s most prestigious scientific academies then what is the point of a science based policy?

The Royal Academy, hmmm if I were the British government I would ask for my funding back they are obviously just a bunch or political hacks.

If you can give some substantive reasons why we cannot trust the words of the worlds leading scientists and instead we should trust fringe business lobby connected views please do.

But now I get it, your piece was really an attempt at humor, not a serious attempt to open dialogue and objectively look at the facts, since you already dismiss the science and scientists and wont except any work unless it already agrees with your stance.

Neohuman, the academies are quoted as saying that "most recent warming is likely to have been caused by human activity." Note "most likely." As I posted earlier, the science of global warming is very complex and, as the academies' comment admits, little understood. As an example, geological records show that in some earlier periods of global warming, increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have followed warming, not precipitated it. So what is the causation here? What are the appropriate policies?

As a gun for hire in the escalating war against what remains of the natural environment, Marohasy is obviously privy to more accurate and compelling evidence than "the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US".

The unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices in the Murray-Darling basin (of which the Pilliga-Goonoo is part) are unquestionably implicated in the environmental disaster of the degradation of our continent's most extensive and important river system.

However, Marohasy is on record as rejecting the clear scientific evidence that records the human causes of this deplorable situation.

I really hope that she is highly paid by her masters at the IPA, because very few of her 'publications' would enhance her employability as a real scientist.

Nice attempt at spin and diversion Faustino.

"It is clear that world leaders, including the G8, can no longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions," said Lord May, head of Britain’s Royal Society national science academy.

Climate Change Consensus
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/m1069525.ram

While you cannot get 100% certainly in science -it just doesn’t work like that- getting the heads of the worlds most prestigious scientific academies saying there is no longer any uncertainty –sorry if I don’t chase after your ‘little understood’ red herring- is as good as it can get.

Keep whipping that uncertainty dead horse Faustino and see what little credibility you climate skeptics had evaporate to nothing.

Again what’s the point in promoting evidence-based policies when you and Jennifer ignore the work of the most qualified to look into the evidence?

As to policies as I posted above I’m all for an objective science based cost benefit analysis of nuclear but before we even go that far how about an energy efficiency drive?

If you go to the Rocky Mountain institute link above you will get info that it is a win/win situation for business and the environment.

In Kyoto mark 2 ask more of the burden to be taken on by the developed nations to encourage the developing to sign on, funding for technology transfer and why not while we are at it throw in dept relief and market access for truly Fair Trade not the shame that is Free trade.

BTW I’m not prepared to debate you on the evidence or lack of for GW, as I won’t debate creation science advocates. If you like them won’t accept the stance of mainstream science then that’s your problem.