One of the themes of this thread has been the question of vested interests.

TurnRightThenLeft began by saying global warming skeptics had a vested interest to maintain the status quo and asked "Can it compare to the vested interests of the other side?" (18-Jan-2007)

Col Rouge thought yes: "some of these scientists live in pursuit of the public purse." They "create an apparent pressing need by deploying alarmist propaganda ... float nebulous strategies ... apply for funding ... Spend the money ... maybe get a patent or two out of the public funded research to retire on." (23-Jan-2007)

Chris O'Neill pointed out that this "would be a very, very, very grand conspiracy" ... "Really, alomst everybody would have to be in on it" including the CSIRO (27-Jan-2007)

Col Rouge just said "I am not claiming any 'conspiracy' ... I was disputing the assertion by Latimer." (29-Jan-2007)

Well for my part, I assert that Chris O'Neills interpretation of Col Rouge's slur against the scientific community is correct. It is now many weeks since Col Rouge made those comments, which I find are unjustified and offensive to Australian science. Does he stand by them or not?

Unless he can establish a vested interest by the scientific community in propogating "alarmist propaganda" and "nebulous strategies", then TurnRightThenLeft is correct. As spendocrat put it (19-Jan-2007):

"Its our world we're talking about. Its not politics, its the health of the planet. We should all be intent of finding the truth, whatever that may be, not searching for reasons to take stick with our 'team'."

CJMorgan “However, you should be aware that when you exercise this right you often look really silly. Particularly when you expostulate on matters to do with scientific method, the practice of science and the understanding of statistical analysis.”

That is your opinion and one which, based on the history of your posts, is instantly ignorable.
Your own posts have illustrated a lamentable lack of substance, beyond the snide innuendo and second hand sarcasm.

I guess if you want to get up close and personal, with your reference to geese, I suggests
Birds of a feather stick together and you are best suited to goggling with the turkey.

David Latimer “which I find are unjustified and offensive to Australian science. Does he stand by them or not?”

I see you now claim to speak for “Australian Science”. I stand by my claims as long as you stand behind your self-aggrandizement and self-elevation to Spokesman for Science.

Having seen over many years how trolls of every persuasion, just love to latch on to public funds, like leeches on a teat, I would expect to be doubly vigilant toward anyone who proclaims, with such self-righteous indignation, their representation of an entire technical class of Australian.

"Its our world we're talking about. Its not politics, its the health of the planet. We should all be intent of finding the truth, whatever that may be, not searching for reasons to take stick with our 'team'."

Any “team” which expects unfettered sanctity and protection from objective analysis and criticism are merely a bunch of powder puffs, unsuited to the hurly-burly of real life. Your strategy was popular several hundred years ago when the Inquisition threatened Galileo for disputing their view of “science-theology”. Your protests and accusations merely reflect the same ignorance toward those of us who have not bought into the theological-science of Global Warming. Damn, I always barracked for the heretics and here I stand as one.

Your and CJMorgan pontification style and is simple bullying and to be condemned by all folk who value freedom of speech and support rational reasoning

Words, words, words on this page ...

And making science more credible the predominant majority should be provided with a "kangaroo education".

That is a simple solution to a complex problem, David Latimer, as practised in Australia from the dawn of the first fleet.

Col, you're no Galileo. Get your hand off it.

(the keyboard, I mean)

:-)

There we have it: "I stand by my claims". Col Rouge is telling us global warming is a either a fraud or conspiracy (or some such thing) by many or most Australian scientists. Why? Because they are like so many he has seen; they "just love to latch on to public funds, like leeches on a teat."

My view of Australian scientists is far different. I do not find them dishonest, profit-seeking, wasteful or ineffective. I believe they are intellegent, hard-working, honest and innovative. Their work is necessary and often ground breaking. It is through our scientists that we train our university science students. They do astonishing work under difficult conditions and financial constraints; constraints which are increasing, not decreasing.

So when they tell us about global warming and, as far as can be assertained, it's anthopogenic origin , I think we should listen. The public role of a scientist should not be moral or political. Their job is to provide the best possible explanation, and they have done that.

The message is in the public square.

Carbon Trading? Energy Conservation? Solar Cities? Sequestration? Base Loads? Nuclear Power? Economic side-effects? Developing Nations? Public Transport? Demand Management? Green Power? Wind Farms? Agriculture in the Australia's North? Clean Coal? Emission Caps? Ice-free Artic? International Co-operation?

Hey OLO! Lets move this debate forward.
We got some BIG decisions to make!

David Latimer here declares “My view of Australian scientists is far different. I do not find them dishonest, profit-seeking, wasteful or ineffective. I believe they are intelligent, hard-working, honest and innovative. Their work is necessary and often ground breaking. It is through our scientists that we train our university science students. They do astonishing work under difficult conditions and financial constraints; constraints which are increasing, not decreasing.”

I guess that would be all well and good if we could ignore the William McBride
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/89ta.html

Some stuff about salinity
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001392.html

Dr Ashoka Prasad
Health Report - 17/08/1998: Scientific Fraud and Defamation

The Views of Dr Frank Gorman
http://www.coca.com.au/newsletter/2000/dec0012ac.htm

The Activities of Messers David Williams and Wolfgang Wüster
http://www.smuggled.com/pr60.htm

Professor Michael Briggs, (work carried out at Deakin University)
http://briandeer.com/social/medical-fraud.htm

I could go on, the list is almost endless.

My expressed view was; anyone who seeks funding from the public trough needs to be considered skeptically and with independent suspicion to the merit of their claims and applications above and beyond mere peer review.

David Latimers view seems to be, our Scientists are Australia’s equivalent to India’s Mother Theresa.

As for “So when they tell us about global warming and, as far as can be assertained, it's anthopogenic origin , I think we should listen. The public role of a scientist should not be moral or political. Their job is to provide the best possible explanation, and they have done that.”

Clearly, whilst some scientists might qualify for the scientific equivalent of beatification, an inclusive and universal claim that

“Their job is to provide the best possible explanation, and they have done that.”

Is, clearly flawed, one might say to the point of “recklessness”.

So I guess, regardless of our individual background, a skeptical view is a healthy view, especially when some so called “scientists” are prepared, as the web links I have posted prove, to go to any lengths to suckle, like leeches, on the public teat.

And any debate has to consider the views, not simply of the scientists cloistered in academia but people who live in the real world too.