mikk, mate, you do not need to make remarks like that.
Just enjoy the lost nature of those you describe.
See Bazz and grin at the totally silly remark they scuttled the boat!
How uniformed can you get?
Yes the kids did not get thrown over board but Minchin did say smoke from cigarettes is safe.
It is true, more scientists agree than disagree with man made climate change.
Only the truly deprived or is it depraved? could say country's currently agreeing to cut emissions are just looking to tax us.

God, or the ethics you believe in, doesn't stop people expressing op-inions and even changing them and that's o.k. too if one is fair-dinkum.I have changed my opinions on subjects a lot in 60 years since I was "sweet sixteen." But politicians have to be two-faced if they are in a party.That's political democracy.But it's a job, and someone has to do it!If asked a question on a subject one does not have a clue about. The honest answer the Dalai Lama would give is:" I DON'T KNOW!"

'

The answer as we are in a democracy is a resounding no!
Just because someone has a science degree it does not in any way qualify them as honest or indeed sensible.
You silly billies can all do what the next white coat and clip board tells you to do but do not include the rest of us.
The Victorian Government spent three million tax payer dollars on on a study on getting rid of carp from Victorian waterways. The conclusion was that more money needed to be spent on studying the problem. What an absolute joke! I would suggest the Victorian Government actually do what we pay them for and govern but they are labour so no chance of that!

Shadow Minister: "This would then imply that Ross Garnaut is not qualified to comment...His comments on the economic effects were based on information fed to him by others."

You've lost me completely. An expert in economics took the predictions of the experts in climate science at face value, looked at the possible economic outcomes and commented accordingly. How could anyone say he wasn't qualified to do this? Certainly I didn't. I said I wouldn't put more weight on Garnaut's option of whether climate science is right or wrong than I would of say Professor Don Aitkin's.

But Shadow, here's an idea: rather than just taking wild pot shots, why don't you develop an informed opinion about climate science by watching a lectures series examinator posted: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

These videos cover an entire Uni subject on climate change. If you watched them closely enough, I recon you could pass the course. The subject matter isn't that difficult. Anybody comfortable with grade 12 maths and physics, and enjoys watching David Attenborough / Discovery channel type shows will love it. The only downside is it 16 hours in total. But you can watch it like cricket, with half an eye, rewinding when you realise you've missed an interesting bit.

I can't say they altered my 1000' view of climate science overly. My gut feel always was of something complex, with many interlocking systems feeding back into one another. Before watching it, I didn't have a clue how they could possibly go about analysing such a thing. The only reason I accepted it could be done is the obvious consensus among them that they had pulled it off. Watching it showed you how they broke the complex system down into manageable bits. Once you see the magical machine pulled apart into understandable components with an explanation for each, the magical moves toward the mundane.

Well it would, but no one could came from that series thinking our planet is mundane. It is a truly remarkable series of coincidences that lead to it being a planet capable of supporting life. It took my breath away.

Rstuart,

I am perfectly comfortable with the science involved, and I don't think you will find a post of mine where I claim that AGW is a fraud. However, the subtext of your argument:

"The opinions of generic scientists (ie those commenting outside of their area of expertise) are not too different to those of the general public. The more stringent you are in demanding the person knows what they are talking about, the closer to unanimous the consensus becomes."

That scientists not directly involved in AGW research are not competent to comment on global warming is very tenuous.

What is very clear is that while global warming is a fact, the results have differed from the models considerably (Re the last decade). An article in New Scientist I read about 18 months ago summed up the issues quite sucinctly: The climate model is a massive chaotic system with many known and unknown variables which have an unknown influence which vary at different points on the globe.

Ross Garnaut has known political affiliation, was commissioned by the labor party, and while basing his economic predictions on "science" the question is on whose models? His predictions implied the models had a high degree of accuracy, and allowed for little variability.

Secondly his assertion that the cost of emission reduction was less than the cost of accomodation, ignored the fact that unless the rest of the world meets the same targets the stringent emission reduction by Aus will have almost zero effect.

Finally, Aus has exceeded its Kyoto targets by so far, and with a predicted energy demand increase of 100% by 2050, drastic action is required to even keep emissions at present levels. Nuclear might be a swear word amongst the greens, but without it emission reduction is not possible.

Rstuart & Belly,
You must have been on holidays.
I saw the photos of the boat down by the bow, people in the water and
naval people in the water with them.

It was a sensible thing to do to throw the children and themselves into
the water unless you wanted to go down with the boat.

The boat not long after sank. Just a co-incidence ?