Dear mikk,

Thanks for the quote. It's one of my
favourites. (German philosopher -
Arthur Schopenhauer).

I also like this old one:

"I don't feel obligated to believe that
the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason and intellect has intended
us to forego their use."

Fingers-crossed that the third-stage will
come sooner rather than later.
Although as my husband keeps pointing out -
you can't beat a pickled egg!

Mikk,

Having come from a science background, I am heartwarmed by your trust. Unfortunately just as many are rich, corrupt and ego centric as in any other background. (maybe not politicians or unions)

Thanks for the link to that article Col. The article itself was a load of spurious rubbish we have heard and debunked numerous times but one comment caught my eye and cuts to the heart of why I wrote this article.

"Climate change skeptics remind me of conspiracy theorists who think the americans blew up the world trade centre.
Just a very low opinion of their fellow man, and their motivations. "

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. What is it with the deniers that they seriously believe that a group of people (scientists) that have given so much to the world in technology, healthcare, understanding, wealth and so much more would suddenly turn on the community and seek to deceive them in such a dangerous and far reaching manner. It just doesnt make sense. Science has hardly ever involved itself in politics and you would think they would have tried to gain control in a normal fashion at least once before they went to such extremes as fraud and deception. Why do deniers have such a low opinion if one group but not apply it elsewhere. Why are the fat cats not seen by them in the same light despite so much more overwhelming evidence of fraud, greed and dishonesty? Can you deniers not see how it is to support your arguments when they are just not logical nor consistent.

mikk,

I don't have any problem with what you've written. I agree that most scientists do their job fairly diligently and that they can get stereotyped or politicised, which is unfortunate.

However, to be fair, many skeptics have not criticised the scientists. Their main gripe is with the *interpretations* that have been put on the scientists' work. In particular, the skeptics are really aiming their criticism at the interface between politics and science. I think they have a point which should not be too easily dismissed. Their essential argument is that it is utter folly to distort/disjoint our economy in order to satisfy the preconceived idea of AGW, if the human anthropological contribution is of much smaller magnitude than natural meteorological effects.

Now, if science could actually do the experiments that discriminated between man-made and natural effects, we would actually be getting somewhere in the debate. To my knowledge, this either hasn't been done or is at an immature stage.

Personally, I do not have a strong position on the climate change/AGW debate, but all I will say is that the power of nature is *massive* as the recent earthquake in Haiti attests. I therefore think natural and large-scale atmospheric events and processes must be taken into account when committing the country and economy to a particular, radical course of action. An appreciation of this power of nature may mean that whatever changes we make to fossil fuel burning are done in a smooth way that at least do not kick an own goal in terms of crimping our economy. That's the way I see the skeptics' argument and I think it is the correct way to view it.

RobP
It's more a case of 'galloping myopia' than much else.
I can't see it so it isn't happening, or I might lose something now.
As you put it own goal..destroying the economy. Others imply ...so business as usual.When coupled with the magic pudding scenario, and a terminal economics 'system'..."good luck, don't die" seems appropriate.

There is no doubt that the economy is a factor, but not the only or even the most important one.

Simply put, one class 5 cyclone, one drier decade than the last, one dead GBR (tourists), One metre of angry sea water et al can spoil the economy *permanently*. It won't do much for the "precious" Aussie life style either. Hunger lack of water tends to focus the mind somewhat. (what the hell I could stand to lose a kilo or 8)

Ultimately the decision boils down to the science and choosing an option that will do the least *long term* and doing nothing and to hell with the consequences.

Any guess which way I *currently* lean?
NB notwithstanding new scientific evidence that weighs in favour of the opposite.

examinator,

Your post shows that you didn't understand a thing I said.

>>Ultimately the decision boils down to the science and choosing an option that will do the least *long term* and doing nothing and to hell with the consequences.<<

You're right, taking the best decision does boil down to the science - and it also depends on distinguishing the difference between man-made and natural events as I said. Once that comes to light, the best decision may well be to make a move, but not as fast as you would like.

You're taking the road of the bully-boy/scare tactic. I suggest you try and understand what I was trying to say. (I was actually taking the middle path.) All you've shown in that post is that you're as one-sided as the people you're against. But that happens in religious wars.