Mike.Ayling wrote:Sorry, my original post was not clear enough.
Restating and expanding:
Andrew Bolt had an article in the Sun one day this week on climate change and reckons that it (climate change) is a load of tish.
Is that clear enough for you blokes?
Andrew quoted another lot of scientists to support his case. (As you do in these situations.)
What do you call 'a lot'. Five? Ten? One Hundred? That isn't a lot really, not when there are thousands around the world who prove that Climate Change is real on a daily basis. Just count the numbers of published papers for and against and you will find that the the skeptics are outnumbered by about 33 to 1. But science is not a democracy, or if it is then only the evidence gets to vote. If the evidence supported that one guy then he would win. But it doesn't. All of the evidence points to climate change caused by global warming which in turn is caused by increasing CO2 levels. It would take days to repeat all that evidence here so why don't you go review all the material at Skeptical Science
, Real Cimate
, Climate Progress
, Neven's Blog
and the National Snow Ice and Data Centre
rather than relying of the opinions of one newspaper columnist.
But that would require hard work and a bit of effort on your part. The inherent laziness of the majority of the population is a huge advantage to the skeptics here.
The skeptics have it easy in this debate. Al they have to do is keep saying NO. As long as they get the media space to quote a few carefully selected observations and reports then they have done their job. But they have a 'right' to state their opinions you might say? Well of course they do, but what about the others who don't ever get their opinion or reports published? The media just don't care, they believe that they have done their job by reporting just one argument in favour and one against. Actually in the HUN its not even that. Bolt get three columns a week to repeat his nonsense, the real climate scientists would not get one tenth of that. There are hundreds and even thousands of reports that never will never see the light of day in the mainstream media. Instead they let Bolt repeat the same old stuff over and over again.
The problem here is that you cannot conduct a scientific debate in political terms and expect to reach a valid conclusion. In science nobody has a 'right' to an opinion unless it is backed up by solid evidence. In science, freedom of evidence is more important than freedom of speech.
Bolt's purpose is to sow the seeds of doubt, if he can get the public to believe that the two sides are evenly balanced and that the "science is not settled" (quote from Ted Ballieu on taking office) then he has won the political debate.
But no science is ever "settled". The theory of Gravity isn't settled. Both Newton and Einstein have been proven to be wrong in significant areas of their theories. But that doesn't mean that the apples will start drifting back up to the trees. We still carry on our lives knowing that Gravity is real and that the theories are settled enough. Climate Science is "settled enough".
Remember the debate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The question of whether or not Iraq had these weapons was always a scientific one that should have been decided by the qualified people on the ground in Iraq, namely the UN weapons inspectors. They said that there were none. But the conservatives, backed by News Corp, conducted the debate in political terms. They won that debate. The death toll so far is about 100 to 200 thousand of Iraqis, 4,500 Americans, Britons and Australians. They never did find any Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I just wish the conservatives would use the same logic in the Climate Change debate that they used to go to war in Iraq.
"We're not 100% sure about this, there is room for doubt, but if its true then the consequences are unthinkable. Millions could die. Therefore we cannot wait until we have certainty, we have to act now."