I just don't have enough basic education to evaluate the technical arguments. My firm sceptic position is more influenced by my view of human motivation, my tendency to want to challenge conventional wisdom and my attraction to the logic of people like Nigel (Lord) Lawson.
When I read the comments of Freeman Dyson (Princeton) and all the other sceptic material, I perceive a very compelling case on the sceptic side.
Then when I listen to the Parliamentary ravings of Wayne Swan, in particular, constantly quoting the Stern Report, discredited by our own Productivity Commission, and suggesting that Australia, with its tiny proportion of greenhouse gases, can change the climate, I smell bullshit!
I liked Tony Abbott's comment the other day- "socialism disguised as environmentalism"
2 comments:
David, I seems to me you may be trusting the wrong people.
Most climate sceptics are not climate scientists, and the overwhelming majority have a vested interest in not accepting climate change.
Real climate scientists overwhelmingly support climate change as a valid scientific theory, and urge action.
I would say that instead of climate change being "socialism disguised as environmentalism", climate denial is "corporate interests disguised as scepticism".
Please define "real climate scientists". Do you mean those Government funded climate units where the staff are dependent on maintaining the alarmism to keep the funding rolling? Have a read of the "Climategate" emails.
"Climate science" incorporates a whole range of disciplines and there are an increasing number of highly qualified specialist scientists who do not accept the warmist dogma.What possible vested interests do the likes of Freeman Dyson and Vaclav Klaus have?? Where is the evidence of all of the alarmist predictions of the likes of Tim Flannery?
No sorry but I believe Vaclav Klaus is on the right track.
Post a Comment