Greetings, On 27 February 2010 17:49, Tony Wright <ton...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
<snip> > So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe > in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with > your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in > climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered > right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by > Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium > fortune? > > But this is how the majority of the general public choose the side they are going to agree with. It's human nature. Science is about facts and measurements and exposing your theories, along with your data and methodology, to critical peer review, and taking your lumps and revising your theory until you have a strong proposition that is acceptably close to the truth. You are not supposed to believe _in_ a scientist. That stinks of cultism. You are supposed to be convinced by the quality of his/her research. It should not be about personality and charisma. Copernicus recanted, Isaac Newton was a prat and Thomas Edison seldom washed. I'm afraid I don't believe any of the xGW crowd, from either side. I do wonder why it is such an issue at the moment. I do, however, believe the following:- 1. Global warming (and cooling) is inevitable. It has happened before. Get used to it. 2. Pouring all the carbon dioxide, that was laid down in the Carboniferous period, back into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea. (Although I have red that global temperatures during this period were very, very low in spite of the high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide). 3. Greenland was inhabited and farmed before, and probably will be again. 4. The Northwest passage was safe for shipping before, and probably will be again. -- noonie > > > Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might > be coming up if we don’t be careful? > > > > T. > > *From:* ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto: > ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] *On Behalf Of *David Connors > > *Sent:* Saturday, 27 February 2010 3:04 PM > > *To:* ausDotNet > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles > needed > > > > On 27 February 2010 11:54, Ian Thomas <il.tho...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > I just hate the inflammatory wording in that explanation of the Melbourne > Water graph – > > “*What does this graph show?* > Annual inflows into Melbourne's 4 major reservoirs since 1913. While ups > and downs are a constant feature, the average has dropped rapidly by almost > 40% in the past 12 years. This included a devastating drop in 2006, which > the CSIRO had forecast could occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario > in 2050.” > > …included a devastating drop in 2006, which the CSIRO had forecast could > occur under a 'severe' climate change scenario in 2050. > > So what? Is that a proof that climate change is occurring more rapidly than > CSIRO modelling predicted? As an alarmist flag to the water-consuming public > that we should conserve and limit unnecessary use of water, it may be > justified, but in terms of truth or factual information it really gets up my > nose. > > I realize that some clerk or other gonk in Melbourne Water phrased the > explanation (not the CSIRO), but it’s typical of inflammatory exaggerated > accounts that are intended to promote an agenda. > > The same clerk or gonk fortuitously chose a starting date of 1913, neatly > excising the federation drought (by exactly a decade) from the start of that > in-flow graph - as well as any inflow records that led up to the Murray > River being bone dry in 1914. > > > > I'm probably cherry picking facts though. >
