And I suppose Warwick Hughes has it all right? If anyone has an agenda here with a foregone conclusion it’s got to be him. Since well before 2005, when he requested the IPCC data, he was bagging anything remotely green. No wonder they didn’t want to give anything to him, they knew his agenda was to attack anything they’d produced. I don’t blame them, I’d give people with an agenda to attack me nothing. There’s no positive articles on Warwick Hughes site, all negative about other people’s scientific work, all one sided, all anti anything green and pro coal and pro oil. There might be ten peer reviewed articles on a topic and he will show the one that supports his point of view. Does it make either one of them right? No it doesn’t. But I am ready to support the arguments of the 10 other articles over the one he picked out.
I am not even pro-green myself, nor am I anti-green. I am not a supporter of any political party. I’m not a fan of Liberal or Labor or Green. But I do see when there’s no balance. Warwick Hughes is one of those, with links off his site to sites such as antigreen.blogspot.com. 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? 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> 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. -- David Connors ([email protected]) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
