Does it really matter who is right or wrong? Surely our world would be a better place if we reduce carbon emissions anyway.
Wayne Goodwinsays
Interesting clip and also an interesting interview with the professor on Radio Nationals Counterpoint program today (Monday August 3). Some points:
1. I note that at no time during this clip does the professor deny climate change. His argument seems to be on the extent of its affect based on computer models.
2.I agree that climate change models can be confusing as can any scientific model that attempts to predict how a system might act but can we afford to wait until we are aboslutely certain?
3.For someone who seems to be critical of the publish or perish dictum he is doing a reasonable job at promoting sales of his book.
David Ecclessays
Climate change is a fact, but it has been going on, sometimes warming and at others cooling, for the whole history of the earth.
What is uncertain is the extent to which human activities are affecting the rate and direction of the changes. The risk is that, by ascribing the great bulk of the change to ‘greenhouse’ warming because of carbon dioxide, we will be putting all our eggs in one basket with a possibly dodgy handle.
We should be putting mugh more effort into adapting to climate change, such as limiting development in low lying areas and improving the efficiency of our water use.
Professor Paltridge is quite correct to point this out and warn us about the impacts that one-sided action will have on all of us.
Edward Wheelersays
I have just read Prof. Paltridges book.It is clear ,concise and to the point.Everyone should read it and finally debunk the fraud that is AGW/Climate Change.
Mike Loucassays
Even if CO2 emmissions are perfectly safe, let’s not forget what other gases are produced during most CO2 emissions such as CO and N2O. These emissions abound due to cars, industry and even woodsmoke from fireplaces and wood heaters.
Large epicentres are also synonymous with increased cancer rates and generally higher disease rates. Why is this? Increased levels of carbon monoxide reduce the amount of oxygen carried by haemoglobin around the body in red blood cells. The result is that vital organs, such as the brain, nervous tissues and the heart, do not receive enough oxygen to work properly.
If it is true that mean temperatures are rising, (by .18degC/decade) and true that the by-products of CO2 emmissions are harming our health we should all get to work on solving the problem rather than debating on whether the scientific community’s reputation is at stake.
If our children are to enjoy what we have been painstakingly laying down for them for centuries we need to ensure they can live in a relatively disease free environment which also paves the way for future generations. I am not interested in the intellectual ramblings of a scientist, or for that matter any person whose concern is not the well being of the inhabitants of this planet we share.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read more
Way to go Garth W. Partridge, more evidence that models are contradictory and inaccurate.
Sorry…got Garth’s name wrong. It’s Paltridge, not Partridge.
Does it really matter who is right or wrong? Surely our world would be a better place if we reduce carbon emissions anyway.
Interesting clip and also an interesting interview with the professor on Radio Nationals Counterpoint program today (Monday August 3). Some points:
1. I note that at no time during this clip does the professor deny climate change. His argument seems to be on the extent of its affect based on computer models.
2.I agree that climate change models can be confusing as can any scientific model that attempts to predict how a system might act but can we afford to wait until we are aboslutely certain?
3.For someone who seems to be critical of the publish or perish dictum he is doing a reasonable job at promoting sales of his book.
Climate change is a fact, but it has been going on, sometimes warming and at others cooling, for the whole history of the earth.
What is uncertain is the extent to which human activities are affecting the rate and direction of the changes. The risk is that, by ascribing the great bulk of the change to ‘greenhouse’ warming because of carbon dioxide, we will be putting all our eggs in one basket with a possibly dodgy handle.
We should be putting mugh more effort into adapting to climate change, such as limiting development in low lying areas and improving the efficiency of our water use.
Professor Paltridge is quite correct to point this out and warn us about the impacts that one-sided action will have on all of us.
I have just read Prof. Paltridges book.It is clear ,concise and to the point.Everyone should read it and finally debunk the fraud that is AGW/Climate Change.
Even if CO2 emmissions are perfectly safe, let’s not forget what other gases are produced during most CO2 emissions such as CO and N2O. These emissions abound due to cars, industry and even woodsmoke from fireplaces and wood heaters.
Large epicentres are also synonymous with increased cancer rates and generally higher disease rates. Why is this? Increased levels of carbon monoxide reduce the amount of oxygen carried by haemoglobin around the body in red blood cells. The result is that vital organs, such as the brain, nervous tissues and the heart, do not receive enough oxygen to work properly.
If it is true that mean temperatures are rising, (by .18degC/decade) and true that the by-products of CO2 emmissions are harming our health we should all get to work on solving the problem rather than debating on whether the scientific community’s reputation is at stake.
If our children are to enjoy what we have been painstakingly laying down for them for centuries we need to ensure they can live in a relatively disease free environment which also paves the way for future generations. I am not interested in the intellectual ramblings of a scientist, or for that matter any person whose concern is not the well being of the inhabitants of this planet we share.