“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

Open Letter to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dec 2007

Written by 100 Prominent Scientists

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the “Father of Meteorology”; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the “1000 Most Cited Scientists”; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Even if we do accept anthropogenic global warming (and by the way I do), the extent of it and the possible repercussions are even less well understood. If debate at the scientific level is being stifled (and it is) then we may truly heading for a man made disaster…..again!.

JamesK: 100 scientists have written a letter to the UN? There is an excellent rebuttal of most of the influences of the individuals, and especially some of their theories (Sun Spots etc) in either Nature or Scientific American sometime in Feb. I can’t lay my hands on it this morning. I’ll raise you my 5000+ scientists to your 100.

The thing to recognise is that there are legitimate dissenters in this science.
There is even more disagreement on the possible ramifications.
There is even less agreement again on what action to take.

I subscribe to the majority (scientific) view but I hope to maintain an open mind (as hopefully more science is done if it has not already been stifled).(What is the point in financing research when we already know the answer. Science is not open ended. You must ask specific questions and test the theory to see that answers are what might be expected if the theory is valid. If not, your theory is incorrect. Which is GOOD not bad.The only things we truly KNOW are the theories we have proven to be false or more properly shown to be invalid).

No the meat and potatoes. What do we do about it?

That is largely in the hands of Ross Garnaut. Who? What?

And no he is not a scientist.

How much more evidence do people need? How many opinions are enough? If you have majority scientific opinion, but a tiny minority of dissenters, do you start the “debate” again? Do nothing? It will be a man-made disaster of Biblical proportions should we sit around doing nothing.

I will reiterate JJ’s first point to help you (as you obviously need all the help available):

The debate is “over when you dont want to look at the evidence”.

Perhaps, but I suspect ‘Our Kev’ is being wisely counseled to backpeddle rapidly on the Garnaut soon-to-be-released recommendations if he wishes to be ‘Our’ Kev-11

Remember ‘Our Kev’ campaigned on the “pain” felt by “working families” with groceries and petrol. Who is truly guilty of “unscrupulousness”? Nelson? Rudd? Or Clive Hamilton who says thet he is”keen to revive public debate on the big issues affecting Australians”.

I’ll bet.

You point out that the Australian people are not fools and therefore will dismiss your attempts to claim continued debate, when we should be moving on to extents and mitigation.