@izabsmiling wrote:
Maurice Newman's flat-earth thinking ignores climate change facts
The key conclusions on climate change science from the Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Science have been confirmed with even greater confidence by the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in September 2013.
They include:
- There is no doubt that the climate system has warmed over the past 100 years and continues to warm.
- It is beyond reasonable doubt that human influences, through burning fossil fuels, industrial activity and land clearing, have been the main cause of the observed global warming since the mid 20th century.
- Continued emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
- Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr Newman writes that "global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years", but the global average surface temperature has warmed over the period 1997 to 2013, ocean heat content has increased significantly, and Arctic sea ice extent has declined, all showing clearly the continued warming of the climate system.
Australia has just set a new record in 2013 for the hottest calendar year temperature averaged across the whole country, unprecedented in more than a hundred years of instrumental observations and outside the range that can be explained by natural variability alone.
He also writes "when necessary the IPCC resorts to dishonesty and deceit", but none of the many independent inquiries in the US and the UK into scientists involved in the IPCC have found any evidence to support these claims.
Unlike Mr Newman, leading inte
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/maurice-newmans-flatearth-thinking-ignores-...
the above article suggests the title Fools for deniers such as Maurice Newmann...
The title denier fits someone who rejects science
I just couldn't see the word as a person who denies something. If I was talking to the OP I would have immediately recognised the word but when written my brain just didn't click.
Anyway, I am being very brave airing my views but I am ready to be howled down.
Sometimes opinions are too extreme in both directions.
Yes there are changes happening but I think those who want immediate and urgent action on these changes could take a little more time to explain carefully and prove these changes. Many people are not opposed to change but the speed at which it happens.
My mother and many of her cronies in their late 80s and early 90s don't understand why they have to pay more for electricity, more for water, and more for other things to try to stop them using as much as they used to use. I don't think anyone will ever come up with a credible answer for these people and so to engage in name calling of these "skeptics" is really offensive to them and in my mother's case I find it offensive that my mother is labelled as a naysayer, for goodness sake don't be cruel to those who don't agree
When there is too much nastiness it turns off people for supporting either side of the debate some of us would just like sensible discussion with no hysterics and everyone's opinion is considered and then politley rejected or acepted..
I think everyone active on both sides of the debate really have to take a long hard look at themselves and remember not everyone, has the interest or drive to force changes to supposedly save the planet.
Some just want to get on with life and let those they elected do the business for them
