This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

Of course climate change is “happening”, this is a nonsensical statement. Never has it not been happening.

“Clearing up the Climate Debate” – This is begging the question. Offering a range of opinions from approved authors is hardly ‘clearing up’ anything. A debate has two sides, it cannot be cleared up by one side, resolving it requires an independent arbitrator. I haven’t spotted one yet.

“The majority of the world’s climate scientists agree: climate change is real, we are causing it and it’s happening right now.” An untrue statement! There is no majority of climate scientists agreeing on this issue.

That we are causing ‘it’, is being hotly disputed by scientists and other impartial, clear-thinking people around the world.

There is some justification for even doubting that global warming is a current trend.

There is considerable legitimate argument about the claimed degree of man-made GHG‘s on global temperature.

There is convincing evidence that atmospheric levels of CO2 are only remotely connected to global temperature.

There is definitely no general consensus on the claim that carbon controls will solve any global temperature problems.

 The open letter, attributed to several signatories and edited by Megan Clement, is full of rhetoric and bias.

• Part One: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community.  (‘The Conservation’ website, is the source)

To include the NASA photo and its title,  “It’s undeniable: our planet is changing”, is irrelevant to the argument and misleading to the reader. The fact that the planet is changing, is truly undeniable, but to link this to human activities is a deception.

“The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.”  Not true.

“A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businesspeople are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.”  Now we come to the crux of the issue. This part is true, “boldly DESIGNING the future”, except the elimination of fossil fuel pollution is irrelevant, unless it is to adversely affect the general population.

“Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.”  Entirely untrue! The main stream media, in general, supports the so-called peer-reviewed “evidence”.  “Evidence” that is ‘pal-reviewed’ and certainly does need balance by ‘bloggers’, who are learning from scientists and others with ethics and morals; the audience, far from being captive, are actually intelligent, have freedom of choice, and are clear-thinking people getting plenty of scrutiny and plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence contrary to the “pervasive media culture” of climate change alarm.

“We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.” Here we have a challenge. it is my belief that this statement is the antithesis of the actual situation. There are many examples of disregard for truth and ethics displayed by the IPCC and warmist fraternity, far more than on the ‘sceptics’ side.

Brave, to call eminent people wrong. Maybe foolish, too. But I stand by my understanding of all the evidence I have studied and the conclusions I have reached. There is no doubt that much evidence is available to ‘prove’ all sorts of scenarios, highlighting that no-one KNOWS for sure anything definite about the future, and proving that even the “known” evidence can not be absolute in making irrefutable conclusions about the future. However, I am convinced that the motives of the “alarmists” are agenda driven. I am comfortable with the belief that the motives of the “sceptics” are technically and morally supportable. I offer a previous post as meaningful  support to my point of view! 

https://tgrule.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/from-their-own-mouths-global-warming-is-a-fraud/

The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.

Related articles

• Climate change: Why is it a hot topic? (donovanhand.wordpress.com)
• http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
• http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/climate-commission-report-debunked/
• http://www.climatecooling.org/
• http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229349#comment48985
• http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html 
• https://tgrule.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/from-their-own-mouths-global-warming-is-a-fraud/
• https://tgrule.wordpress.com/carbon-attack/motivation/