.
via peterc005;
I really need to get back to my work rather than get sucked into arguments with people over conspiracy theories.
Garth Paltridge's view is in a small minority. The accepted view of the CSIRO is what is published. It's not just the CSIRO, it's pretty much the same view of every relevant academic and government body that I've come across.
There is no point in arguing with someone ranting over conspiracy theories, nothing, not reason nor facts will change your view.
The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed. Not everyone will agree with it, but it is still good science.
"The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed"
Well then
peterc005 , where is this good, solid and peer-reviewed science
? Perhaps yer can provide an actual quote from the CSIRO links yer provided ?..
In the meantime heres some interesting comments from "Professor Fritz Vahrenholt
one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement and the director of RWE Innogy, one of
Europe's largest renewable energy companies"
"Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society – painfully but for a good cause.
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too..."
Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist - Telegraph
.