Despite mounting evidence dispelling anthropogenic global warming, why does the Government still cling to old AGW supporting studies? The link between (any) global warming and health of the Great Barrier Reef, is strongly rejected by marine scientists, and at the very least, contested and unverifiable. There are many other examples. So why does the Government continue to deceitfully quote such disproven theories? Is the Government following science or simply cheery-picking science to suit their agenda (or committed-to policy).

user_image
You can find some information opposing the accepted discourses about sea levels and temperatures at these links. Since 2003 ocean temperatures have been cooling, not getting hotter. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/11/new-sea-level-dataset-now-available-still-flat/ Relationship between CO2 and temperature http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/
Helen Spelitis · 1 year ago
user_image_from_facebook
I second Sue Bond's question. Sources please. There is no "mounting evidence" just a mounting campaign of misinformation.
Anthony David · 1 year ago
user_image
Oh and no matter how many votes this question gets it won't be asked in question time since it has been made clear that this topic is not up for debate. Why is that???
Helen Spelitis · 1 year ago
user_image
I don't think anyone is disputing that the global warming (now referred to as climate disruption in the US) is real.The evidence of changing weather patterns is indisputable and has had very real impacts particularly in the far northern hemisphere. It seems the more relevant question is; are these changes being caused by human activity and is there actually anything we can do about it i.e. how will a carbon tax help stabilize the environment? It won't, but it will help Australians share in the wealth of the resources boom, through re-distributive taxation (ideologically speaking) and by returning the budget to a surplus. Creating a commodity out of carbon emissions, using fear of the unknown and unpredictable and gaining legitimacy through a promise of returning some of the money to people in need - let's be honest that's most of us at the moment. Pretty clever spin really. Think about it.
Helen Spelitis · 1 year ago
user_image_from_facebook
Are you mad? ...How can people still not know that climate change is real? There are NO marine scientists that reject it! ...Did you know that Lord Munckton is laughed at in England as being a Pauline Hansen type figure? Most marine scientists are very disturbed by the already highly visible damage that global sea temperature changes, development and overfishing are causing. Most reefs globally are damaged - this is fact. While you're there, go look up about Newfoundland's devastated fisheries, caused by (climate change) a giant sheet of ice that keeps melting. Climate change is contested by geologists funded by fossil fuel companies and think tanks also funded by fossil fuel companies. Read the science - do you even know how a greenhouse gas works?
Trish Appleyard · 1 year ago
user_image
Cat among the pigeons on this site! You did see that Crikey is also on board here, didn't you? I think quite a lot of the more vocal posters on this site don't feel much love for Gina Rinehart...
Paul Neumann · 1 year ago
user_image
mounting evidence in blogs or in peer reviewed journals? Very different things.
Dean Rizzetti · 1 year ago
user_image
And the 'mounting evidence dispelling anthropogenic global warming' is...what? Could you state your sources for this 'evidence' please?
Sue Bond · 1 year ago
People who voted for this question