Seer, I like to keep open mind, but this thread is about facts not opinions. I don't mind what opinions these eminent people may have, they can opine that little green men live on the moon as far as I am concerned. The fact of the matter is that it is commonly accepted by the scientific community that 30% or so of the CO2 in the atmosphere now was put there by humans - predominantly by burning fossil fuels and land clearing. Why is that so difficult for some people? It is entirely logical, but why oh why is it so hard for some?
Alternatively, if someone thinks there is another non-human cause for this extra CO2, then why suddenly are there more undersea volcanoes (for example, which the USGS says do not exist by the way)? Seems very convenient for the fossil fuel industry that all these hitherto unseen undersea volcanoes have been dormant for thousands of years and have suddenly, out of nowhere, sprung to life in the last 200 years, LOL!
Why is there such a big campaign to call CO2 plant food? Why is Alan Jones so keen to downplay the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, if it is really just harmless plant food that is good for plants, and by extension, good for all of us? That in itself is very suspicious. Doesn't it set off some alarm bells? Why is this contradictory 'evidence' being used in such a scatter-gun approach? Why don't the so-called sceptics seem to have a sceptical mode? Why do they avoid questioning the questionable instead of relentlessly questioning the scientifically rational and logical? Why don't the sceptics ask 'why' about the outrageous claims, yet reject out of hand the simplest and most likely explanations i.e. burning enormous quantities of fossil fuels and clearing vast areas of land has over two centuries has resulted in a CO2 imbalance causing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise? Why is that rather simple and logical explanation suddenly so unlikely?
It is the merchants of doubt subtly influencing opinions, that is why.
Anyway, back to my point - this thread is about accepted scientific facts and not about opinions. Alan Jones needs to stop presenting his opinions and rubbery figures as fact, because in doing so he is in contravention of the commercial radio code of practice. I implore anyone reading this who wants to see fairness and accuracy on commercial radio to make your voice heard and spend five minutes to register a complaint with 2GB, as is your right.
