The 3 x Professors are representative of many eminent scientists...

The 3 x Professors are representative of many eminent scientists - among them people like Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, Freeman Dyson, regarded as one of the most eminent physicist of the past 100 years and many others.

Before the usual suspects respond by citing any number of scientists who support the IPCC position, let me point out two things:

. first, that there are eminent scientists on both sides of the debate shows quite clearly that debate is not over - far from it.

. second, of all the disciplines, science can never be a matter of consensus which is what supporters of the IPCC maintain. A scientific theory is either proven, or it isn't. There is no middle ground. Newton wouldn't have been satisfied if the apple he dropped fell to the ground 7 times out of ten.

As these 3 said on Bolt's show, much of the scepticism comes from either retired eminent scientists or those not reliant on funding to support the theory. A scientist in, say the CSIRO, questioning the new orthodoxy would find career options quickly curtailed, as would any research body in a University seeking government funding to conduct research questioning the new orthodoxy.

The pity is that an ongoing scientific issue has been hijacked by the political process before the science is settled. The politicisation has meant the taking of sides, and the selling of the product by politicians [Gore ect], economists [Garnaut etc], and many with vested interests.

It is refreshing to actually see and hear scientists talking about the topic. It is a shame that we cannot see a convened debate between eminent scientists representing both schools of thought; alas, that is unlikely to happen as even participation in such a debate by people like Flannery, David Karoly etc, is an admission that the debate actually has two sides, not one.

Personally, I think everyone should be sceptical for this reason alone.