OK, seems this must become another "CC" pouring from the empty into the void.
So, let's look at the famous "the science is settled" climate question.
First up, the *** "deniers" nonsense, that is ad hominid rubbish. Not allowed in our HC P&R debates.
We explore the very existence and motives of the Creator of the Universe including why He would personally be interested in your day to day habits.
Whether you do it in a parked car or up the back on a diesel bus may be neither here nor there for us , but vitally important to Him.
"CC" ??
Climate changes , it always has and always will, for at least the last 6,000 or 4.5 billion years or so.
However, it is the cause and the consequences that are the question, not CC.
So, this is not just about climate change, but the possible causes and what is the best response for Australia.
Ideally it would be the best response for Humanity, but I've been around far too long to think that is a realistic possibility.
One popular current claim is that the C02 greenhouse gas effect is applicable to the Earth's climate and so therefore must be the cause of what is observed.
This was originally an interesting hypothesis but has somehow become the equivalent of "God's word". No one questions it and no one feels the need to uselessly request funding to question it.
Since all other observations are then interpreted as support for and in relation to that hypothesis, it can be claimed via "appeal to authority" as "the science is settled."
The history of science is supposedly governed by some magical peer reviewed "consensus" process that inevitably corresponds with truth.
However, real advancement in science is almost always characterised by departure from this "peer accepted" view of what is possible and what is truth.
For those interested in religious psychology, note how the responses are "religious" rather than detailed responses to legitimate questions.
