I think I understand what you're saying iron_mike_a and I...

I think I understand what you're saying iron_mike_a and I agree.

Few actually understand "the science" of climate change - certainly not Flannery, Garnaut, Gillard or Abbott - none of whom are climatologists. We have some exceptionally erudite climate scientists in Australia but they are rarely called on for their views, as it is so dull. Much better to market apocalyptic predictions - a Tim Flannery specialty.

The problem as I see it is this. The science of climate change is very much in its infancy. Those of my age will recall in the 70's scientists warned us a new Ice Age was imminent. Newsweek ran a cover story on it [which was retracted in 2006]. Now we are told the opposite. Instead of leaving the scientific boffins to do what they do best, those with vested interests have hijacked the issue into the public arena long before it should have been. It was deliberately politicised. Some,like Rudd, went further and turned it into a moral issue!

So scientists are now trying to work in a highly charged political environment on an embryonic theory with pressure coming from politicians to "sex up" the hyperbole. Dependency on funding almost makes that a self fulfilling prophecy - certainly the IPCC has obliged.

Like everyone else I am happy for this branch of science to continue research but it is hard to see how it can now be divorced from the political paradigm. Isaac Newton theorised and developed the Universal Law of Gravity to fruition. He did not seek a consensus of scientists. A scientific theory is either True or it isn't. There is no middle ground. We are now being told by our government that Group A of Scientists should be believed over Group B who say the exact opposite.

That is not science - it is bald politics and we should not fall for it.