Terry Mccann has all the credibility on this issue of a...

Terry Mccann has all the credibility on this issue of a vegetarian shark. He is vehemently anti labour and has always been pro resources. He is no better than Andrew Bolt, Al Gore, or Monckton. He cannot refrain from attacking the government or anyone who agrees with them (treasury) He even tries to drag up the Whitlam era - that was 35 years ago - we have moved on as a nation, he cannot prevent himself from constant name calling and little "aren't I clever" play on words. Hardly journalism. He will not criticise the opposition for their failings, poor policy or even investigate the issues, he just prattles on with mindless diatribe with his particular view.

I doubt that there will ever be consensus on this issue, but I see that we have a problem with the life support systems on our rocky spaceship, those that dont want to do anything about it are free to leave.


As a scientist I often wonder about all this money that we are making form research grants as I go into the car park with my mates and we get into our Ferrari's - carefully disguised as a 1979 volvo. I will think about it when I read a letter from my mate who has given up a year with his family to hunker down in Antarctica to do some studies whilst my stockbroker visit Tahiti just after the letter has arrived that the sub prime mortgage fiasco wiped out his super.

I wonder on the drive home how the scientists, my colleagues, got the whole IPCC reports so wrong, that the anti AGW proponents must be right. I had just finished reading a report over the coffee break where the head of the IPCC quoted that he had deliberately allowed the incorrect date on the melting of glaciers by 2035 to stay in the report to scare world leaders, three days later I read a report saying that he strenuously denies ever saying it, I wonder who is right

I wonder why when I go to parties and BBQ that as a I chose not to mention I am scientist in the environmental field I am now considered untrustworthy and people are free to call me a spiv and con artist to my face. I wonder how tradespeople and accountants etc know more about my field than I do after 35 years of research and training.

AS I walk around my local park and extend my keen interest in nature why I am seeing new weeds that I did not see 20 years ago, why in the river that I could stand in up to my neck and count my toes I can no longer swim in and it has signs around. Why are the birds coming to nest earlier, why are trees not losing all their leaves over winter. Why cant the storm water drains cope with downpours anymore, why are the established European trees in my garden dying and the dry tolerant natives invading my garden.

I wonder what possesses politicians to over state the claims of the science, the truth is dire enough there is no need to exaggerate. I wonder why both sides of the debate need to resort to fanaticism, and absurd attention to singular points, spend weeks arguing over small pieces of information, a microscopic cog in a cataclysmic wheel ( to quote Nick Cave), If I was to look at the Mona Lisa would I single out one eyelash that looked askew and think - Michelangelo got that one wrong, therefore this is no masterpiece it is worthless

I wonder what lead people to be so closed minded,both sides, climate change may or may not be driven by humans, but it does look like it. Why are there so many asinine arguments being presented time and time again. They are reasonably explained but they come up; again, which means either they were never interested in my argument or answer, they were not raising the argument for any real sort of debate, there are other motives for the well machined process of repeating key messages and telling people what they want to hear.

What I really wonder is what reason do people have to disbelieve, most people I run into do not have the capacity or training to understand all the science and few have the ability to retain all the knowledge required, analyse it, rationalise it and comprehend the issues. Yet everybody is an expert, they know more than the IPCC, NASA, GISS,

I wonder why when climate gate was released (and what a timely release) it was front page news, when the results of an inquiry into M.Mann was released and he was found to have no case to answer it is not reported ( or barely).

I wonder who has the most to gain from stalling the debate and really has the most to gain form a comprehensive global response.

I wonder why the rules of peer review do not apply to counter AGW claims as much as the anti agw crowd demand of the AGW crowd.

I wonder why the truth is so hard to get. There is no accountability, statements are made and the media does nto check them, they jsut run with sensationalist headlines that have nothing to do with the body of the article. eg ask Rudd if he is gay - answer - no- Headline "Rudd denies being gay"

I wonder why any of you bother - the battle lines are drawn and people have picked their sides the only problem is there can never be a winner. Both sides have condemned humanity to failure by their obstinacy to approach the matter in a mature manner that should be appropriate to such an issue.