Added: Tuesday , 06 Jan 2009 04:27 pm

OK - so the figures fluctuate and don't often comply with predictions - but you are plain wrong if you think that the Arctic Ice is not retreating. I ask you Mr Jeffreys - if Arctic Ice is not melting then why is there a huge push on for Arctic dominance as access to previously icelocked oil & gas reserves come on stream? Right now, the US, Russia, Denmark, Canada, et al are bitterly duking it out for access to these reserves. Canada is building a new northern base to defend its Arctic sovereignty. The US & Russia are increasingly involving themselves in naval posturing in the region, especially in the sphere of subs. Janes Defence Weekly has catalogued the ship passages that have recently opened and noted that this is an UNPRECEDENTED development. It is known that this is unprecedented (at least in modern times) because navies have always been very busy in this region and have detailed ice maps at their disposal. The Atlantic crossing is made slower by Arctic ice and shipmasters are also avowedly looking forward to faster travel times due to arctic melt.

Do you really believe hard-headed military types would be prone to being duped by radical greenies? Enough of the denial - just because specific events do or do not come to fruition this does not mean we are not witnessing significant environmental changes. The requirements for 'proof' in the sciences are stringent, so of course it will always be possible to challenge specific arguments this way or that way. The final proof will always remain elusive. Moreover, there will always be a ton of ambiguity and metereology is inherently predictive - but we still have the common sense and discretion to recognise patterns and trends when we see them. We should be alarmed by the unprecedented level of consensus on the subject - a very rare phenomenon indeed in the natural sciences. As for this absurd notion of an 'environmental industry' and the profitability entailed in being green, well that is just complete nonsense. Big business is far more capable of generating large sums of money - nobody with any brains would engage environmental causes out of a profit motive. Better to defend big business if money is your primary motive. And not only that - almost every single leading critic of contemporary environmental concerns is beholden to a particular fossil fuel supplier for funding and those that are not are typically considered nut-jobs within their field, boasting of no distinguished publishing record and no record of proactive experimentation and/or meaningful results.

And frankly, without wishing to be too acerbic here, I would like to ask what expertise you bring to the table that makes you feel so empowered to challenge (and indeed at times outright mock) the considered opinion of professionals within their field? When you can slap a science degree down on the table, or at least boast of wide reading and knowledge on the subject then you will be entitled to a considered opinion on the matter. Otherwise you are just playing the demagogue. I find your denials redolent of the flat earth society when faced with Copernicun science.

Andrew Harrison, Canberra

Added: Tuesday , 06 Jan 2009 07:49 am

Following many requests, in writing, to Senator Brown for the Greens to provide verifiable scientific data to support their stand on Climate Change/Global Warming the only response from his office is "there are a considerable number of reports available to support our position".
The current Government is certainly persuing a code of fear that we are all doomed if we do not act now and introduce a new tax, a Carbon trading scheme.
It would appear that the Government and actavist groups promote WMD's (words of mass deception/words of mass diversion) and will do anything to suppress any view that does not conform to their agenda and denegrate alternate views with religous fervour.
How can we achieve an informed decision when we are denied a balanced debate.

Maxwell G. Stewart, Ngunnawal

Added: Monday , 05 Jan 2009 02:06 pm

I'm sure that our good friends at the IPCC can find a way to alter the definition of ice so that they can continue to claim that the ice is melting...or perhaps they'll just deceptively claim that ice levels on (arbitrary date goes here) were (some large percentage) down on the peak level (which just happens to be at the moment).

I don't think the truth is going to get in the way of a good global warming scare just yet.

Samuel Gordon-Stewart, Canberra

Name:
Email:
Location:
Comments:
Enter the code shown above: Code is Case Sensitive - check for Capitals
(Your comments will not be posted on the site until approved)