Sunday: Questioning the science of Climate Change - Part III

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/

On the show; 29th June, 2008 (AEST)

The theory of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming has become an unchallengeable fact, a piece of black letter law almost unique in the world of science.

Proponents of the theory say the time for scientific debate is over. It would irresponsible to fund any further research into counter views on the relationship between elevated levels of carbon dioxide and a rise in temperatures since the mid-1970s.

It's regarded as career suicide for scientists to advocate any counter view of the causes of global warming, let alone deny the orthodox consensus view as adopted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, there is a school of thought that our knowledge of climate systems is as yet insufficient to be so conclusive on the causes of global warming.

Today Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced.

Skeptics point to the gaps in the knowledge base and the flaws in the measurement of vital climate and weather data upon which the consensus is based.

Social researchers also highlight the dangers of conducting science as a form of religion, divided into believers and deniers.

They warn that as governments prepare to make expensive policy decisions, such as carbon emissions trading schemes, this consensus may not reflect the best science.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• news
• anthropogenic
• al
• gore
• carbon
• dioxide
• solar
• greenhous
• gases
• tim
• flannery
• Adam
• Shand

[fastercar1234]

Divided? if the ratio is 99:1 (and hoping that one is not sponsored by some corporation), that's not divided. I've come to find that if you ask 100 people if the earth was flat, you'd find one who believed this. Is the consensus divided over that?

[mranderson1986]

Man Global Warming is a business.

Al Gore owns shares in an Oil Company, google it.

Temperature affects Co2, not the other way around. Co2 is not a pollutant, it's an emission. With those simple facts the whole debate is centred on fear, spin and sly name calling and unfounded accusations

[c0mpute]

Good show, one should consider back in the 70s they were talking about an iceage and how we are all going to die, that theory is again slowly comming back.. lol. yet who made these people that believe that man made Co2 is the cause, god? these radicalists and extremists are nut cases. all you have to do is look up HAARP (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) to see what damage that can do to our ozone layer & I was not aware that we had fixed the ozone layer yet. is news to me

[nitpicker]

Thanks for posting this. Tim Flannery is a gas.