In The Age this morning and also The Sydney Morning Herald there’s an article on climate scepticism by their long-time cartoonist John Spooner. How sound, how sensible, how on the money. Such a pleasure to read. You should read the whole thing yourself. Here is a bit just to get you going:
I was once told by a friend that when it comes to scientific issues of major public concern, it is ‘not what you know but who you know’. I think he meant that my fledgling scepticism about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) was pointless, for as a cartoonist I was as unqualified to assess the science as he was.
The implication was that all who are untrained in ‘climate science’ are required to accept the scientific and political authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its local colleagues such as the CSIRO: the scientific establishment.
I found my friend’s advice baffling.
Anyone familiar with the judicial process knows the gravest issues of liberty and fortune are often determined by a jury selected from the public. Expert witnesses can give evidence in support of either side at a trial. The judge must rule on questions of admissibility, but in the end it is the jury that decides which scientific evidence is to be believed.
When it comes to climate change, we are the jury, not the IPCC. Dead on the money from end to end.