A case for a second thought? - the science of climate change

Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “A tale of two worlds”, 18/05/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_tale_of_two_worlds/

It is important to have free speech and to allow different views to exist, no matter whether it is comfortable or disturbing to either the majority or a minority. In this context, Plimer’s work is especially important.

That being said, it appears that the debate on climate change, its causes and consequences has become a complex one. I would suggest to world governments and the relevant international bodies to organize some forums to bring scientists from both sides of the debate to the fore to debate openly and to provide the public with opportunities to listen to their stories together.

I am not a scientist and have very little knowledge on climate changes and their historical facts. I would be keenly interested in listening to both sides and make up my mind after some if all of the most important questions have been answered by them. Now it seems both sides have their own markets and followers. Some of the followers on either side take the stories as given and true. They don’t question them and are having strong faith and conviction.

They are not informed debate or decision making. Unfortunately there is so much at stake no matter whether we do something or not, and whichever actions we take. We can’t afford being making a decision on climate change without basing it on historical facts and scientific reasoning.

At this stage, if I had to choose, I would go with the majority of world scientists on climate change, as most people will probably do. But I also have some sympathy for Plimer and am impressed by his courage as a minority fighter, although I can say nothing about whether he is correct or not.