Where it began
I’ve loved the planet since I was young, marvelled at the way nature surrounds us. I’ve been fascinated at our journey through evolution that led us, the third chimpanzee, to where we are today.
However I have always been acutely aware that we also have an impact on this planet. That whilst we reap the benefits of our great intellect, one that allows us to mass produce food and support great cities, we also carve up large pieces of land, clearing it for our own use at the expense of other animals. More recently we began to use many non-renewables that will one day dry up with no guarantee of alternatives. A growing population adds further pressure on the environment.
In more recent decades scientists are learning that our impact on our planet goes deeper than we imagined. Whilst some gases may be invisible to our eye, they are not to the infrared spectrum. Thanks to these greenhouse gases our planet is slowly gaining heat, the side effect of ocean acidification is equally concerning.
During my lifetime I have seen many improvements with our interaction with the environment, but usually so long as it doesn’t impinge on our way of life too much.
So why blog
Lately, with regards to greenhouse gases, it seems many people are threatened by the latest scientific findings and are more willing to listen to the fringe opinion. That is whilst the majority of climate scientists agree that we are causing the planet to warm and that it is potentially very dangerous for many reasons, there are some people, even scientists with degrees, that think they are wrong. Are they right?
Honestly; they well could be. The 2% of climate scientists might be right and the 98% might be wrong, the planet may well be just having a hiccup that we don’t understand. But as someone betting the future of the planet on this, can we really risk listening to the opinions of the 2% and not to the 98%?
The whole climate debate gets very emotional as the scale of change to our power sources require great change. In Australia, where I live, there are huge investments in coal as it is our largest export. Putting a price on carbon has become a very political issue.
I hate politics so I’ll leave that side of the issue alone. My own opinion is that no politician does a great job, so lets pick the one that’s going to do the least worst job. In this blog I will stick to the science and hopefully help clear up some misinformation being spread.
Where I am going to focus is one the scientists that are currently being very vocal against the climate scientists. In particular this site is dedicate to one “skeptic” Joanne Nova, although I do intend to address others in due time.
Why Joanne Nova?
I don’t know Joanne, never met her but I have followed and interacted on her forum ( joannenova.com.au ). Whilst most of the debate there seems like obvious rubbish with much name calling and childish behaviour, I did find from my experience that when I pushed further for more details on the science that she disputed, I eventually got banned from making further posts.
If she did have nothing to hide from the science perspective, surely she could simply show where my logic had failed and all on her forum would cheer the result. But that never happened. You end up being called an annoying Troll and then banned from posting any further questions, or from reminding them that they fail to address criticism of their arguments.
So it’s time to write somewhere that I am free to post my thoughts and expose the poor science promoted by her.
Who am I?
Having been the target of much abuse at Nova’s forum I will not be putting any of my personal details forward.
I prefer focussing on the argument rather personal insults, I wish others would do likewise.
I do not get paid by the government nor do I work for any green-related industry.
My motivation for writing here comes from seeing how the poor science promoted by Nova, is being used as reason for inaction on GHG emissions.
Tags: Joanne Nova