Consider this: all these fossil fuels were once, as the name suggests, living organisms. Funny how Robert Manne & Co. fret over the fact that long buried carbon, the essential element of life as we know it, is now being re-cycled. It's like Evolution devised a way, evolved a species with suffici
This article is further proof that Robert Manne is totally clueless regarding the motivation behind scepticism of the theory of AGW. Just speculation and Lewandowsky-inspired psycho-babble.Where is the evidence to support Manne's hypotheses? Can he even produce a single instance of a prominent sce
comments. How is it possible that Robert Manne thinks he is able to get away with not responding to the many apparently devastating criticisms offered here by those who, unlike him, appear to understand climate science? If he does not respond comprehensively convincingly he reveals himself as a fraud.
Why is it then, that alarmists like Robert Manne declare that climate science predicts catastrophe, when it so obviously does not? The pertinent question: How can climate change alarmism be explained? Since Robert Manne appears to be wholly within the alarmist camp, perhaps he might like to use
Mark, Thanks for providing the answer to my question: How can climate change alarmism be explained? Note: if you think future climate change catastrophe is as certain as gravity applied to a apple, then you admit to the same ignorant misapprehension as Robert Manne.
Thankyou Robert Manne for an excellent article. Since learning about global heating over 30 years ago as part of an undergraduate degree in geology, I am dumbfounded and dismayed at humankind's' refusal to do anything about it. Our children will pay dearly for the consequences - probably many will p
"Who to trust? Andrew Bolt or climate scientists?"This argument cuts both ways. A lot of climate scientists question the AGW theory. Who do you believe? These scientists or Robert Manne? "The climate is changing"Most sceptics believe the climate is always changing."The planet is warming."In the past
Robert Manne could have saved himself alot of typing. Instead of 5 reasons for such "denialism", he could have conflated them to one: it's a grand conspiracy!!!!Evidently, his rabid anti-communism has put him in a "they are out to get us!" frame of mind.Which makes me chuckle. After suggesting commu
people then they have no scientific validity. I have university degrees in science AND information technology. I am a skeptic. People like Robert Manne want to pigeonhole me as a denialist, that's *his* decision. Reminds me of the old Communist intolerance, really - "Anyone not with us is against us".
Jeremy, you have made Robert Manne's case for him!" The facts don't bear the model out.I'm all for saving the planet, but in this case we cannot, as man is not warming it to any significant degree - nature is."You predicate that false statement with words that you "believe" AGW is bogus. Robert M
Wow! That's a clear setting out of the situation if ever I saw one. Well done Robert Manne - and you didn't have to stoop to invective to make your points.It's a pity the denialists can't be as measured and logical in their arguments.
