Burrs under my saddle
It's easy to say "the majority of Aussies" don't think climate change is occurring but is that true? We don't have to wonder, we can go here: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa= t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4 &cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAD&url =http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csiro.au%2F~%2F media%2FCSIROau%2FOutcomes%2FClim ate%2FAdapting%2FClimate%2520atti tudes%2F2013%2520Fourth%2520surve y%2520of%2520Australian%2520attit udes%2520to%2520climate%2520chang e.pdf&ei=B9raVOnBJMql8AXDz4HQBg&u sg=AFQjCNHPHHt3I2JWfnVjkSrv8K4ysf iUEg&bvm=bv.85761416,d.dGc
Only 9% of Australian's think it isn't happening.
Gumtree, I am not advocating the consumption of bats wings and frogs skins for you or for me. If you actually read my comment you will see I pointed out that some scientists disagree. There is uncertainty. The central question is what to do in face of an uncertain result of emissions as usual. You apparent choice to simply ignore scientists who say things you don't like isn't the least bit impressive.
Gumtree, I quite obviously did not say simply take what is being rammed down you throat. I clearly pointed that some scientists disagree. The discipline of risk management involves considering the possible futures, the risks associated with them and what measures should be taken. It is very straightforward to allow for multiple possible futures and manage the risks. That is a central part of farming. When you have disagreement among seasonal weather forecasters you don't choose the one you like and ignore the others. You create a farm plan that is resilient in the face of each scenario.
Impressive and considered analysis. As responsible risk managers it is not up to us to debate science. All we need to do recognise that a significant number of serious scientists have highlighted a particular risk. We can also recognise that other scientists don't necessarily agree while understanding this tension is part of the very nature of science. As Pete says, not all scientists think smoking is a problem. And yet we can still decide to discourage smoking. In the same way we can see the clear responsibility to begin to limit emissions even as the science further develops.
"It (hep A) could have happened equally here".
What a load of bollocks. The prevalence of hep A in the general population here is very low, whereas the prevalence in the country of origin is much higher and further compounding it is the very high likelihood that the processes are more lax there regarding isolating sick people from food processing.