"If it's good enough to accept the science on climate change then it's good enough to observe the science on issues around Gladstone Harbour," he said.
Oh really. So extensive, decades long research peer-reviewed by hundreds of scientists across the globe over a period of many years even in the face of opposition from big-moneyed interests is suddenly equivalent to a non-peer-reviewed environmental assessment paid for by either the mining-hungry, gung-ho, Government of Queensland, or some big mining company, or both? More than likely it was carried out over a very short period of time, and those things always have a very limited scope and often end up as "tick in the box" exercises, which even the most pig-ignorant of politicians must know.
Oh really. So extensive, decades long research peer-reviewed by hundreds of scientists across the globe over a period of many years even in the face of opposition from big-moneyed interests is suddenly equivalent to a non-peer-reviewed environmental assessment paid for by either the mining-hungry, gung-ho, Government of Queensland, or some big mining company, or both? More than likely it was carried out over a very short period of time, and those things always have a very limited scope and often end up as "tick in the box" exercises, which even the most pig-ignorant of politicians must know.
No, Dear Sir, they are NOT equivalent!
No comments:
Post a Comment