POEM has never objected to the Cattle Bay marina. We did object to a statement in the Cattle Bay DA that the Snug Cove marina project should be ranked second after the Cattle Bay marina as we considered that neither project should have preference over the other.

To support our argument against being ranked second we pointed out that the Snug Cove safe harbour/marina project has government funding for its attenuator.

We are, of course, aware that there is a range of views in the community about the merits and prospects of the Cattle Bay development but POEM has never had or expressed a policy of opposing the Cattle Bay Marina.

On March 9 this year Scott Pruitt, the new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, said there is “tremendous disagreement” about the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global warming.

The Australian Academy of Science (like pretty much every scientific institution in the world) doesn’t agree with Mr Pruitt and says on its website that:

“ … human activities … have sharply increased greenhouse gas concentrations … these gases have a warming effect … warming has been observed … continued reliance on fossil fuels would lead to greater impacts in the future ... This understanding represents the work of thousands of experts …” You can see the details by googling “AAS and climate change”.

US geologist Dr James L. Powell identified some 33,700 peer reviewed climate scientists of which some 97 per cent agree with the AAS.

So where does this view of “tremendous disagreement” come from?

What people such as Mr Pruitt are often referring to is the online Global Warming Petition Project by which 31,487 scientists joined a petition to the US government which includes a statement that:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and destruction of the Earth's climate.”

You can see the website by googling “global warming petition”.

So doesn’t 90 per cent of 33,700 saying “yes” and 31,487 saying “no” justify a claim of “tremendous disagreement”? Not if you look more closely. 

Firstly, the 31,487 is out of a pool of some 11.5 million relevant scientists in the US, according to the 2009 census. So not a big take up.

Secondly, you don’t have to be a climate scientist to sign, all you need is a basic science degree, no matter in what discipline – even “general science” is enough.

Thirdly, of the 31,487 signatories just 39 claim to have scientific experience in Climatology.

Fourthly, the names, according to the website, were gathered between 1998 and 2007. So seven years without a new signatory?

Maybe there were more signatories after 2007, but in April 2013, when I looked at the website for a talk I was giving, the number of signatories was the same – 31,487 - and the number claiming climatology as their area of science was – you might have guessed it – 39!

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but who wants to punt their children’s and grandchildren’s future on the opinions of anyone other than the vast majority of peer reviewed climate scientists and scientific institutions like our own highly respected Australian Academy of Science? Not me.