Howard stated that he was an “agnostic” on climate, and preferred to rely on his “instincts”. This, of course, ignores the fact that none of us non-climate scientists would even know that there was an issue except that some 97 per cent of peer-assessed climate scientists (now joined by a host of non-climate scientists) have, atypically, agreed on the magnitude and the urgency of the challenge. I say “atypical” because it is the very essence of scientific endeavour that they disagree, that they contest each other’s hypotheses and research conclusions. So, John Howard, it’s not a question of “religion”, but of science, and “instincts” are irrelevant when it comes to matters of scientific “fact”.

>more> TheAge