This forum places a lot of emphasis on subject specialists.
you know, blue tags = those with subject specialties expertise.
if an issue is perhaps counter-intuitive, well we pay respect to those with subject knowledge as guidanice.
except if you’re a climate scientist, apparently.
if a climate scientist had a blue tag, would ppl actually listen to them, even if it seemed counter-intuitive or inconvenient?
every single scientific institution in the nation accepts it. - so perhaps we should listen to actual subject specialists even if they aren’t here with a blue tag.
to link this to NZDF, the NZDF, ADF, UK MOD, US Dept of Defense all accept climate change as a profound reality challenge.
perhaps we should try an not second guess them?
@Wombat000
Excuse the long comment but the suggestion that something must be accepted because it comes from a particular 'expert' (including def pros I might add) is not supportable and is not how this forum works.
I understand your point and agree that professional experience, education and training is only relevant to the matters related to matters covered by that experience, education and training. The is true for the defence pros on this site and they are open to correction where the facts differ (no person is infallible)
However, your post seems to suggest that those defence pro's who commented on the the sea height issues had no right to do so. I agree there is very strong evidence that mankinds' impact on the environment is a very serious challenge. As an example CO2 absorption by the oceans in itself if a massive issues noting the potential impact on biomass and that science is very solid.
Ocean acidification – Australian Antarctic Program (antarctica.gov.au)
However, looking at the comments made I note they did not dispute the reality of the impact of mankind on the environment rather questioned the suggestion of sea level change based on observation. I suggest your tone was unnecessary in this respect.
I would observe that a past darling of climate change science in Australia (Tim Flannery) made dire predictions that never eventuated (and this did nothing for the cause of climate change)... The link below is an interesting read and touches on the need be carefully nuance messages noting the science is not without some uncertainty ...
Tim Flannery’s Latest Climate Triumph – Quadrant Online
So even some experts draw unsupportable conclusions noting there are scientists in many fields who oppose generally accepted principals. All science needs to be challenged to ensure the conclusions are supportable and this is a rigorous and robust approach.
Again I am not suggesting that there is no impact on the environment (clearly there is) but folk are allowed to comment on such situations (blue tag or not) where the observations are inconsistent with predictions or modelling.
alexsa