The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy.

On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’.

Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible.
This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’.

Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different.

‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it.

‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research.

Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp.

I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued.

Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us.

Nice opening statement to your thread.

Its very hard to hold Extremism on either side WHEN WE ARE TOLD THAT WE MAY HAVE TO FORK OUT MONEY TO HELP PAY A TAX IN THAT OTHER CATERGORYS BELIEF THAT ITS GOING TO SOMEHOW ASTRONOMICALLY SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL WARMING.

When you are going to ask people to pay a tax over carbon, ITS GOING TO GET EXTREME AND SOMEWHAT EMOTIONAL NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, THAT THE FACTS AND TRUTH WILL GET LOST IN THE BACKGROUND.

stryder wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:47am:

Nice opening statement to your thread. Its very hard to hold Extremism on either side WHEN WE ARE TOLD THAT WE MAY HAVE TO FORK OUT MONEY TO HELP PAY A TAX IN THAT OTHER CATERGORYS BELIEF THAT ITS GOING TO SOMEHOW ASTRONOMICALLY SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL WARMING. When you are going to ask people to pay a tax over carbon, ITS GOING TO GET EXTREME AND SOMEWHAT EMOTIONAL THAT THE FACTS AND TRUTH WILL GET LOST IN THE BACKGROUND.

The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless.

Its not extreme to say the science is settled. In scientific circles, settled is not absolute, but with a very high probability of accuracy.  Therefore the science IS settled.
Its just that when it gets translated to mere mortals, settled is intepreted as an absolute.

The debate we should be having is what to do about it. Actually I think both sides of politics are at that stage. Labor has the market driven carbon price, Liberals have the government sponsored direct action.

Arse about on ideologies, but this subject attracts that!

I believe that sometime in the future, I DONT KNOW WHEN, IM NOT NOSTRODAMUS LIKE SOME OF THESE LEFTIES WHO PREDICT GLOBAL DOOM IF WE DONT ACCEPT THIS CARBON TAX.

But I believe the human race will move on from fossil fuels to maybe cleaner and abundant sources of energy which at this stage are so far expensive and land consuming, BUT I RATHER LET IT HAPPEN NATURALLY THEN ON THE LABOR/GREENS SCHEDULE THROUGH FORCE BY CARBON PRICING AND TAXING.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:56am:

Its not extreme to say the science is settled. In scientific circles, settled is not absolute, but with a very high probability of accuracy.  Therefore the science IS settled. Its just that when it gets translated to mere mortals, settled is intepreted as an absolute. The debate we should be having is what to do about it. Actually I think both sides of politics are at that stage. Labor has the market driven carbon price, Liberals have the government sponsored direct action. Arse about on ideologies, but this subject attracts that!

'Science is settled' implies there is little to discuss. that is also far from true. Science is replete with examples of how we beleived something to be true - to be settled - and yet were totally wrong. it IS extremist to believe your scientific positoin is beyond criticism or modification. Even Einsteins much lauded theory of relativity is not considered pure truth. It too is subject to modification and/or replacement.

stryder wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:56am:

I believe that sometime in the future, I DONT KNOW WHEN, IM NOT NOSTRODAMUS LIKE SOME OF THESE LEFTIES WHO PREDICT GLOBAL DOOM IF WE DONT ACCEPT THIS CARBON TAX. But I believe the human race will move on from fossil fuels to maybe cleaner and abundant sources of energy which at this stage are so far expensive and land consuming, BUT I RATHER LET IT HAPPEN NATURALLY THEN ON THE LABOR/GREEN SCHEDULE THROUGH FORCE BY CARBON PRICING AND TAXING.

Actually the history of energy use would suggest you are right. we didnt move from wood-powered steam engines to fossil fuels because of green activists taxing forests. the technology made a new enery available. the same will happen with fossil fuels as new energy sources becme available.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:00pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:56am: Its not extreme to say the science is settled. In scientific circles, settled is not absolute, but with a very high probability of accuracy.  Therefore the science IS settled. Its just that when it gets translated to mere mortals, settled is intepreted as an absolute. The debate we should be having is what to do about it. Actually I think both sides of politics are at that stage. Labor has the market driven carbon price, Liberals have the government sponsored direct action. Arse about on ideologies, but this subject attracts that! 'Science is settled' implies there is little to discuss. that is also far from true. Science is replete with examples of how we beleived something to be true - to be settled - and yet were totally wrong. it IS extremist to believe your scientific positoin is beyond criticism or modification. Even Einsteins much lauded theory of relativity is not considered pure truth. It too is subject to modification and/or replacement.

Climate science is as settled as gravity is*.

In other words, its at a state where we can make decisions based on it with a very high probability of accuracy. Much like flying.


* It may supprise you that gravity is not absolutely settled.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:00pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:56am: Its not extreme to say the science is settled. In scientific circles, settled is not absolute, but with a very high probability of accuracy.  Therefore the science IS settled. Its just that when it gets translated to mere mortals, settled is intepreted as an absolute. The debate we should be having is what to do about it. Actually I think both sides of politics are at that stage. Labor has the market driven carbon price, Liberals have the government sponsored direct action. Arse about on ideologies, but this subject attracts that! 'Science is settled' implies there is little to discuss. that is also far from true. Science is replete with examples of how we beleived something to be true - to be settled - and yet were totally wrong. it IS extremist to believe your scientific positoin is beyond criticism or modification. Even Einsteins much lauded theory of relativity is not considered pure truth. It too is subject to modification and/or replacement. Climate science is as settled as gravity is*. In other words, its at a state where we can make decisions based on it with a very high probability of accuracy. Much like flying. * It may supprise you that gravity is not absolutely settled.

High degree of accuracy? Like how every prediction on future climate ever made had been widely inaccurate?

HOW gravity works is not understood. Defining its actions however is very well understood.  How climate works is not understood and defining its actions and making predictions based on that understanding is extremely limited.

I might add that you are simply adopting the 'extremist position' rather than even considering the notion that the science ISNT settled.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:52pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:00pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:56am: Its not extreme to say the science is settled. In scientific circles, settled is not absolute, but with a very high probability of accuracy.  Therefore the science IS settled. Its just that when it gets translated to mere mortals, settled is intepreted as an absolute. The debate we should be having is what to do about it. Actually I think both sides of politics are at that stage. Labor has the market driven carbon price, Liberals have the government sponsored direct action. Arse about on ideologies, but this subject attracts that! 'Science is settled' implies there is little to discuss. that is also far from true. Science is replete with examples of how we beleived something to be true - to be settled - and yet were totally wrong. it IS extremist to believe your scientific positoin is beyond criticism or modification. Even Einsteins much lauded theory of relativity is not considered pure truth. It too is subject to modification and/or replacement. Climate science is as settled as gravity is*. In other words, its at a state where we can make decisions based on it with a very high probability of accuracy. Much like flying. * It may supprise you that gravity is not absolutely settled. High degree of accuracy? Like how every prediction on future climate ever made had been widely inaccurate? HOW gravity works is not understood. Defining its actions however is very well understood.  How climate works is not understood and defining its actions and making predictions based on that understanding is extremely limited. I might add that you are simply adopting the 'extremist position' rather than even considering the notion that the science ISNT settled.

Just to add. NASA can predict gravitational pull to fly their aircraft. AGW could not model anything even remotely as close as that accuracy and every model they have tried, comes up zip. You be the judge, but remember to put the logic hat on.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:50am:

stryder wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:47am: Nice opening statement to your thread. Its very hard to hold Extremism on either side WHEN WE ARE TOLD THAT WE MAY HAVE TO FORK OUT MONEY TO HELP PAY A TAX IN THAT OTHER CATERGORYS BELIEF THAT ITS GOING TO SOMEHOW ASTRONOMICALLY SAVE THE PLANET FROM GLOBAL WARMING. When you are going to ask people to pay a tax over carbon, ITS GOING TO GET EXTREME AND SOMEWHAT EMOTIONAL THAT THE FACTS AND TRUTH WILL GET LOST IN THE BACKGROUND. The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless.

And that brings in the third set of people, more extreme than the Chicken Littles, as these people will fraudulently and deliberately mislead the public (Michael Mann, Tim Flannery, Julia Gillard) with unbalanced public commentary.

The other point on this why should we have to pay another tax? We know our government is not giving us value for money and that was even before Rudd got in and showed Australians that Idiotic is expectable for blowing our tax dollars. Our Government should be able to afford to invest in new technologies without taxing us more for it, how about we have a mass slashing of bureaucracy. We all know that our Government has more bureaucracy then front line staff. And the bureaucracy just keeps getting bigger. The average Australian is being taxed into slavery. For what? so a Communist bureaucrat can have a pretend over paid position?

GET STUFFED.

No wonder bureaucrats all cry skill shortage, its to protect their own arse, The other choice is mass government cut backs and those people will have to go fill up the shortages. Only thing is there will not be enough private sector to employ them.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 1:37pm:

The other point on this why should we have to pay another tax? We know our government is not giving us value for money and that was even before Rudd got in and showed Australians that Idiotic is expectable for blowing our tax dollars. Our Government should be able to afford to invest in new technologies without taxing us more for it, how about we have a mass slashing of bureaucracy. We all know that our Government has more bureaucracy then front line staff. And the bureaucracy just keeps getting bigger. The average Australian is being taxed into slavery. For what? so a Communist bureaucrat can have a pretend over paid position? GET STUFFED. No wonder bureaucrats all cry skill shortage, its to protect their own arse, The other choice is mass government cut backs and those people will have to go fill up the shortages. Only thing is there will not be enough private sector to employ them.

Why dont all countries get together and offer a bounty for the first to make a renewable solution at certain criteria. Tested and verified.

Imagine the private investment flood in for a major major bounty.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 1:40pm:

Why dont all countries get together and offer a bounty for the first to make a renewable solution at certain criteria. Tested and verified. Imagine the private investment flood in for a major major bounty.

Only problem with that, another tax for the bounty?
I want value for money in government. With what they make from the people of this nation is more then enough to give us top service in health, Give us top service in law enforcement. they could even line the streets with gold. I'd like to hear a politician come out and say what is a sustainable cost of government. like come on Our Government System has been running since 1901 and the Australian tax payer has no answer to this question?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:52pm:

High degree of accuracy? Like how every prediction on future climate ever made had been widely inaccurate? HOW gravity works is not understood. Defining its actions however is very well understood.  How climate works is not understood and defining its actions and making predictions based on that understanding is extremely limited. I might add that you are simply adopting the 'extremist position' rather than even considering the notion that the science ISNT settled.

Climate science has been settled for the past decade. Every credible scientific prediction since then has correlated almost precisely with what has happened.

What you are confusing yourself with is predictions made by the fringe of the debate, which are not credible, but seem to get a lot of publicity. Al Gore being one of them. The anti-global warming who exagerate further to try to prove their point.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:37am:

The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us.

Avoiding Climate Extremism, requires taking whatever mitigation measures are possible, prior to reaching those extremes!

Btw LW, you are correct about one thing, you don’t know the real answer!

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 2:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:52pm: High degree of accuracy? Like how every prediction on future climate ever made had been widely inaccurate? HOW gravity works is not understood. Defining its actions however is very well understood.  How climate works is not understood and defining its actions and making predictions based on that understanding is extremely limited. I might add that you are simply adopting the 'extremist position' rather than even considering the notion that the science ISNT settled. Climate science has been settled for the past decade. Every credible scientific prediction since then has correlated almost precisely with what has happened. What you are confusing yourself with is predictions made by the fringe of the debate, which are not credible, but seem to get a lot of publicity. Al Gore being one of them. The anti-global warming who exagerate further to try to prove their point.

Would you care to name THREE 'credible scientific predictions', and when they came true ( in the field of man-made climate change, of course)...

p.s "Do your own research" actually translates as 'no I can't find any'...

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:50am:

The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless.

How could one not be considered extreme while wanting to act on climate change? Direct action plan? Do nothing because accepting the consensus is extreme? Do what Germany is doing?
I don't want to be extreme.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 2:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:52pm: High degree of accuracy? Like how every prediction on future climate ever made had been widely inaccurate? HOW gravity works is not understood. Defining its actions however is very well understood.  How climate works is not understood and defining its actions and making predictions based on that understanding is extremely limited. I might add that you are simply adopting the 'extremist position' rather than even considering the notion that the science ISNT settled. Climate science has been settled for the past decade. Every credible scientific prediction since then has correlated almost precisely with what has happened. What you are confusing yourself with is predictions made by the fringe of the debate, which are not credible, but seem to get a lot of publicity. Al Gore being one of them. The anti-global warming who exagerate further to try to prove their point.

LOL now you are just silly. find ONE significant climate prediction that has occures as predicted. Like sea level rises. Go ahead. Make my day!!!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 2:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. Avoiding Climate Extremism, requires taking whatever mitigation measures are possible, prior to reaching those extremes! Btw LW, you are correct about one thing, you don’t know the real answer!

You didnt understand the OP at all, did you?

jame-e wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 3:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:50am: The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless. How could one not be considered extreme while wanting to act on climate change? Direct action plan? Do nothing because accepting the consensus is extreme? Do what Germany is doing? I don't want to be extreme.

If you want to act on climate change then fine. But how about implement policies that actually work. A carbon tax/ETS has been tried and FAILED> That is my problem.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 3:29pm:

jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:50am: The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless. How could one not be considered extreme while wanting to act on climate change? Direct action plan? Do nothing because accepting the consensus is extreme? Do what Germany is doing? I don't want to be extreme. If you want to act on climate change then fine. But how about implement policies that actually work. A carbon tax/ETS has been tried and FAILED> That is my problem.

Well that would be everyones problem yes?

Where has it been tried and failed? Any ideas as to why it might have failed?

What policies will work?

jame-e wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 3:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:29pm: jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:50am: The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless. How could one not be considered extreme while wanting to act on climate change? Direct action plan? Do nothing because accepting the consensus is extreme? Do what Germany is doing? I don't want to be extreme. If you want to act on climate change then fine. But how about implement policies that actually work. A carbon tax/ETS has been tried and FAILED> That is my problem. Well that would be everyones problem yes? Where has it been tried and failed? Any ideas as to why it might have failed? What policies will work?

The EU has an ETS with an effective average of $22/tonne. their own admisison is that it has had zero impact on CO2 emissions. What would work? no idea, but thats not my problem.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 3:28pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 2:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. Avoiding Climate Extremism, requires taking whatever mitigation measures are possible, prior to reaching those extremes! Btw LW, you are correct about one thing, you don’t know the real answer! You didnt understand the OP at all, did you?

On the contrary, I understood what you said, what you have been saying for some time and what you are saying now.

You are certainly not in the centre, never have been in the centre & that is not going to change.

On the other hand, I don't care about the Right or Left or about Politcians in general and I'm pretty sure that I have conveyed that impression.

I am equally, not on the Politcal Right or Left  of this issue and that is what largely divides opinion, not the facts or the issues involved.

This is a systemic risk and like other risks of that magnitude, it needs to be dealt with, not left alone on its own to either solve itself or fester into a species killing monster!  

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 4:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:28pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 2:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. Avoiding Climate Extremism, requires taking whatever mitigation measures are possible, prior to reaching those extremes! Btw LW, you are correct about one thing, you don’t know the real answer! You didnt understand the OP at all, did you? On the contrary, I understood what you said, what you have been saying for some time and what you are saying now. You are certainly not in the centre, never have been in the centre & that is not going to change. On the other hand, I don't care about the Right or Left or about Politcians in general and I'm pretty sure that I have conveyed that impression. I am equally, not on the Politcal Right or Left  of this issue and that is what largely divides opinion, not the facts or the issues involved. This is a systemic risk and like other risks of that magnitude, it needs to be dealt with, not left alone on its own to either solve itself or fester into a species killing monster!

For all that rant, I dont see an actual POSITION on the issue.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 4:41pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 4:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:28pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 2:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. Avoiding Climate Extremism, requires taking whatever mitigation measures are possible, prior to reaching those extremes! Btw LW, you are correct about one thing, you don’t know the real answer! You didnt understand the OP at all, did you? On the contrary, I understood what you said, what you have been saying for some time and what you are saying now. You are certainly not in the centre, never have been in the centre & that is not going to change. On the other hand, I don't care about the Right or Left or about Politcians in general and I'm pretty sure that I have conveyed that impression. I am equally, not on the Politcal Right or Left  of this issue and that is what largely divides opinion, not the facts or the issues involved. This is a systemic risk and like other risks of that magnitude, it needs to be dealt with, not left alone on its own to either solve itself or fester into a species killing monster!   For all that rant, I dont see an actual POSITION on the issue.

Well, it has been out there, for some time, for anyone to look at, even you.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1306931017/all

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305800675/all

If you want any clarifications, you know where to find me!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 4:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:28pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 2:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. Avoiding Climate Extremism, requires taking whatever mitigation measures are possible, prior to reaching those extremes! Btw LW, you are correct about one thing, you don’t know the real answer! You didnt understand the OP at all, did you? On the contrary, I understood what you said, what you have been saying for some time and what you are saying now. You are certainly not in the centre, never have been in the centre & that is not going to change. On the other hand, I don't care about the Right or Left or about Politcians in general and I'm pretty sure that I have conveyed that impression. I am equally, not on the Politcal Right or Left  of this issue and that is what largely divides opinion, not the facts or the issues involved. This is a systemic risk and like other risks of that magnitude, it needs to be dealt with, not left alone on its own to either solve itself or fester into a species killing monster!

just to correct your typically narrow point of view: you dont remove extremism by creating a third narrow position called 'centre' and then abusing all those who fail to now fill one of THREE minute viewpoints. When I said the truth likes in the middle I probabvly should have said 'in between' so you would understand better.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 4:11pm:

jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:29pm: jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:50am: The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless. How could one not be considered extreme while wanting to act on climate change? Direct action plan? Do nothing because accepting the consensus is extreme? Do what Germany is doing? I don't want to be extreme. If you want to act on climate change then fine. But how about implement policies that actually work. A carbon tax/ETS has been tried and FAILED> That is my problem. Well that would be everyones problem yes? Where has it been tried and failed? Any ideas as to why it might have failed? What policies will work? The EU has an ETS with an effective average of $22/tonne. their own admisison is that it has had zero impact on CO2 emissions. What would work? no idea, but thats not my problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme

Have they said it has had zero impact? Or have they said it has not worked as desired?
Interesting to note, that with a small amount of research i have discovered that they are currently in Phase 2 and have even more reforms taking place in phase 3.

It appears as though the EU are not afraid to get back on the bike.

Maybe you should take off your training wheels before passing judgement on the possibility of Australia making an ETS work.

All major political parties in Australia agree action is required on Climate Change and have agreed to the same targets......It is the mechanism required to bring about a change to renewable energy that is in dispute......The debate needs to be about which policy will deliver the best outcome for Australia and the planet.....Denying there is a problem puts you into the extreme fringe and gives you no political support for your argument.....There is no policy in Australia to do nothing about climate change...those of you who are in denial about climate change are arguing against every political party in the country....Even Tony Abbott will not support your pathetic argument....You are what is commonly known as losers!!!

;)

jame-e wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 4:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 4:11pm: jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:29pm: jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:50am: The Carbon Tax is actually an example of blind extremism. Firstly it is a Carbon Dioxide tax which is nothing at all like a genuine Carbon Tax. Secondly, this kind of punitive approach simply does not work and has not worked wherever it has been tried. Rational thought would admit that and look for different approaches. Extremism see a carbon tax as one of its tenets and puts it in place regardless. How could one not be considered extreme while wanting to act on climate change? Direct action plan? Do nothing because accepting the consensus is extreme? Do what Germany is doing? I don't want to be extreme. If you want to act on climate change then fine. But how about implement policies that actually work. A carbon tax/ETS has been tried and FAILED> That is my problem. Well that would be everyones problem yes? Where has it been tried and failed? Any ideas as to why it might have failed? What policies will work? The EU has an ETS with an effective average of $22/tonne. their own admisison is that it has had zero impact on CO2 emissions. What would work? no idea, but thats not my problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme Have they said it has had zero impact? Or have they said it has not worked as desired? Interesting to note, that with a small amount of research i have discovered that they are currently in Phase 2 and have even more reforms taking place in phase 3. It appears as though the EU are not afraid to get back on the bike. Maybe you should take off your training wheels before passing judgement on the possibility of Australia making an ETS work.

Read what you wrote wthout the blinkers. The EU are not afraid to keep going down this path. Fine. But keep in mind that it still DOESNT work and probably wont work without 3-4 times the imposts they currently have. That would be economic suicide but in case you havent noticed, the EU is commmitting slow economic suicide anyhow. If not for Germany and France and to a lesser extent UK, the EU would already be bacnkrupt from coast to coast instead of simply MOSTLY bankrupt.

the point of the post which you fail to understand is that Phase 1 with a carbon cost HIGHER than the one we wil have is already known to have been totally ineffective.  And so we push ahead to replicate a failed scheme. Why should I not call it ideologically-driven extremism? Would you prefer I call it utter foolishness? coz i wont cal it good policy when it has zero chance of sucess.

The problem with the climate change alarmists is that they are ensuring that our eye is taken off the ball with regard to real environmental issues. Overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat etc. All things we can do something about.

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:03pm:

All major political parties in Australia agree action is required on Climate Change and have agreed to the same targets......It is the mechanism required to bring about a change to renewable energy that is in dispute......The debate needs to be about which policy will deliver the best outcome for Australia and the planet.....Denying there is a problem puts you into the extreme fringe and gives you no political support for your argument.....There is no policy in Australia to do nothing about climate change...those of you who are in denial about climate change are arguing against every political party in the country....Even Tony Abbott will not support your pathetic argument....You are what is commonly known as losers!!! ;)

Thank you for your non-thinking, ideologically-driven post that totally missed the point. IN case you didnt get it - and clearly you didnt - this thread is not about a carbon tax but about the DEBATE ITSELF and the polarisation of it. Im so pleased to add you to the list of everyone else so far who doesnt get it. IN fact, all you have done is prove my point that rational debate on the topic of CLimate Change is not possible. Too many emotions couple with too few brains.

Belgarion wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:09pm:

The problem with the climate change alarmists is that they are ensuring that our eye is taken off the ball with regard to real environmental issues. Overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat etc. All things we can do something about.

Not so, see -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1276775027/all

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:03pm: All major political parties in Australia agree action is required on Climate Change and have agreed to the same targets......It is the mechanism required to bring about a change to renewable energy that is in dispute......The debate needs to be about which policy will deliver the best outcome for Australia and the planet.....Denying there is a problem puts you into the extreme fringe and gives you no political support for your argument.....There is no policy in Australia to do nothing about climate change...those of you who are in denial about climate change are arguing against every political party in the country....Even Tony Abbott will not support your pathetic argument....You are what is commonly known as losers!!! ;) Thank you for your non-thinking, ideologically-driven post that totally missed the point. IN case you didnt get it - and clearly you didnt - this thread is not about a carbon tax but about the DEBATE ITSELF and the polarisation of it. Im so pleased to add you to the list of everyone else so far who doesnt get it. IN fact, all you have done is prove my point that rational debate on the topic of CLimate Change is not possible. Too many emotions couple with too few brains.

Rubbish.....the point I am making is those who deny climate change is a real and urgent problem have no political support....People like you think because you can put people down you will win the debate......I stand by my statements and nothing you have written refutes my argument!!!

:)

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:03pm: All major political parties in Australia agree action is required on Climate Change and have agreed to the same targets......It is the mechanism required to bring about a change to renewable energy that is in dispute......The debate needs to be about which policy will deliver the best outcome for Australia and the planet.....Denying there is a problem puts you into the extreme fringe and gives you no political support for your argument.....There is no policy in Australia to do nothing about climate change...those of you who are in denial about climate change are arguing against every political party in the country....Even Tony Abbott will not support your pathetic argument....You are what is commonly known as losers!!! ;) Thank you for your non-thinking, ideologically-driven post that totally missed the point. IN case you didnt get it - and clearly you didnt - this thread is not about a carbon tax but about the DEBATE ITSELF and the polarisation of it. Im so pleased to add you to the list of everyone else so far who doesnt get it. IN fact, all you have done is prove my point that rational debate on the topic of CLimate Change is not possible. Too many emotions couple with too few brains. Rubbish.....the point I am making is those who deny climate change is a real and urgent problem have no political support....People like you think because you can put people down you will win the debate......I stand by my statements and nothing you have written refutes my argument!!! :)

the highlighted statement is meaningless! only a handful of real idiots deny there is climate change since history has always shown it to occur. The problem is you equate that statement with a policy position. and that is NOT the same thing. at no stage whatsoever have you ever said that that the effect of humans on climate is debatable - and it is. Thos that think humans are totally responsible for climate change are fools. those that think we have zero effect are also fools. IM choosing a position in between - a position few occupy because it much easier to adopt an extreme point of view from ne of the two camps.

Those who deny climate change is a real problem should condemn Tony Abbott and the Coalition who have a policy that has been roundly condemned by every economist in the country.....If the Governments policy is wrong then the Coalitions policy is not a solution......trying to debate the reality of climate change is just plain stupid.....No political party supports this proposition.....the right wing nut jobs are on there own with this denialist crap.....losers!!!

:)

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:19pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:09pm: The problem with the climate change alarmists is that they are ensuring that our eye is taken off the ball with regard to real environmental issues. Overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat etc. All things we can do something about. Not so, see - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1276775027/all

quoting yourself is a little embarrasing, is it not?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:26pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:19pm: Belgarion wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:09pm: The problem with the climate change alarmists is that they are ensuring that our eye is taken off the ball with regard to real environmental issues. Overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat etc. All things we can do something about. Not so, see - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1276775027/all quoting yourself is a little embarrasing, is it not?

Why?

Belgarion said, those who talk about Climate Change don't talk about Population, I simply pointed out that I do!

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:26pm:

Those who deny climate change is a real problem should condemn Tony Abbott and the Coalition who have a policy that has been roundly condemned by every economist in the country.....If the Governments policy is wrong then the Coalitions policy is not a solution......trying to debate the reality of climate change is just plain stupid.....No political party supports this proposition.....the right wing nut jobs are on there own with this denialist crap.....losers!!! :)

because climate solutions are the province of economists... can you hear yourself??? ECONOMISTS???? for goodness sake! after the GFC they have the credibility of a 3rd rate lawyer and yet you quote them on the most complex bit of science today??? I presume you ask your chiropractor for advice on your car repairs?

and using 'denialist crap' merely parks you with the extremists and compares the value of your opinions to that of people reading from a Latin prayer book that they dont understand and desperately hoping they are doing something right.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:26pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:03pm: All major political parties in Australia agree action is required on Climate Change and have agreed to the same targets......It is the mechanism required to bring about a change to renewable energy that is in dispute......The debate needs to be about which policy will deliver the best outcome for Australia and the planet.....Denying there is a problem puts you into the extreme fringe and gives you no political support for your argument.....There is no policy in Australia to do nothing about climate change...those of you who are in denial about climate change are arguing against every political party in the country....Even Tony Abbott will not support your pathetic argument....You are what is commonly known as losers!!! ;) Thank you for your non-thinking, ideologically-driven post that totally missed the point. IN case you didnt get it - and clearly you didnt - this thread is not about a carbon tax but about the DEBATE ITSELF and the polarisation of it. Im so pleased to add you to the list of everyone else so far who doesnt get it. IN fact, all you have done is prove my point that rational debate on the topic of CLimate Change is not possible. Too many emotions couple with too few brains. Rubbish.....the point I am making is those who deny climate change is a real and urgent problem have no political support....People like you think because you can put people down you will win the debate......I stand by my statements and nothing you have written refutes my argument!!! :) the highlighted statement is meaningless! only a handful of real idiots deny there is climate change since history has always shown it to occur. The problem is you equate that statement with a policy position. and that is NOT the same thing. at no stage whatsoever have you ever said that that the effect of humans on climate is debatable - and it is. Thos that think humans are totally responsible for climate change are fools. those that think we have zero effect are also fools. IM choosing a position in between - a position few occupy because it much easier to adopt an extreme point of view from ne of the two camps.

The people that actually matter and form policy in this country do not agree with you.....that puts you at odds with those who have stated they accept climate change is real and requires urgent action.....Who supports your argument Longy.....who is listing to your crap mate.....no one important that is for sure??

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:30pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Those who deny climate change is a real problem should condemn Tony Abbott and the Coalition who have a policy that has been roundly condemned by every economist in the country.....If the Governments policy is wrong then the Coalitions policy is not a solution......trying to debate the reality of climate change is just plain stupid.....No political party supports this proposition.....the right wing nut jobs are on there own with this denialist crap.....losers!!! :) because climate solutions are the province of economists... can you hear yourself??? ECONOMISTS???? for goodness sake! after the GFC they have the credibility of a 3rd rate lawyer and yet you quote them on the most complex bit of science today??? I presume you ask your chiropractor for advice on your car repairs? and using 'denialist crap' merely parks you with the extremists and compares the value of your opinions to that of people reading from a Latin prayer book that they dont understand and desperately hoping they are doing something right.

Who in politics supports your pathetic position Longy???

;)

This cartoon typifies this topic...

---

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:30pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Those who deny climate change is a real problem should condemn Tony Abbott and the Coalition who have a policy that has been roundly condemned by every economist in the country.....If the Governments policy is wrong then the Coalitions policy is not a solution......trying to debate the reality of climate change is just plain stupid.....No political party supports this proposition.....the right wing nut jobs are on there own with this denialist crap.....losers!!! :) because climate solutions are the province of economists... can you hear yourself??? ECONOMISTS???? for goodness sake! after the GFC they have the credibility of a 3rd rate lawyer and yet you quote them on the most complex bit of science today??? I presume you ask your chiropractor for advice on your car repairs? and using 'denialist crap' merely parks you with the extremists and compares the value of your opinions to that of people reading from a Latin prayer book that they dont understand and desperately hoping they are doing something right.

If I was proposing a policy that worked on market forces I would get advice from an economist.....the science is already settled....You have no idea do you Longy???

Next loser!!!

;)

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:30pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Those who deny climate change is a real problem should condemn Tony Abbott and the Coalition who have a policy that has been roundly condemned by every economist in the country.....If the Governments policy is wrong then the Coalitions policy is not a solution......trying to debate the reality of climate change is just plain stupid.....No political party supports this proposition.....the right wing nut jobs are on there own with this denialist crap.....losers!!! :) because climate solutions are the province of economists... can you hear yourself??? ECONOMISTS???? for goodness sake! after the GFC they have the credibility of a 3rd rate lawyer and yet you quote them on the most complex bit of science today??? I presume you ask your chiropractor for advice on your car repairs? and using 'denialist crap' merely parks you with the extremists and compares the value of your opinions to that of people reading from a Latin prayer book that they dont understand and desperately hoping they are doing something right. Who in politics supports your pathetic position Longy??? ;)

now let me see... we take for granted that our own opinions and positions MUST be validated by support of a political party, right? So that unless you agree with these puffed-up elected dimwits your position is wrong?

Here is a clue. Politics is rarely about doing BEST. it is about doing what you CAN. compromise in action is not he same as compromise on principles.

But if you want to get all your peronal positions from the ALP/Greens website go ahead. I choose to THINK. Clearly, I am in a very small minority.

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:26pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:11pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:03pm: All major political parties in Australia agree action is required on Climate Change and have agreed to the same targets......It is the mechanism required to bring about a change to renewable energy that is in dispute......The debate needs to be about which policy will deliver the best outcome for Australia and the planet.....Denying there is a problem puts you into the extreme fringe and gives you no political support for your argument.....There is no policy in Australia to do nothing about climate change...those of you who are in denial about climate change are arguing against every political party in the country....Even Tony Abbott will not support your pathetic argument....You are what is commonly known as losers!!! ;) Thank you for your non-thinking, ideologically-driven post that totally missed the point. IN case you didnt get it - and clearly you didnt - this thread is not about a carbon tax but about the DEBATE ITSELF and the polarisation of it. Im so pleased to add you to the list of everyone else so far who doesnt get it. IN fact, all you have done is prove my point that rational debate on the topic of CLimate Change is not possible. Too many emotions couple with too few brains. Rubbish.....the point I am making is those who deny climate change is a real and urgent problem have no political support....People like you think because you can put people down you will win the debate......I stand by my statements and nothing you have written refutes my argument!!! :) the highlighted statement is meaningless! only a handful of real idiots deny there is climate change since history has always shown it to occur. The problem is you equate that statement with a policy position. and that is NOT the same thing. at no stage whatsoever have you ever said that that the effect of humans on climate is debatable - and it is. Thos that think humans are totally responsible for climate change are fools. those that think we have zero effect are also fools. IM choosing a position in between - a position few occupy because it much easier to adopt an extreme point of view from ne of the two camps. The people that actually matter and form policy in this country do not agree with you.....that puts you at odds with those who have stated they accept climate change is real and requires urgent action.....Who supports your argument Longy.....who is listing to your crap mate.....no one important that is for sure?? ;)

No one listened to Copernicus or Gallileo either. They were right. IN fact through out history, 'concensus' has been wrong time and time again.

IM mystified why you are so virilently denying someones right to hold a minority opnion. If you were a stalinist like nemesis Id understand. But you arent so what exactly is stopping you from holding an opinion of your own that might be *shock horror* at odds slightly with the Gospel of Gore? You have attacked me not for my position but for the audacity to even hold one not from the approved-by-the-UN list. I am disappointed but alas, hardly surprised. I rarely hear a thinking extremist from either side. Monkton is an idiot. Gore is an idiot. choosing to follow either group makes you an idiot as well.

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:30pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Those who deny climate change is a real problem should condemn Tony Abbott and the Coalition who have a policy that has been roundly condemned by every economist in the country.....If the Governments policy is wrong then the Coalitions policy is not a solution......trying to debate the reality of climate change is just plain stupid.....No political party supports this proposition.....the right wing nut jobs are on there own with this denialist crap.....losers!!! :) because climate solutions are the province of economists... can you hear yourself??? ECONOMISTS???? for goodness sake! after the GFC they have the credibility of a 3rd rate lawyer and yet you quote them on the most complex bit of science today??? I presume you ask your chiropractor for advice on your car repairs? and using 'denialist crap' merely parks you with the extremists and compares the value of your opinions to that of people reading from a Latin prayer book that they dont understand and desperately hoping they are doing something right. If I was proposing a policy that worked on market forces I would get advice from an economist.....the science is already settled....You have no idea do you Longy??? Next loser!!! ;)

all that does is set you up for massive disappointment just like the physicists who declared the science of the sctructre of matter was settled - and were dead wrong. just like the scientists who declared that travelling faster than 25 km/hr would kill you. or the doctors whop declared smoking good for you.

in 2020 there will be no one left alive who believes in destructive climate change - because it wont have happened.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Read what you wrote wthout the blinkers. The EU are not afraid to keep going down this path. Fine. But keep in mind that it still DOESNT work and probably wont work without 3-4 times the imposts they currently have. That would be economic suicide but in case you havent noticed, the EU is commmitting slow economic suicide anyhow. If not for Germany and France and to a lesser extent UK, the EU would already be bacnkrupt from coast to coast instead of simply MOSTLY bankrupt.

You are saying it does/will not work. The EU brings slightly more weight to the argument. Not to mention the other governments that are acting on the issue.

You say economic suicide. Maybe they just have different values.

Some wise words for you:


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:36pm:

Here is a clue. Politics is rarely about doing BEST. it is about doing what you CAN. compromise in action is not he same as compromise on principles.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:08pm:

the point of the post which you fail to understand is that Phase 1 with a carbon cost HIGHER than the one we wil have is already known to have been totally ineffective.  And so we push ahead to replicate a failed scheme. Why should I not call it ideologically-driven extremism? Would you prefer I call it utter foolishness? coz i wont cal it good policy when it has zero chance of sucess.

There is a bit to much subjective fact in the above.

How can you possibly claim a zero chance of success. You don't have the crucial information you need and i'm not sure you understand the measure.

jame-e wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:08pm: Read what you wrote wthout the blinkers. The EU are not afraid to keep going down this path. Fine. But keep in mind that it still DOESNT work and probably wont work without 3-4 times the imposts they currently have. That would be economic suicide but in case you havent noticed, the EU is commmitting slow economic suicide anyhow. If not for Germany and France and to a lesser extent UK, the EU would already be bacnkrupt from coast to coast instead of simply MOSTLY bankrupt. You are saying it does/will not work. The EU brings slightly more weight to the argument. Not to mention the other governments that are acting on the issue. You say economic suicide. Maybe they just have different values. Some wise words for you: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:36pm: Here is a clue. Politics is rarely about doing BEST. it is about doing what you CAN. compromise in action is not he same as compromise on principles. longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:08pm: the point of the post which you fail to understand is that Phase 1 with a carbon cost HIGHER than the one we wil have is already known to have been totally ineffective.  And so we push ahead to replicate a failed scheme. Why should I not call it ideologically-driven extremism? Would you prefer I call it utter foolishness? coz i wont cal it good policy when it has zero chance of sucess. There is a bit to much subjective fact in the above. How can you possibly claim a zero chance of success. You don't have the crucial information you need and i'm not sure you understand the measure.

well it was the EU that said it had had no effect - not me. you are only confusing yourself. ETSs and Carbon Taxes have been used and shown to have no effect. It really isnt a surprise. As a economic lever it is remarkably weak. it is like hitting industry with a feather and expecting massive change.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:23pm:

well it was the EU that said it had had no effect - not me. you are only confusing yourself. ETSs and Carbon Taxes have been used and shown to have no effect.

Did 'they' say it had no effect? When? Quote/document would be useful here.
I do not continue doing something that has no effect, why are they continuing?
Its time to provide some substance to your claims about the EU ETS.



longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:23pm:

It really isnt a surprise. As a economic lever it is remarkably weak. it is like hitting industry with a feather and expecting massive change.

Maybe those wise words will come in handy again:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:36pm:

Here is a clue. Politics is rarely about doing BEST. it is about doing what you CAN. compromise in action is not he same as compromise on principles.

If your feather analogy is correct, are you suggesting Australia use a mallet? $40-$50? What is your point?

jame-e wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:23pm: well it was the EU that said it had had no effect - not me. you are only confusing yourself. ETSs and Carbon Taxes have been used and shown to have no effect. Did 'they' say it had no effect? When? Quote/document would be useful here. I do not continue doing something that has no effect, why are they continuing?Its time to provide some substance to your claims about the EU ETS. longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:23pm: It really isnt a surprise. As a economic lever it is remarkably weak. it is like hitting industry with a feather and expecting massive change. Maybe those wise words will come in handy again: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:36pm: Here is a clue. Politics is rarely about doing BEST. it is about doing what you CAN. compromise in action is not he same as compromise on principles. If your feather analogy is correct, are you suggesting Australia use a mallet? $40-$50? What is your point?

its a very good point. why ARE they continuing and expanding a scheme that has had zero effect yet is a drag on their economy? and what of Germany which is abandoning nuclear power and now has no option but to use mostly coal or gas powered alternatives?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-sceptics-endangered-study-20110603-1fjo0.html

Climate change sceptics are an endangered species in Australia, a national survey shows.

The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing.

When asked a different question about the causes of climate change, which removed the reference to personal beliefs, 90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.


Just 5 per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.

Overall, less than 6 per cent of respondents could reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics, the study by Griffith University researchers found.

"It's clear that people want the government to do something about climate change and they also feel they have a personal responsibility to act," environmental and social psychologist Professor Joseph Reser said.

The survey was carried out in June and July last year, with the results released today.

Professor Reser said the survey was one of the few in-depth studies that really drilled down into public perceptions and understandings about climate change.

He said the survey questions were framed in several ways, to really get to the bottom of what people believed and understood.

The intention of asking many questions, framed in different ways, was to limit skewed outcomes and really understand the Australian mind-set on climate change.

Professor Reser said the survey results were consistent with public perceptions in Britain and other parts of the world.

But Australian respondents viewed climate change as more immediate and closer to home.

"Our findings suggest that Australians feel the threat to their local region and nation more intensely and that's not surprising given the nature, intensity, and dramatic impacts of natural disaster events in the past few years," he said.

"With nonstop media images, sound bites, warning messages, and popularised science accounts of planetary threat, psychological impacts are not surprising.

"However, we have neglected how the threat and physical environmental consequences of climate change are impacting on the human landscape."

The survey was commissioned by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and funded by the federal government's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants program.

Highlighted point 1
"the world's climate is changing" - HUGE revelation that was!!! It's been changing for the last 4,540,000,000 years


Highlighted point 2
"was a factor" - 0.0000000000000001% is "a factor"


Highlighted point 3
And the dickhead professor goes ahead anyway to make a direct correlation of the above data into the fact that people want something done about this!!

The survey was commissioned by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and funded by the federal government's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants program.






of course!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 10:37pm:

jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:23pm: well it was the EU that said it had had no effect - not me. you are only confusing yourself. ETSs and Carbon Taxes have been used and shown to have no effect. Did 'they' say it had no effect? When? Quote/document would be useful here. I do not continue doing something that has no effect, why are they continuing?Its time to provide some substance to your claims about the EU ETS. longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:23pm: It really isnt a surprise. As a economic lever it is remarkably weak. it is like hitting industry with a feather and expecting massive change. Maybe those wise words will come in handy again: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:36pm: Here is a clue. Politics is rarely about doing BEST. it is about doing what you CAN. compromise in action is not he same as compromise on principles. If your feather analogy is correct, are you suggesting Australia use a mallet? $40-$50? What is your point? its a very good point. why ARE they continuing and expanding a scheme that has had zero effect yet is a drag on their economy? and what of Germany which is abandoning nuclear power and now has no option but to use mostly coal or gas powered alternatives?

Logically, i presume that they are continuing because they see worth.
I have tried and failed to reach a different conclusion.

Much as i have tried to find a reason why Australia should not see worth in adopting a similar approach, i have failed.

Are my views still extreme? Does the weight of EU decision makers not influence your position?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:37am:

The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate.

You're right. It's non existent. Science isn't settled through "debate", never has and never will. Science is settled through observation, experimentation and replication. And the only ones on your side of the "debate" are actually out there doing that are Fred Singer, Richard Linzden and John Christie, and none of their research has ever successfully challenged the premises of AGW, not for want of trying.

But this "debate" being waged in the media has NOTHING to do with science, nothing at all, the sad thing is that morons like you can't distinguish between science and politics and actually believe that the media "debate" is in any way representative of the scientific "debate".

astro_surf wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. You're right. It's non existent. Science isn't settled through "debate", never has and never will. Science is settled through observation, experimentation and replication. And the only ones on your side of the "debate" are actually out there doing that are Fred Singer, Richard Linzden and John Christie, and none of their research has ever successfully challenged the premises of AGW, not for want of trying. But this "debate" being waged in the media has NOTHING to do with science, nothing at all, the sad thing is that morons like you can't distinguish between science and politics and actually believe that the media "debate" is in any way representative of the scientific "debate".

We know we can believe its nonsense to think miniscule degrees temp saving is just ridiculous.

Lulwut? That is an incoherent sentence and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you drunk?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 1:04am:

Lulwut? That is an incoherent sentence and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you drunk?

lol, no just out of time, busy. Drunk would have been much worse.

"We know we can believe its nonsense to think miniscule degrees temp saving is going to do anything or have any impact". It is just ridiculous to think otherwise.

jame-e wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 10:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 10:37pm: jame-e wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:23pm: well it was the EU that said it had had no effect - not me. you are only confusing yourself. ETSs and Carbon Taxes have been used and shown to have no effect. Did 'they' say it had no effect? When? Quote/document would be useful here. I do not continue doing something that has no effect, why are they continuing?Its time to provide some substance to your claims about the EU ETS. longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:23pm: It really isnt a surprise. As a economic lever it is remarkably weak. it is like hitting industry with a feather and expecting massive change. Maybe those wise words will come in handy again: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:36pm: Here is a clue. Politics is rarely about doing BEST. it is about doing what you CAN. compromise in action is not he same as compromise on principles. If your feather analogy is correct, are you suggesting Australia use a mallet? $40-$50? What is your point? its a very good point. why ARE they continuing and expanding a scheme that has had zero effect yet is a drag on their economy? and what of Germany which is abandoning nuclear power and now has no option but to use mostly coal or gas powered alternatives? Logically, i presume that they are continuing because they see worth.I have tried and failed to reach a different conclusion. Much as i have tried to find a reason why Australia should not see worth in adopting a similar approach, i have failed. Are my views still extreme? Does the weight of EU decision makers not influence your position?

You assume that 'logic' has anything to do with the debate. it is an IDEOLOGICAL position and therefore requires nothing more than belief to continue.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. You're right. It's non existent. Science isn't settled through "debate", never has and never will. Science is settled through observation, experimentation and replication. And the only ones on your side of the "debate" are actually out there doing that are Fred Singer, Richard Linzden and John Christie, and none of their research has ever successfully challenged the premises of AGW, not for want of trying. But this "debate" being waged in the media has NOTHING to do with science, nothing at all, the sad thing is that morons like you can't distinguish between science and politics and actually believe that the media "debate" is in any way representative of the scientific "debate".

yours is an extremist position and can be ignored as such. arrogant belief that the science is settled sets you up for a massive fall. Especially when every single climate prediction made has spectacularly failed to materialise. if the science were 'settled' then predictive models would be accurate. if it were 'settled' there would be no room for scientists to point out the rather embararssing flaws in so many statements - eg the ice caps sliding off into the sea. quite simply, if the science were 'settled' there woudl be absolute proof available - but there isnt.

Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.

"Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," he said.

"These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.

"I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour."

Professor Young says the outrageous behaviour has left the scientists shaken.

"Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said.

"The whole scientific process is one of open debate and discussion, but the concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them."

He says the climate change issue is emotive, but all the key players should take a breath and debate the issue calmly.

The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/04/3235561.htm

I hope this isn't a repost.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:45am:

yours is an extremist position and can be ignored as such. arrogant belief that the science is settled sets you up for a massive fall. Especially when every single climate prediction made has spectacularly failed to materialise. if the science were 'settled' then predictive models would be accurate. if it were 'settled' there would be no room for scientists to point out the rather embararssing flaws in so many statements - eg the ice caps sliding off into the sea. quite simply, if the science were 'settled' there woudl be absolute proof available - but there isnt.

Absolute nonsense. On just about every metric you can choose changes are accelerating much faster than the models ever projected. Most climate change predictions have been far too conservative:

Here's just two examples:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif


http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif

Please delete wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:48pm:

Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research. He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks. "Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," he said. "These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this. "I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour." Professor Young says the outrageous behaviour has left the scientists shaken. "Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said. "The whole scientific process is one of open debate and discussion, but the concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them." He says the climate change issue is emotive, but all the key players should take a breath and debate the issue calmly. The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/04/3235561.htm I hope this isn't a repost.

It would seem the faithful are taking Abbott's statements to oppose the carbon tax to the extreme......Why are those from the right always so adverse to solving their problems with violence and equating every solution to their own personal well being......What will be achieved by silencing the scientific community.....Conservatism opposes a great deal of scientific research based on misguided principles and moral objection due to blind ignorance.....How insecure are the deniers in their beliefs that they are trying to shoot the messenger.....No wonder the world is always forced to defend itself against the extremism of conservatism which is nothing more than fundamentalist bullshit.....Change is eneviatable and so is the conservative opposition to anything new!!!

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, Oct. 26, 1939

;)

astro_surf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:45am: yours is an extremist position and can be ignored as such. arrogant belief that the science is settled sets you up for a massive fall. Especially when every single climate prediction made has spectacularly failed to materialise. if the science were 'settled' then predictive models would be accurate. if it were 'settled' there would be no room for scientists to point out the rather embararssing flaws in so many statements - eg the ice caps sliding off into the sea. quite simply, if the science were 'settled' there woudl be absolute proof available - but there isnt. Absolute nonsense. On just about every metric you can choose changes are accelerating much faster than the models ever projected. Most climate change predictions have been far too conservative: Here's just two examples: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif

So you are saying that the models were totally wrong then? and what about the sea level models?? the fact remains that a 'settled science' would have reliable and repeatable predictions. Climate models have neither.

But you still havent addressed the issues in the OP because you ARE an extremist without a willingness to even consider views outsied your narrow hysterical position.

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 1:13pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research. He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks. "Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," he said. "These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this. "I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour." Professor Young says the outrageous behaviour has left the scientists shaken. "Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said. "The whole scientific process is one of open debate and discussion, but the concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them." He says the climate change issue is emotive, but all the key players should take a breath and debate the issue calmly. The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/04/3235561.htm I hope this isn't a repost. It would seem the faithful are taking Abbott's statements to oppose the carbon tax to the extreme......Why are those from the right always so adverse to solving their problems with violence and equating every solution to their own personal well being......What will be achieved by silencing the scientific community.....Conservatism opposes a great deal of scientific research based on misguided principles and moral objection due to blind ignorance.....How insecure are the deniers in their beliefs that they are trying to shoot the messenger.....No wonder the world is always forced to defend itself against the extremism of conservatism which is nothing more than fundamentalist bullshit.....Change is eneviatable and so is the conservative opposition to anything new!!! A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, Oct. 26, 1939 ;)

I think the OP was written with you in mind. Extremism to the core and not a rational balanced thought anywhere to be seen.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 1:44pm:

So you are saying that the models were totally wrong then? and what about the sea level models?? the fact remains that a 'settled science' would have reliable and repeatable predictions. Climate models have neither.

No, I'm saying the models were too conservative, the fundamental principles work just fine.


Quote:

But you still havent addressed the issues in the OP because you ARE an extremist without a willingness to even consider views outsied your narrow hysterical position.

If by that you mean outside of the scientific literature, then yes, you're dead right, I won't consider such views. Not for a moment.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

I think the OP was written with you in mind. Extremism to the core and not a rational balanced thought anywhere to be seen.

You reject science because it's results conflict with your political and ideological leanings. You are the extremists.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:42am:

You assume that 'logic' has anything to do with the debate. it is an IDEOLOGICAL position and therefore requires nothing more than belief to continue.

So the belief that an ETS will lower carbon emissions is an extreme ideological position?

Is economics an ideology? Does everything have an ideological position? What are you bloody saying?

I am still not seeing the extremism. What i am seeing is an argument that can be applied to anything i don't like, cheers.
I never have to think again.

jame-e wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:42am: You assume that 'logic' has anything to do with the debate. it is an IDEOLOGICAL position and therefore requires nothing more than belief to continue. So the belief that an ETS will lower carbon emissions is an extreme ideological position? Is economics an ideology? Does everything have an ideological position? What are you bloody saying? I am still not seeing the extremism. What i am seeing is an argument that can be applied to anything i don't like, cheers. I never have to think again.

This will explain it all to you.
So grab yourself a cuppa, put your feet up, watch, learn and have it all nicely explained to you by the global warmist peak body, the IPCC
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related

astro_surf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 1:47pm: I think the OP was written with you in mind. Extremism to the core and not a rational balanced thought anywhere to be seen. You reject science because it's results conflict with your political and ideological leanings. You are the extremists.

you have no idea wha tthe OP meant, do you? you walk right into the extremist non-thinking position of lablleing as 'deniers' anyone who critically assesses your position. true scientists would do no such thing. the notion that your science is settled is so ludicrous that it is the subject of mockery. NOTHIN is ever settled. Even your models get outcomes woefully wrong and yet you accept it. WITHOUT QUESTION.

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 4:13pm:

jame-e wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 3:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:42am: You assume that 'logic' has anything to do with the debate. it is an IDEOLOGICAL position and therefore requires nothing more than belief to continue. So the belief that an ETS will lower carbon emissions is an extreme ideological position? Is economics an ideology? Does everything have an ideological position? What are you bloody saying? I am still not seeing the extremism. What i am seeing is an argument that can be applied to anything i don't like, cheers. I never have to think again. This will explain it all to you. So grab yourself a cuppa, put your feet up, watch, learn and have it all nicely explained to you by the global warmist peak body, the IPCC . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related

That's another Strike, Creep, your 2nd direct lie.

One more and your out of the ball park!

The above video IS NOT IPCC!

astro_surf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 1:47pm: I think the OP was written with you in mind. Extremism to the core and not a rational balanced thought anywhere to be seen. You reject science because it's results conflict with your political and ideological leanings. You are the extremists.

I dont reject it. I question it. I critically ask questions and look for answers. that is the very ESSENCE of science. you are more like the catholic church attacking Gallileo because you dont like the answer.

Talk about extremists..Abbotts right wing extremist cheersquad is now emailing death threats to scientists that support action against climate change.
Will Abbott start to encourage his cheersquad to shoot people he doesnt agree with like his role model Sarah Palin does?
The danger of encouraging right wing extremist groups is rearing its ugly head again.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 4:51pm:

Talk about extremists..Abbotts right wing extremist cheersquad is now emailing death threats to scientists that support action against climate change. Will Abbott start to encourage his cheersquad to shoot people he doesnt agree with like his role model Sarah Palin does? The danger of encouraging right wing extremist groups is rearing its ugly head again.

the funny thing about this thread is watching the extremists pop up and show just how little they understood the OP. adelcrow, you truly did yourself a disservice with this mindless crap you just posted.

Please delete wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:48pm:

Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves.
As afterall they have done this before, with climategate.
As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists.
The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy!

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:04pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy!

Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related

Great stuff and excellant viewing.
Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park.
No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts.

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts.

Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody.

The first nine minutes pertains to the "hide the decline" controversy, the following  nine minutes covers Muller's misrepresentation of the issue and his failed attempts at setting up a review that was supposed to expose the lies of climate science, but which actually overwhelmingly supported the conclusions of AGW.

What's the bet you won't even watch it though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

Yes Muller's video is great
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related
Certainly exposes what the global warmist Chicken Littles don't want you to know about.
Especially this aspect that increased warming causes increased evaporation of moisture from the earth’s surface and increased vapour in the atmosphere, which may—or may not—cause increased cloud cover.
The greatest uncertainty with regard to predicting climate change is that it cannot be determined as yet whether global warming caused by increased C02 will or will not cause increased cloud cover.
Muller asserts that if in fact cloud cover is increased by 2 percent, there will be no global warming, which the IPCC report supports.
So where's that invreased water vapour go if not forming into clouds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

smacking Deathridesahorse!!! Shoulda known!!!!

PUT DOWN THE CRACK WILL YA!!!!!

ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?ONYA MATE  >:( :-?

Soren wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 7:35pm:

smacking Deathridesahorse!!! Shoulda known!!!!

Similar spamming. The correlation between the 2 personalities are just too close. Makes you wonder.

it certianly looks like him. as soon as he is pushed into a corner by the science he exploded into his usual garbage. he couldnt defend his own ridiculous extremeist nonsense so her revertd to type.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Ushttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

whar an embarrassingly bad video. just like the previous one. no science. just the abuse of anyone who stands against their new religion.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:08pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts. Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody.

Well done LW, there may yet be hope for you.

That said, I should point out, following a review of both the Creeps video & the following one from Astro, that our friend Mr Muller seems to have a split personality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us


In Creeps video, Muller says, he agrees that Global Warming is happening & it is human caused to an extent, he then highlights many areas indicating why the IPCC got things wrong.

Then in Astro's video, which was done about 6 months later than Creeps video, Muller says before a US Congress hearing on March 31st, 2011 that his new organisations initial investigations agreed that the work of NOAA, NASA GISS & the UK, on Global Warming, was correct and that warming had indeed increased by 1.2 degrees between 1900 to now and an increase of 0.7 between 1957 to now.

Muller also specifically disagreed with "Watts up with That", an anti Climate Change website, on the issue on where weather stations are located and whether that has made a difference to the stats.


Is it possible that Bill Gates & David Koch, who are major sponsors of Mullers new organisation, may be pulling Muller in different directions and that may have some bearing on what Muller is saying?

Muller also mentioned various Energy related issues in the Creeps video, which dates back to October, 2010.

Muller lauds Nuclear, which in hindsight now has great problems, following the Japan situation and Germanies abandonment of their Nuclear industry by 2023 (roughly).

Muller also lauds, Coal & Natural Gas, as replacements for Oil, which also clearly has problems, given that Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years, whilst the Natural Gas he refers to involves the Fracking Extraction process in the USA, which is now being examined in a lot more detail, as many problems are arising with that process, including issues such as contamination of underground water acquifiers, to even causing local earthquakes.

I would put Muller into the question mark area, at this point!  

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:08pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts. Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody.

'hardly a nobody'.

A nobody like you and me, good. Dr Muller is not a nobody.

Dr Muller excepts the planet is warming. Unnaturally warming due too anthropogenic emissions. Did i misunderstand?

Dr Mullers loudest claims contradicting the science have been proven to be bogus. Do i misunderstand?

Yes it is a good video.

Does it support your claims of extremism, i can't see how.

Am i correct to arrive at the conclusion that you are simply greedy and/or have a vested interest in Australia not adopting an ETS?

jame-e wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:02pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:08pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts. Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody. 'hardly a nobody'. A nobody like you and me, good. Dr Muller is not a nobody. Dr Muller excepts the planet is warming. Unnaturally warming due too anthropogenic emissions. Did i misunderstand? Dr Mullers loudest claims contradicting the science have been proven to be bogus. Do i misunderstand? Yes it is a good video. Does it support your claims of extremism, i can't see how. Am i correct to arrive at the conclusion that you are simply greedy and/or have a vested interest in Australia not adopting an ETS?

Yes, I think he lives here.

jame-e wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:02pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:08pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts. Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody. 'hardly a nobody'. A nobody like you and me, good. Dr Muller is not a nobody. Dr Muller excepts the planet is warming. Unnaturally warming due too anthropogenic emissions. Did i misunderstand? Dr Mullers loudest claims contradicting the science have been proven to be bogus. Do i misunderstand? Yes it is a good video. Does it support your claims of extremism, i can't see how. Am i correct to arrive at the conclusion that you are simply greedy and/or have a vested interest in Australia not adopting an ETS?

you are truly and idiot. your typical extremists that impugnes the character of people on the basis of disagreeing with YOU. your opinion is now considered worthless.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:02pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:08pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts. Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody. Well done LW, there may yet be hope for you. That said, I should point out, following a review of both the Creeps video & the following one from Astro, that our friend Mr Muller seems to have a split personality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us In Creeps video, Muller says, he agrees that Global Warming is happening & it is human caused to an extent, he then highlights many areas indicating why the IPCC got things wrong. Then in Astro's video, which was done about 6 months later than Creeps video, Muller says before a US Congress hearing on March 31st, 2011 that his new organisations initial investigations agreed that the work of NOAA, NASA GISS & the UK, on Global Warming, was correct and that warming had indeed increased by 1.2 degrees between 1900 to now and an increase of 0.7 between 1957 to now. Muller also specifically disagreed with "Watts up with That", an anti Climate Change website, on the issue on where weather stations are located and whether that has made a difference to the stats. Is it possible that Bill Gates & David Koch, who are major sponsors of Mullers new organisation, may be pulling Muller in different directions and that may have some bearing on what Muller is saying? Muller also mentioned various Energy related issues in the Creeps video, which dates back to October, 2010. Muller lauds Nuclear, which in hindsight now has great problems, following the Japan situation and Germanies abandonment of their Nuclear industry by 2023 (roughly). Muller also lauds, Coal & Natural Gas, as replacements for Oil, which also clearly has problems, given that Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years, whilst the Natural Gas he refers to involves the Fracking Extraction process in the USA, which is now being examined in a lot more detail, as many problems are arising with that process, including issues such as contamination of underground water acquifiers, to even causing local earthquakes. I would put Muller into the question mark area, at this point!

astro_turds video is embarrasingly bad. it is nothing more than an assault on the characted of people. and saying that temperature has risen 1.2 degrees since 1957 is hardly news. Muller said that years ago. But I love how MUller is a wanker when he disagrees with AGW but is ok when he agrees with it. such is the scientific fraud of AGW proponents.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:29am:

your opinion is now considered worthless.

Considered?,,, By a denier?... Oh, noes! ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:37am:

The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us.

So you are saying that people who say that the science on the deleterious effects on the the body of smoking is pretty much settled are extremists?

We cannot say with certainty that this is the case but any reputable scientist in the appropriate field will say it is the most likely scenario.

Should we wait until we have absolute certainty on this issue before we act?

Interestingly Fred Singer, now an esteemed "Climate Scientist" argued this before a Senate Committee in the US on behalf of big tobacco, now he is arguing the do-nothing case for the energy producers. I wonder what his bank account looks like.  

Also, weren't you until recently proclaiming the Climate Change was crap? What has softened your view (seeing how people who say such things are now considered extremists)?

I am still a little confused as to how 97% of the world's climate scientists can argue that the best available evidence supports AGW and the people that listen to them are considered extremists.

Waiting for 100% certainty on something like this before we act would appear to me to be the extreme position, no?

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:

We cannot say with certainty that this is the case but any reputable scientist in the appropriate field will say it is the most likely scenario. Should we wait until we have absolute certainty on this issue before we act?

No, not true.
The IPCC do not agree with that being the most likely scenario at all.
In fact the IPCC have to manipulate models to get the exact right scenario for such an event to occur.
Including that water vapour does not result in clouds!!!
And even then the IPCC had to change their model as initially their model used was for the Arctic getting bigger. Then when the IPCC realised that the Arctic was actually getting smaller the IPCC changed their scare campaign!!!!

But what explains why Antartica is getting bigger??????

Rate of Arctic Ice Melt each Day now Equals the Size of West Virginia
Written by Dr. Tim Ball, guest post | June 04 2011

Arctic Ice pack is melting at approximately 54,000 square kilometers a day as the world warms. It’s an area almost equal to the State of West Virginia and that is in just one day.

Why haven’t we seen this headline? Possibly because when journalists check it’s the average rate of summer melt as the ice decreases from winter maximum of 14 million square km2 in April toward a minimum of 4.5 million km2 in September. Few people know this much ice melts every summer, but they don’t know a similar amount of ice forms every winter.

Accurate measures of Arctic ice began in 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Nimbus-7 satellite. It took a couple of years to sort out the data so the data set properly begins in 1980. Over that time the winter extent has not varied much, but until the last few years the summer extent was declining. It reached a minimum in September 2005.

This triggered scary headlines. BBC correspondent Richard Black said “Arctic ice ‘disappearing quickly.” Black had a history of perpetuating the alarmism promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its major authors at the Climatic research Unit (CRU). He was the gang’s contact, as a 12 October 2009 email from Michael Mann notes. It is part of the discussion about Kevin Trenberth’s infamous comment. “The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.”

They were upset about an article by BBC employee Paul Hudson wondering why cold temperatures were occurring globally. Mann wrote, “extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy (Paul Hudson) was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?” Hudson received the first set of leaked emails, but sat on them for five weeks. Apparently frustrated with Copenhagen looming, the whistleblower sent them to a Russian IPO in November of 2009.

Many people recognized actions and behaviors outside the normal; few understood the extent of deception and manipulation. Mann’s comments may be inferred to indicate there’s the initial deception built in to the entire process of climate science practiced by the IPCC and CRU. Then there were deliberate counterattacks with more deception and misleading information, orchestrated through RealClimate.


Compliant media amplified and distorted, government departments were complicit, as were the multitude of researchers receiving government funding to prove the hypothesis. Most were ignorant of the facts or the historical context of melting ice, sea level rise or most other natural phenomenon.

Results of ice extent in 2005 created more sensational speculations. Champion alarmist Seth Borenstein headlined in 2007, “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years.” Borenstein adds credibility by quoting NASA scientist Jay Zwally. "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." James Hansen, identified as, “the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global warming” says we have hit a “tipping point”. The story is without balance. Not a single dissenting opinion is provided.

Borenstein’s sensationalism was matched by BBC reporter Jonathan Amos under his headline “ Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013.” He quotes Naval Postgraduate School Professor, Wieslaw Maslowski. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Maybe Borenstein and Amos should ask the scientists about their predictions. How and why were they so wrong?
Claims that an area the size of West Virginia melted today is accurate but out of historical context. Similarly, they took the trend from 1980 out of context. They assumed the decrease in summer ice extent would continue. Maslowski acknowledged they took the maximum decrease they could determine. It is terrible science and completely indefensible. What was the ice extent in the 1930s when it was warmer than today? What happened during the Medieval Warm Period? Average rate of daily summer melt is an area the size of West Virginia. The world is warming because it is summer. The headline is only sensational if you don’t know the facts or the context and that, combined with natural fears, is what they exploit.

Editor's note: Professor Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment. He is also a co-author of Slaying the Sky Dragon. You can read more about him at his website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj81UczGCHc&feature=player_detailpage#t=56s

The IPCC certaily is up to no good.  Could it be Money and Power behind their flawed assertions on climate change ?




http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html

"The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. "

Is this a "straw man"?

Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination?

Maeve wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:

You can read more about him at his website.

You can read even more about him here.

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. So you are saying that people who say that the science on the deleterious effects on the the body of smoking is pretty much settled are extremists? We cannot say with certainty that this is the case but any reputable scientist in the appropriate field will say it is the most likely scenario. Should we wait until we have absolute certainty on this issue before we act? Interestingly Fred Singer, now an esteemed "Climate Scientist" argued this before a Senate Committee in the US on behalf of big tobacco, now he is arguing the do-nothing case for the energy producers. I wonder what his bank account looks like.   Also, weren't you until recently proclaiming the Climate Change was crap? What has softened your view (seeing how people who say such things are now considered extremists)? I am still a little confused as to how 97% of the world's climate scientists can argue that the best available evidence supports AGW and the people that listen to them are considered extremists. Waiting for 100% certainty on something like this before we act would appear to me to be the extreme position, no?

that kind of commentary renders your post pretty pointless. if you cant read and comprehend the OP then why continue to write?

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. So you are saying that people who say that the science on the deleterious effects on the the body of smoking is pretty much settled are extremists? We cannot say with certainty that this is the case but any reputable scientist in the appropriate field will say it is the most likely scenario. Should we wait until we have absolute certainty on this issue before we act? Interestingly Fred Singer, now an esteemed "Climate Scientist" argued this before a Senate Committee in the US on behalf of big tobacco, now he is arguing the do-nothing case for the energy producers. I wonder what his bank account looks like.   Also, weren't you until recently proclaiming the Climate Change was crap? What has softened your view (seeing how people who say such things are now considered extremists)? I am still a little confused as to how 97% of the world's climate scientists can argue that the best available evidence supports AGW and the people that listen to them are considered extremists. Waiting for 100% certainty on something like this before we act would appear to me to be the extreme position, no?

If you had the capacity of comprehension and the ability to read, reason and think you would know that I did not say that at all. IN fact as the OP says - which you read but did not understand - it is seemingly impossible to occupy anything by one or other extremist position. All you have done is prove my point that no matter how dumb or bright you are, the two extremist positions are all that you are permitted to hold.

I belive that humans effect climate. I however beleive that that effect does not move our climate outside of its normal range of variability. Ive said that before but where would you place me in the debate then since? A rational view would be that I belong in NEITHER but rather in the middle somewhere. But that is not how you view it. You want the polarised debate and the extremist position.

Please delete wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

"The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. " Is this a "straw man"? Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination?

in a thread that has played host to some dumb comments THIS one must surely be the stupidest.  unless you have lived under a rock - and it seems you do - CLIMATE is the GREAT DEBATE of the time.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:14pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:44pm: "The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. " Is this a "straw man"? Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination? in a thread that has played host to some dumb comments THIS one must surely be the stupidest.  unless you have lived under a rock - and it seems you do - CLIMATE is the GREAT DEBATE of the time.

Maybe - but it will likely become largely-redundant when the NEXT GREAT DEPRESSION hits...

Not only will production and 'growth' come to a grinding halt - but the debate that we have to have will then begin in earnest, i.e. UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM is the next GREAT DEBATE!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:14pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:44pm: "The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. " Is this a "straw man"? Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination? in a thread that has played host to some dumb comments THIS one must surely be the stupidest.  unless you have lived under a rock - and it seems you do - CLIMATE is the GREAT DEBATE of the time.

... only for those who wish to ignore the vast weight of scientific consensus. The rest of us have moved on to how.

I notice that anyone that disagrees with your position is merely an idiot. Why not go the whole hog and call them Nazis?

More like the MASS DEBATE. The denialosphere is just one great big circle jerk that has nothing to do with reality.

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:14pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:44pm: "The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. " Is this a "straw man"? Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination? in a thread that has played host to some dumb comments THIS one must surely be the stupidest.  unless you have lived under a rock - and it seems you do - CLIMATE is the GREAT DEBATE of the time. ... only for those who wish to ignore the vast weight of scientific consensus. The rest of us have moved on to how. I notice that anyone that disagrees with your position is merely an idiot. Why not go the whole hog and call them Nazis?

IN case you havent read the entire thread - and you obviously havent - you will see that the OP was not about CC itself but about the polarisation of an important debate. Have you noticed that NOT ONE poster has addressed the issue of polarisation - not one. As an Arts graduate you of all people should be capable of addressing the core issue. But what do I get instead? an arts graduate lecturing a science graduate on science.

Why dont you re-read the OP and comment on that issue instead. if you want to debate the science of CC then there are plenty of threads for that.

Just like when I want to discuss concepts such as 'principles' it seems impossible - ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE - to get anyone to discuss anything that isnt squarely in their little pet area.  

looking for 'considered opinion' on here is like finding warm weather at a UN Climate COnference. NEVER HAPPENS.

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:14pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:44pm: "The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. " Is this a "straw man"? Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination? in a thread that has played host to some dumb comments THIS one must surely be the stupidest.  unless you have lived under a rock - and it seems you do - CLIMATE is the GREAT DEBATE of the time. ... only for those who wish to ignore the vast weight of scientific consensus. The rest of us have moved on to how. I notice that anyone that disagrees with your position is merely an idiot. Why not go the whole hog and call them Nazis?

so you are truly going to contend that there ISNT a climate debate??? that is really your position?? maybe there isnt in the arts commuity but in the science community there IS.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:23pm:

More like the MASS DEBATE. The denialosphere is just one great big circle jerk that has nothing to do with reality.

and every time you post - EVERY TIME - you prove the point raised in the OP. you have no tolerance for disagreement with your position no matter who it is. You assaasinate the characters of some of the worls foremost scientist all because YOU - a nobody - dont agree.

you are totally unable to hold anything even approximating a debate or discussion on a controversial topic without rushing to the barricades of your own limited an unchangable view. The same people that mock religion for its unchangable doctines do the same in matters like this.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:29pm:

t in the science community there IS.

No, there isn't.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:32pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:23pm: More like the MASS DEBATE. The denialosphere is just one great big circle jerk that has nothing to do with reality. and every time you post - EVERY TIME - you prove the point raised in the OP. you have no tolerance for disagreement with your position no matter who it is. You assaasinate the characters of some of the worls foremost scientist all because YOU - a nobody - dont agree. you are totally unable to hold anything even approximating a debate or discussion on a controversial topic without rushing to the barricades of your own limited an unchangable view. The same people that mock religion for its unchangable doctines do the same in matters like this.

No, I've just given up bothering to have a reasonable with people who outright deny evidence when it is shown to them.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:32pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:23pm: More like the MASS DEBATE. The denialosphere is just one great big circle jerk that has nothing to do with reality. and every time you post - EVERY TIME - you prove the point raised in the OP. you have no tolerance for disagreement with your position no matter who it is. You assaasinate the characters of some of the worls foremost scientist all because YOU - a nobody - dont agree. you are totally unable to hold anything even approximating a debate or discussion on a controversial topic without rushing to the barricades of your own limited an unchangable view. The same people that mock religion for its unchangable doctines do the same in matters like this.

He's holding something all right LW, just wish he'd wash his hands and give it a rest.
He must have gone blind from doing that all day & night, which explains why he cant read expert commentary from the world's elading scientists.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:29pm: t in the science community there IS. No, there isn't. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

the very existance of groups that have to push the CC barrow against the scientists who oppose it disproves your idiotic opinion.

majority support of ANYTHING does not mean the issue is resolved or that the majority is right. Science has a long history of the majority of scientiests being dead wrong. it is part of the iterative process of science that any theory - even an established one - is subject to modification, revision or overthrow. Physics is full of that. But somehow climate science - a barely studied science compared to the majors - shoudl be immune from majority-held error.

that is arrogant presumption and a recipe for disaster and mistake.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:14pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:44pm: "The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. " Is this a "straw man"? Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination? in a thread that has played host to some dumb comments THIS one must surely be the stupidest.  unless you have lived under a rock - and it seems you do - CLIMATE is the GREAT DEBATE of the time.

Maybe so. You are a capable writer, and you put the phrase in quotes, thereby referring to something outside of your post. Your whole argument hinges on the existence of THE "Great Climate Debate".

My question stands.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:32pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:23pm: More like the MASS DEBATE. The denialosphere is just one great big circle jerk that has nothing to do with reality. and every time you post - EVERY TIME - you prove the point raised in the OP. you have no tolerance for disagreement with your position no matter who it is. You assaasinate the characters of some of the worls foremost scientist all because YOU - a nobody - dont agree. you are totally unable to hold anything even approximating a debate or discussion on a controversial topic without rushing to the barricades of your own limited an unchangable view. The same people that mock religion for its unchangable doctines do the same in matters like this. No, I've just given up bothering to have a reasonable with people who outright deny evidence when it is shown to them.

You cant debate. you only throw mud at anyone who has 1% variance with your opinion. if u even studied science and learned from places other then the internet you might recognise the stupidiity of adopting a position that does not allow dissent of any kind. thats not science. it is religion - nothing more.

Please delete wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:14pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:44pm: "The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. " Is this a "straw man"? Where did the expression "great climate debate" come from? Longies imagination? in a thread that has played host to some dumb comments THIS one must surely be the stupidest.  unless you have lived under a rock - and it seems you do - CLIMATE is the GREAT DEBATE of the time. Maybe so. You are a capable writer, and you put the phrase in quotes, thereby referring to something outside of your post. Your whole argument hinges on the existence of THE "Great Climate Debate". My question stands.

Well I dont know how anyone could possibly prove to you that a Climate Debate exists. It is like proving the existance of air. if you need proof of that then you are clearly too stupid to understand the answer.

Of course there is a climate debate. You are actually in the middle of one!!

I agree there is "a" great climate debate.

There are many.

But you refered to THE debate.

Like referring to"The Thriller in Manila" or "The Great Rock & Roll Swindle".

One is "a" boxing match, the other "a" movie.

AS for the various arguments about CC - one side is right, and the other calls their childish tantrums "The Debate".

Please delete wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

I agree there is "a" great climate debate. There are many. But you refered to THE debate. Like referring to"The Thriller in Manila" or "The Great Rock & Roll Swindle". One is "a" boxing match, the other "a" movie. AS for the various arguments about CC - one side is right, and the other calls their childish tantrums "The Debate".

Well well well! You actually DO have a skill after all! PEDANTRY.

in a long thread your only contribution is this??? i might oppose many of the viewpoints expressed in this thread but yours is... worthless.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

majority support of ANYTHING does not mean the issue is resolved or that the majority is right.

But you just said a majority of scientists don't believe in AGW. Now that you've been proved wrong your saying a majority is irrelevant? THIS is why arguing with you idiots is such a waste of time!

Better to just point and laugh at your glaring logical inconsistencies!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:39pm:

You cant debate. you only throw mud at anyone who has 1% variance with your opinion. if u even studied science and learned from places other then the internet you might recognise the stupidiity of adopting a position that does not allow dissent of any kind. thats not science. it is religion - nothing more.

You can dissent... In a peer reviewed journal. Anything else is opinionated gibberish that has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific "debate" and can be dismisse dout of hand.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:37pm: majority support of ANYTHING does not mean the issue is resolved or that the majority is right. But you just said a majority of scientists don't believe in AGW. Now that you've been proved wrong your saying a majority is irrelevant? THIS is why arguing with you idiots is such a waste of time! Better to just point and laugh at your glaring logical inconsistencies!

actually i didnt. I actually said that being in the majority does not make you RIGHT. consensus does not automatically imply you are corrrect. Einstein said precisley that himself when opposed by 300 scientists. consensus is compelling. it does not however impute truth.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:39pm: You cant debate. you only throw mud at anyone who has 1% variance with your opinion. if u even studied science and learned from places other then the internet you might recognise the stupidiity of adopting a position that does not allow dissent of any kind. thats not science. it is religion - nothing more. You can dissent... In a peer reviewed journal. Anything else is opinionated gibberish that has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific "debate" and can be dismisse dout of hand.

oh no you cant. it has already been well established that there are problems witht he peer review process that has lead to articles not being published simply because they disagreed with CC.

any since Im a glutton for punishment why dont you actully refer to the OP and post a reply based on the polarisatin of the debate. do you even understand that polarisation means? do you accept variant opinions from the IPCC gospel? oh and BTW the IPCC itself now doesnt believe portions of its last report. But you criticiced people then for disagreeing and now the IPCC has said OOPS WE WERE WRONG.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:39pm: You cant debate. you only throw mud at anyone who has 1% variance with your opinion. if u even studied science and learned from places other then the internet you might recognise the stupidiity of adopting a position that does not allow dissent of any kind. thats not science. it is religion - nothing more. You can dissent... In a peer reviewed journal. Anything else is opinionated gibberish that has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific "debate" and can be dismisse dout of hand.

so we can dismiss garnaut, gore and flannery because they dont publich in such journals?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 5:51pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:48pm: I agree there is "a" great climate debate. There are many. But you refered to THE debate. Like referring to"The Thriller in Manila" or "The Great Rock & Roll Swindle". One is "a" boxing match, the other "a" movie. AS for the various arguments about CC - one side is right, and the other calls their childish tantrums "The Debate". Well well well! You actually DO have a skill after all! PEDANTRY. in a long thread your only contribution is this??? i might oppose many of the viewpoints expressed in this thread but yours is... worthless.

The basic premise of your OP is flawed, as are your arguments.

Straw Man.

longweekends a retard

Fancy being accused of pedantry on here, in yet another ridiculous thread on Climate Change.

Please delete wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Fancy being accused of pedantry on here, in yet another ridiculous thread on Climate Change.

and the biggest laugh is on you. the OP ISNT pimarily about CC but on the polarisation of the debate - something neither you or anyone has had the capacity to render a comment on.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

so we can dismiss garnaut, gore and flannery because they dont publich in such journals?

Sure, if they're talking outside of their particular expertise.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:12pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:06pm: Fancy being accused of pedantry on here, in yet another ridiculous thread on Climate Change. and the biggest laugh is on you. the OP ISNT pimarily about CC but on the polarisation of the debate - something neither you or anyone has had the capacity to render a comment on.

True LW

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:12pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:06pm: Fancy being accused of pedantry on here, in yet another ridiculous thread on Climate Change. and the biggest laugh is on you. the OP ISNT pimarily about CC but on the polarisation of the debate - something neither you or anyone has had the capacity to render a comment on.

Longweekend, your attempt to rebadge yourself as a moderate in this debate, having tried every other position from outright denial forwards, is pathetic.

Your OP is flawed, and no-one cares about the labels except the people who tend towards denialism, like yourself.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:39pm: You cant debate. you only throw mud at anyone who has 1% variance with your opinion. if u even studied science and learned from places other then the internet you might recognise the stupidiity of adopting a position that does not allow dissent of any kind. thats not science. it is religion - nothing more. You can dissent... In a peer reviewed journal. Anything else is opinionated gibberish that has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific "debate" and can be dismisse dout of hand. so we can dismiss garnaut, gore and flannery because they dont publich in such journals?

Well they are only extremists & alarmists specialising in scaremongering which appeals to the gullies.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:02pm: so we can dismiss garnaut, gore and flannery because they dont publich in such journals? Sure, if they're talking outside of their particular expertise.

so garnaut is out then. thanks for finally seeing that.

Please delete wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:12pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:06pm: Fancy being accused of pedantry on here, in yet another ridiculous thread on Climate Change. and the biggest laugh is on you. the OP ISNT pimarily about CC but on the polarisation of the debate - something neither you or anyone has had the capacity to render a comment on. Longweekend, your attempt to rebadge yourself as a moderate in this debate, having tried every other position from outright denial forwards, is pathetic. Your OP is flawed, and no-one cares about the labels except the people who tend towards denialism, like yourself.

you couldnt have proven my point better.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:20pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:12pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:06pm: Fancy being accused of pedantry on here, in yet another ridiculous thread on Climate Change. and the biggest laugh is on you. the OP ISNT pimarily about CC but on the polarisation of the debate - something neither you or anyone has had the capacity to render a comment on. Longweekend, your attempt to rebadge yourself as a moderate in this debate, having tried every other position from outright denial forwards, is pathetic. Your OP is flawed, and no-one cares about the labels except the people who tend towards denialism, like yourself. you couldnt have proven my point better.

Wow, what a zinger.

As the evidence mounts, as church leaders join business leaders and pollies in supporting action, I expect we'll see more denialists rebadging themselves "moderates".

"Yes" they'll say, "we need to do something, but not too much", conveniently forgetting all the time they've wasted.

When we need action, they'll be labelling us extremists, and urging restraint. They'll be quiet on death threats against scientists, and silent when the evidence is ratified yet again.

And, for the record, I hope CC is proven to be wrong. That would be great. That doesn't mean I believe we should sit on our hands.

Please delete wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:20pm: you couldnt have proven my point better. Wow, what a zinger. As the evidence mounts, as church leaders join business leaders and pollies in supporting action, I expect we'll see more denialists rebadging themselves "moderates". "Yes" they'll say, "we need to do something, but not too much", conveniently forgetting all the time they've wasted. When we need action, they'll be labelling us extremists, and urging restraint. They'll be quiet on death threats against scientists, and silent when the evidence is ratified yet again. And, for the record, I hope CC is proven to be wrong. That would be great. That doesn't mean I believe we should sit on our hands.

So these celebrities, church leaders, business leaders and pollies - they're scientists aren't they!
And these celebrities, church leaders, business leaders and pollies in the advertisements are being paid to say what Gillard wants them to say aren't they!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:19pm:

so garnaut is out then. thanks for finally seeing that.

Garnaut talks about the economics of climate change, not whether climate change is real or not. So, no, Garnaut is most definitely in.

Cliff Richard wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

longweekends a retard

Amen to that.

Please delete wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:20pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:12pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:06pm: Fancy being accused of pedantry on here, in yet another ridiculous thread on Climate Change. and the biggest laugh is on you. the OP ISNT pimarily about CC but on the polarisation of the debate - something neither you or anyone has had the capacity to render a comment on. Longweekend, your attempt to rebadge yourself as a moderate in this debate, having tried every other position from outright denial forwards, is pathetic. Your OP is flawed, and no-one cares about the labels except the people who tend towards denialism, like yourself. you couldnt have proven my point better. Wow, what a zinger. As the evidence mounts, as church leaders join business leaders and pollies in supporting action, I expect we'll see more denialists rebadging themselves "moderates". "Yes" they'll say, "we need to do something, but not too much", conveniently forgetting all the time they've wasted. When we need action, they'll be labelling us extremists, and urging restraint. They'll be quiet on death threats against scientists, and silent when the evidence is ratified yet again. And, for the record, I hope CC is proven to be wrong. That would be great. That doesn't mean I believe we should sit on our hands.

i love the highlighted bit. you now choose to quote the thoroughly unqualified because they agree with you but a highly regarded scientists dissents an you are off onthe attack.

every time you post you prove my point in the OP that most people - including you - are ONLY capable of supporting a yes/no position. you are utterly without the capability of forming and holding a 'considered' opinion. If the IPCC said that seas would rise 10M by next wednesday, you'd be buying a boat rather than think it through.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:19pm: so garnaut is out then. thanks for finally seeing that. Garnaut talks about the economics of climate change, not whether climate change is real or not. So, no, Garnaut is most definitely in.

try reading his report twit. it is predominantly about the science - something he is manifestly unqualidifed to speak on. But you swallow ANYTHING the IPCC says.  You also beleived them when they said the glaciers woudl melt in 25 years time. it must have been embarrassing when they said they were totally wrong and embarrassed by a cut and past out of context quote from a WWF article. what peer-reveiwed science was that???

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:38pm:

i love the highlighted bit. you now choose to quote the thoroughly unqualified because they agree with you but a highly regarded scientists dissents an you are off onthe attack. every time you post you prove my point in the OP that most people - including you - are ONLY capable of supporting a yes/no position. you are utterly without the capability of forming and holding a 'considered' opinion. If the IPCC said that seas would rise 10M by next wednesday, you'd be buying a boat rather than think it through.

Boy you are DUMB. It is quite plainly obvious he's implying that it's you extremists who are basing your opinions on what you are told by politicians and church leaders, you moron!

Pages and pages of interpersonal bickering and nitpicking...

This is the OP that Longy wants everyone to refer back to...


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:37am:

The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us.

Debate over: these many pages of dribble and prattle have more than illustrated the OP...

Oh, and ironically, Longy has probably made a personal record, for serial self-righteous indignation layered over untenable absolute statements about the extreme behaviours of others...

Equitist wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Pages and pages of interpersonal bickering and nitpicking... This is the OP that Longy wants everyone to refer back to... longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. Debate over: these many pages of dribble and prattle have more than illustrated the OP... Oh, and ironically, Longy has probably made a personal record, for serial self-righteous indignation layered over untenable absolute statements about the extreme behaviours of others...

What makes rational debate impossible is the extreme environmentalists on here want, with vigour, Australia to lower global temperatures by 0.0001 degrees, while allowing China to ADD up to 1 - 2 degrees temperature globally.

Equitist wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Pages and pages of interpersonal bickering and nitpicking... This is the OP that Longy wants everyone to refer back to... longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 11:37am: The ‘Great Climate Debate’ is anything but a debate. In fact, it has never really been a debate at all. A debate involves a frank exchange of views with mutual respect and a desire to find a consensus or compromise position.  The subject of Climate Change has never been anything but a call to arms to adopt one of two extremist positions with no room for anyone in the middle. Seeking after truth has been relegated way below the politics and a struggle for supremacy. On one side we have the Chicken Little Brigade predicting doom, gloom and 100m sea level rises all due to occur in the next decade. On the other side we have the Total Deniers with the tagline of ‘climate change is crap’. Extreme positions are common in any debate but the Climate Change debate is different in that there are only two positions anyone is permitted to hold. Anyone that supports action on CO2 emissions is instantly classed as an Al Gore sycophant and his thoroughly discredited views. Anyone who even questions the declarations of the IPCC is considered a ‘denier of science’ even if their views are credible. This extreme polarisation of views makes rational debate pointless and valueless. Nothing is ever achieved by calling a highly respected professor of science a ‘science denier or fraud’ for questioning the tenets of Climate Change. Likewise, nothing is gained by describing the climate change evangelists as ‘conspiracists, liars and frauds’. Truth lies in the middle of most complex arguments. This one is no different. ‘Climate Change is Crap’ is a stupid comment either on the basic level or the ‘considered’ one. On the basic level there is ALWAYS climate change and that is undeniable.  The considered opinion states that climate change occurs, but that humans do not affect it. That is also ludicrous as it is a basic tenet of science that our mere existence affects the outcome of our environment. However, the extent of this impact is where the debate should lie. But it doesn’t. It instead becomes a simple yet pointless yes/no question that is wrong no matter how you answer it. ‘The Science is settled’ is just as stupid and even more dangerous. Science is never settled. Lacking the omniscience of God, science is an iterative process that approaches truth through experiment treating both success and failure as valuable contributions to that search. The notion that we ‘know all there is to know’ on a topic is arrogance beyond belief. Around 1900, scientists proudly proclaimed that ‘we know all there is to know about the structure of matter’. And then someone discovered that atoms themselves have a sub-atomic structure and now we know even less than we did before.  The US Patent Office stopped taking new patents at one stage saying that after the invention of the automobile, there ‘wasnt anything more to invent’. We laugh at such short-sightedness today yet proudly proclaim the ‘science is settled’ in a discipline that is more complex than sub-atomic physics and has far less history of research. Many of us have our own considered opinions on this issue, but if we dare to proclaim them we are unceremoniously dumped into one or other extremist camp. I don’t know the real answer but one thing I can guarantee is that it will be neither of the two extremist positions currently being advertised and argued. Truth remains as distant as ever before but hysteria walks among us. Debate over: these many pages of dribble and prattle have more than illustrated the OP... Oh, and ironically, Longy has probably made a personal record, for serial self-righteous indignation layered over untenable absolute statements about the extreme behaviours of others...

hmm how to respond. you start with your own personal record for being not only the first but ONLY person to read and respond to the OP on topic.

But at least I know it was you with your second sentence. Where would a nemeisis post be without invectice and personal abuse???

Equitist wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Pages and pages of interpersonal bickering and nitpicking... Oh, and ironically, Longy has probably made a personal record, for serial self-righteous indignation layered over untenable absolute statements about the purported extreme beliefs and forum behaviours of others...

So sayeth the trolling spam bot.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:41pm:

try reading his report twit. it is predominantly about the science - something he is manifestly unqualidifed to speak on.

No, it was about the impact of climate change on the economy.


Quote:

But you swallow ANYTHING the IPCC says.  You also beleived them when they said the glaciers woudl melt in 25 years time. it must have been embarrassing when they said they were totally wrong and embarrassed by a cut and past out of context quote from a WWF article. what peer-reveiwed science was that???

It wasn't peer reviewed, it was so-called grey literature. A multi-volume report, 2,500 people reviewing literally millions of points of data, and the only mistake was a typo in regards to Himalayan glaciers and an error about sea level change in the Netherlands. That's not something to be embarrassed about, that's a bloody miracle! That's a stupendous feat and one that everyone involved in the process should be very proud.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:49pm:

Where would a nemeisis post be without invectice and personal abuse???

LMAO. Such a MASSIVE hypocrite! ;D Do you really write this crap with a straight face?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:41pm: try reading his report twit. it is predominantly about the science - something he is manifestly unqualidifed to speak on. No, it was about the impact of climate change on the economy. Quote: But you swallow ANYTHING the IPCC says.  You also beleived them when they said the glaciers woudl melt in 25 years time. it must have been embarrassing when they said they were totally wrong and embarrassed by a cut and past out of context quote from a WWF article. what peer-reveiwed science was that??? It wasn't peer reviewed, it was so-called grey literature. One mistake in a multi volume report, reviewing literally millions of points of data, and the only mistake was a typo in regards to Himalayan glaciers and an error about sea level change in the Netherlands. That's not something to be embarrassed about, that's a bloody miracle! That's a stupendous feat and one that everyone involved in the process should be very proud.

there were MANY errors in the IPCC report. the himalayan glaciers report wasnt a typo. it was a quote from a WWF article from a scientist who also said he was misquoted. but you love to be impressed by such disasters and embararssing garbage. some of the IPCC scientists themselves ended up refusing to be associated with the end report because it was so biased.

but nayhow. the final proof of all of this is how climate wont change. already temperature has stopped rising.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:49pm: Where would a nemeisis post be without invectice and personal abuse??? LMAO. Such a MASSIVE hypocrite! ;D Do you really write this crap with a straight face?

I wasnt referring to you, wannabe scientist. isnt it time for you to rever to your drug-addicted deathridesabong persona?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:41pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:19pm: so garnaut is out then. thanks for finally seeing that. Garnaut talks about the economics of climate change, not whether climate change is real or not. So, no, Garnaut is most definitely in. try reading his report twit. it is predominantly about the science - something he is manifestly unqualidifed to speak on. But you swallow ANYTHING the IPCC says.  You also beleived them when they said the glaciers woudl melt in 25 years time. it must have been embarrassing when they said they were totally wrong and embarrassed by a cut and past out of context quote from a WWF article. what peer-reveiwed science was that???

The IPCC firstly said that global warming was causing the Arctic to increase, and he believed that!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:49pm: Where would a nemeisis post be without invectice and personal abuse??? LMAO. Such a MASSIVE hypocrite! ;D Do you really write this crap with a straight face? I wasnt referring to you, wannabe scientist. isnt it time for you to rever to your drug-addicted deathridesabong persona?

sssshhhhh LW
we're not meant to know! :D :D :D

creep wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:49pm:

Equitist wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:46pm: Pages and pages of interpersonal bickering and nitpicking... Oh, and ironically, Longy has probably made a personal record, for serial self-righteous indignation layered over untenable absolute statements about the purported extreme beliefs and forum behaviours of others... So sayeth the trolling spam bot.

Get over yourself and suck it up, princess - I may make a lot of posts (at various intervals) but it is bollox to suggest that I am a spam-bot in the league of certain other prolific posters whom I shall refrain from naming...

As for Longy's assertions about my personal abuse of other posters (and Cods' from earlier today): pfffft!

I challenge everyone to review the last 25 posts of myself, Creep, Longy and Cods - and see which of the 4 have the worst abusive habits...

Go on, I dare you!

It's a lay down misere that its the trolling spam bot
Oh and why not include your others?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:

there were MANY errors in the IPCC report

So you won't have any trouble listing them, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk


Hide that decline!
Bring out the hockey stick

creep wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 7:01pm:

It's a lay down misere that its the trolling spam bot Oh and why not include your others?

Are you suggesting that I have more than 1 OzPol ID!?

You would be WRONG on that score too - as I have NEVER used any other ID on this forum!

This is a rally in WA ttoday

Look at the morons holding the placard

Are they suggesting that an AUSTRALIAN Carbon Tax will save the Earth?

We all know an Australian Carbon Tax will not save the Earth.

We know an Australian Carbon Tax will not lower GLOBAL temperature

If Gillard and Brown are so honorable then they should come out and condemn these people for lies

---

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:29am:

jame-e wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 11:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:02pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:08pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts. Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody. 'hardly a nobody'. A nobody like you and me, good. Dr Muller is not a nobody. Dr Muller excepts the planet is warming. Unnaturally warming due too anthropogenic emissions. Did i misunderstand? Dr Mullers loudest claims contradicting the science have been proven to be bogus. Do i misunderstand? Yes it is a good video. Does it support your claims of extremism, i can't see how. Am i correct to arrive at the conclusion that you are simply greedy and/or have a vested interest in Australia not adopting an ETS? you are truly and idiot. your typical extremists that impugnes the character of people on the basis of disagreeing with YOU. your opinion is now considered worthless.

I posted in this thread because i wanted to satisfy my belief that my views are not extreme. I agree with you in part, i am an idiot.
An idiot that has persisted with such a limited discussion when so many necessary questions remain unanswered.

As to the impugning, it was a question, please note the '?'.
Also note the OP, and the challenge to it i have made. This thread is full of insults, many coming from you. The above being one of them.

Harden up mate. Maybe answer a question or two while your at it.

Am i correct to arrive at the conclusion that you are simply greedy and/or have a vested interest in Australia not adopting an ETS?

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:02pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:08pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm: Please delete wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:48pm: Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security. Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves. As afterall they have done this before, with climategate. As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists. The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy! Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related Great stuff and excellant viewing. Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park. No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts. Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody. Well done LW, there may yet be hope for you. That said, I should point out, following a review of both the Creeps video & the following one from Astro, that our friend Mr Muller seems to have a split personality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us In Creeps video, Muller says, he agrees that Global Warming is happening & it is human caused to an extent, he then highlights many areas indicating why the IPCC got things wrong. Then in Astro's video, which was done about 6 months later than Creeps video, Muller says before a US Congress hearing on March 31st, 2011 that his new organisations initial investigations agreed that the work of NOAA, NASA GISS & the UK, on Global Warming, was correct and that warming had indeed increased by 1.2 degrees between 1900 to now and an increase of 0.7 between 1957 to now. Muller also specifically disagreed with "Watts up with That", an anti Climate Change website, on the issue on where weather stations are located and whether that has made a difference to the stats. Is it possible that Bill Gates & David Koch, who are major sponsors of Mullers new organisation, may be pulling Muller in different directions and that may have some bearing on what Muller is saying? Muller also mentioned various Energy related issues in the Creeps video, which dates back to October, 2010. Muller lauds Nuclear, which in hindsight now has great problems, following the Japan situation and Germanies abandonment of their Nuclear industry by 2023 (roughly). Muller also lauds, Coal & Natural Gas, as replacements for Oil, which also clearly has problems, given that Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years, whilst the Natural Gas he refers to involves the Fracking Extraction process in the USA, which is now being examined in a lot more detail, as many problems are arising with that process, including issues such as contamination of underground water acquifiers, to even causing local earthquakes. I would put Muller into the question mark area, at this point!

No comment LW?

Quote:

Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years,

Make that a hundred years with existing mines and hundreds of years with already identified reserves.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 9:46pm:

Quote: Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years, Make that a hundred years with existing mines and hundreds of years with already identified reserves.

Really,?

How do you know that?

Economic resources of black coal occur in most Australian States, but are particularly abundant in Queensland and New South Wales, with 58 % and 38 % respectively of economic demonstrated resources (EDR).  At the end of 2009 recoverable EDR  in  Australia increased by 11.5 % over the previous year to 43.8 gigatonnes (Gt), implying a resource life of around 100 years at current rates of production.

(Source: Australia's Identified Mineral Resources: Geoscience Australia)

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:46pm: Quote: Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years, Make that a hundred years with existing mines and hundreds of years with already identified reserves. Really,? How do you know that?

Whilst your off trying to find something, you MAY like to ponder on this -

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4ced42deccd1d5191a0e0000-915/chinas-production-is-about-to-undergo-dramatic-shrinkage.jpg

And this -
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak-coal-theory/1284
The above article refers to updated USGS studies that find that we may only have 100 years of coal left, at current rates of consumption.

In particular, the Uppsala Coal Production chart clearly shows what could be described as the Coal Consumption Pig bump, which is currently going thru China.

The Chinese have their own large Coal Reserves, but those reserves are being eaten away, at a horrendous rate and unless they stop the massive build up of Coal fired power stations (one per week), they will soon reach a Production plateau shortly and then start to Decline, before completely exhausting their own reserves, well before the end of this century.

The Chinese Pig is also set to gorge on Australian Coal and as Chinese Production starts to Decline they will want more & more, from Australia.

Governments & some in the Private sector may think this is good, but I assure you, future generations of Australians will be desperate for OZ Coal to stay in OZ!  

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:53pm: Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:46pm: Quote: Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years, Make that a hundred years with existing mines and hundreds of years with already identified reserves. Really,? How do you know that? Whilst your off trying to find something, you MAY like to ponder on this - http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4ced42deccd1d5191a0e0000-915/chinas-production-is-about-to-undergo-dramatic-shrinkage.jpg And this - http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak-coal-theory/1284 The above article refers to updated USGS studies that find that we may only have 100 years of coal left, at current rates of consumption. In particular, the Uppsala Coal Production chart clearly shows what could be described as the Coal Consumption Pig bump, which is currently going thru China. The Chinese have their own large Coal Reserves, but those reserves are being eaten away, at a horrendous rate and unless they stop the massive build up of Coal fired power stations (one per week), they will soon reach a Production plateau shortly and then start to Decline, before completely exhausting their own reserves, well before the end of this century. The Chinese Pig is also set to gorge on Australian Coal and as Chinese Production starts to Decline they will want more & more, from Australia. Governments & some in the Private sector may think this is good, but I assure you, future generations of Australians will be desperate for OZ Coal to stay in OZ!

Btw, whilst you are looking at the quantity of Coal, you MAY also want to have a look at the quality of Coal.

What I mean there, is that, as with Oil, all the good, low hanging fruit got used first.

In the Coal area, it means all the good grades that produce the best results are pretty much gone and that's part of the reason why power costs are already moving much higher, now!  

Equitist wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

creep wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:49pm: Equitist wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:46pm: Pages and pages of interpersonal bickering and nitpicking... Oh, and ironically, Longy has probably made a personal record, for serial self-righteous indignation layered over untenable absolute statements about the purported extreme beliefs and forum behaviours of others... So sayeth the trolling spam bot. Get over yourself and suck it up, princess - I may make a lot of posts (at various intervals) but it is bollox to suggest that I am a spam-bot in the league of certain other prolific posters whom I shall refrain from naming... As for Longy's assertions about my personal abuse of other posters (and Cods' from earlier today): pfffft! I challenge everyone to review the last 25 posts of myself, Creep, Longy and Cods - and see which of the 4 have the worst abusive habits... Go on, I dare you!

ask andrei what he thinks of yoru level of abuse - a bit personal wasnt it?

I'm a little confused longie, what's your actual position? You say you're not a denier, and yet you're against both lib and lab policies?  So, what's your thought for action if you agree to believe that climate change may in fact be human caused?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif
Mans contribution to the green house effect is 0.117%. What are we looking at dropping that to (through reductions in carbon use), 0.110% or 0.105% ??

At the end of the day, fact is the poles are in retreat so are the glaciers.  Something is up.



BUT  why  is this an issue in Australia. We have the population of Shanghai in a country the size of the USA. Any amount of green house disturbance generated by Ozzies, will be easily soaked up by our enormous habitat.  There is little to nothing the Ozzie can do on this matter.   We have 0.3% of the worlds population, in probably 8% of the worlds land mass. Even if we are carbon Zero, we have just reduced the problem by 0.3%.   Wow !...........  drop of water on a hot plate.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

I'm a little confused longie, what's your actual position? You say you're not a denier, and yet you're against both lib and lab policies?  So, what's your thought for action if you agree to believe that climate change may in fact be human caused?

My position is (and thanks for asking since you are the first to post actuall yonthe topic) is that I believe humans affect climate but NOT catastrophically. I do not beleive that we affect - or have the capacity to affect - climate in any significant manner. the earths biosphere is a self-repairing one and one that responds well to challenges made to it. I do not believe that we are altering climate outside its normal range. Thais does not mean I dont think we should be cleaner and less pollutting. but CO2 is NOT a pollutant whereas black carbon is and is 1000 times as dangerous to glaciers than CO2.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:43pm: I'm a little confused longie, what's your actual position? You say you're not a denier, and yet you're against both lib and lab policies?  So, what's your thought for action if you agree to believe that climate change may in fact be human caused? My position is (and thanks for asking since you are the first to post actuall yonthe topic) is that I believe humans affect climate but NOT catastrophically. I do not beleive that we affect - or have the capacity to affect - climate in any significant manner. the earths biosphere is a self-repairing one and one that responds well to challenges made to it. I do not believe that we are altering climate outside its normal range. Thais does not mean I dont think we should be cleaner and less pollutting. but CO2 is NOT a pollutant whereas black carbon is and is 1000 times as dangerous to glaciers than CO2.

With the earth cycles and solar forcing being the biggest challenges to the earth climate wise, the earth would have to be self repairing. I highly doubt that the earth is constantly teatering on the edge when there is so much diversity to what can cool and warm it. With AGW being 0.117% of all greenhouse effect and the fearmongers saying this somehow forces the earth to warm uncontrollably is saying the earth is not only teatering over the edge but teatering far worse than we could imagine .

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:43pm: I'm a little confused longie, what's your actual position? You say you're not a denier, and yet you're against both lib and lab policies?  So, what's your thought for action if you agree to believe that climate change may in fact be human caused? My position is (and thanks for asking since you are the first to post actuall yonthe topic) is that I believe humans affect climate but NOT catastrophically. I do not beleive that we affect - or have the capacity to affect - climate in any significant manner. the earths biosphere is a self-repairing one and one that responds well to challenges made to it. I do not believe that we are altering climate outside its normal range. Thais does not mean I dont think we should be cleaner and less pollutting. but CO2 is NOT a pollutant whereas black carbon is and is 1000 times as dangerous to glaciers than CO2.

I post this here, because it is relevant.


perceptions_now wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 3:20pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 3:02pm: Hewson takes swipe at parties over climate Dr Hewson, addressing a crowd of around 2,000 people outside Parliament House, said global warming was "the biggest economic, social, political and moral challenge of this century". Dr Hewson said vested interests were buying influence in Canberra and leadership was needed to take them on. "We [also] need leadership to challenge the scare campaign that's been led by one of my ex-staff members," he said, referring to Mr Abbott. "This issue is going to affect generations through this century so how dare they play games with the livelihoods of our grandchildren and their grandchildren." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/06/3236095.htm?site=newcastle =============================== Gee, that on sounds familiar! What does Hewson want the world to reduce the man made greenhouse effect to. Can we get some numbers. While he is at it, what would he like Australias reduction to be. As manmade greenhouse effect (through CO2) is 0.117% of all greenhouse gases .What would he like to reduce that to and how much of that will Australias reduction be represented as? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif What's your point, Progs? It's not the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or in the oceans, nor is it the absolute %. I'm sure you know, the human body can get very sick &/or die, from extremely small amounts, including Cyanide and many other substances. In the case of Cyanide, something like 1 millionth of your body weight in Cyanide will be enough to do the job AND OTHER SUBSTANCES EVEN LESS! For perspective, your 0.117% is roughly 1 thousandth, whilst a lethal dose of cyanide is 1 Millionth, that's 1,000 times less and other substances are even more lethal. The Climate/GHG problem is to do with the inherent balance between the Climate, GHG's & other Climate factors and that the upsetting of that balance, requires relatively small amounts of additional human created GHG's. Relatively small, in the overall context.   Fo all of those who say CO2 is good for the Earth, you may want to consider shifting to a planet that has a little more, like Venus. With CO2 consituting something like 96% of the Venus atmosphere, it should suit some you, who think CO2 is good. And, of course, you could take your swim tog's (bathers), as it is both warm & plenty of cloud. However, there are a few things you may want to consider, before purchasing your travel documents - 1) When I said cloud, I meant to say they rain sulfuric acid, but at least you won't have worry about skin cancer, as the cloud is that thick it doesn't let any sunlight in, and;   2) When I said warm, I meant nearly 500c. 3) However, at least you will save money on your travel costs, because you won't need a return ticket, as there is NO way you will make the journey back to Earth, after being soaked in acid and then fried by the heat!

I post this here because it is relevent lol


perceptions_now wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 3:20pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 3:02pm: Hewson takes swipe at parties over climate Dr Hewson, addressing a crowd of around 2,000 people outside Parliament House, said global warming was "the biggest economic, social, political and moral challenge of this century". Dr Hewson said vested interests were buying influence in Canberra and leadership was needed to take them on. "We [also] need leadership to challenge the scare campaign that's been led by one of my ex-staff members," he said, referring to Mr Abbott. "This issue is going to affect generations through this century so how dare they play games with the livelihoods of our grandchildren and their grandchildren." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/06/3236095.htm?site=newcastle =============================== Gee, that on sounds familiar! What does Hewson want the world to reduce the man made greenhouse effect to. Can we get some numbers. While he is at it, what would he like Australias reduction to be. As manmade greenhouse effect (through CO2) is 0.117% of all greenhouse gases .What would he like to reduce that to and how much of that will Australias reduction be represented as? http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif What's your point, Progs? It's not the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or in the oceans, nor is it the absolute %. I'm sure you know, the human body can get very sick &/or die, from extremely small amounts, including Cyanide and many other substances. In the case of Cyanide, something like 1 millionth of your body weight in Cyanide will be enough to do the job AND OTHER SUBSTANCES EVEN LESS! For perspective, your 0.117% is roughly 1 thousandth, whilst a lethal dose of cyanide is 1 Millionth, that's 1,000 times less and other substances are even more lethal. The Climate/GHG problem is to do with the inherent balance between the Climate, GHG's & other Climate factors and that the upsetting of that balance, requires relatively small amounts of additional human created GHG's. Relatively small, in the overall context.   Fo all of those who say CO2 is good for the Earth, you may want to consider shifting to a planet that has a little more, like Venus. With CO2 consituting something like 96% of the Venus atmosphere, it should suit some you, who think CO2 is good. And, of course, you could take your swim tog's (bathers), as it is both warm & plenty of cloud. However, there are a few things you may want to consider, before purchasing your travel documents - 1) When I said cloud, I meant to say they rain sulfuric acid, but at least you won't have worry about skin cancer, as the cloud is that thick it doesn't let any sunlight in, and;   2) When I said warm, I meant nearly 500c. 3) However, at least you will save money on your travel costs, because you won't need a return ticket, as there is NO way you will make the journey back to Earth, after being soaked in acid and then fried by the heat!

Use proper examples f f sake. Cyanide - 3% I added ,dead, but there was already 97% of it in my blood, so I was already dead. How did I then put 3% into my blood after that. Anyway, the representation is 0.117% I would have added, not 3% out of the total cyanide.

From the other thread, I just want to know what the representation in total greenhouse effect reduction do you people want out of the 0.117%. What do you think it would be.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif