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


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:




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


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.

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


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:


Maybe those wise words will come in handy again:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:36pm:


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

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-sceptics-endange...

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.

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 11:37am:


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".

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

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


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.