The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Labor bequeaths us climate careerism > Comments

Labor bequeaths us climate careerism : Comments

By Ian Plimer, published 25/5/2012

Labor's climate policy leads to unemployment, higher electricity, food and fuel costs and the loss of long-term capital investment in Australia, as well as the loss of the ALP voting heartland.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Ian Plimer is one of the very few who had to courage and integrity to call this idea into question and the scientific credentials to support his argument. He needs to be congratulated for his stance which was essentially for the retention of dispassionate, scientific logic in the global warming debate; nothing more, nothing less.

Despite this, he was and continues to be harangued and pilloried by journalists, particularly from the ABC, whose knowledge of science, is by comparison is virtually zero. Their sheer gall, to argue with a scientist about things about which they knew nothing, was brought on by a nothing more than a sense of moral superiority and religious fervour and little else.

Remember, Plimer is the man who took creationists to task on scientific grounds long before others. The Left subsequently did too, but only as a means to attack religion.

The whole Carbon fantasy is slowly falling apart in front of our eyes just as Ian Plimer said it would.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 25 May 2012 12:00:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle - it is not surprising you are puzzled by BoM's results on sea level increases, so are the scientists. But its no matter.. If you look at the University of Colorado site which collates satellite measurements,
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The rate of change measured there is about 3.1mm a year over nearly 20 years with no change of any kind. If that increase is maintained for a century it works out to an increase of a bit under third of a metre or about a foot in the old Imperial scale for the century. In other words nothing is happening. However, as its only for 20 years it is not considered reliable enough.. sea level increases are known to vary between decades..

Rhosty
"Even if climate change is not real ocean acidification is".
Sorry, no, it isn't.. or at least the situation is proving far more complicated than anyone first imagined.. Ocean temperatues have an effect on CO2 levels (warmer water holds less CO2), but this is too complicated for a post..
However, suppose for a moment that this effect is happening. Would this have an effect on sea life? As scientists have been forced to conceed, the change itself isn't important .. the crucial point is the rate of change. They have been arguing that it will change too fast for sea creatures to adapt, but to date it just hasn't been changing that fast..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 25 May 2012 12:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, thanks for the comprehensive response…I think! ( :>|

Don’t know whether to respond in a serious manner or to just say; have a nice day!

D’Oh alright, I’ll proffer a serious response…

<< …the imperative you raise as always, is that we are running out of “things… >>

Oh…. and you would assert that we are not running out of oil, eh?

It is not so much that we are running out of it, it is the changing economics. It is getting harder to obtain and consequently more expensive.

Then of course there is the population factor and the China/India factor, which means that the demand is still very rapidly increasing, while the supply rate is constant or decreasing.

And there is the possibility that when oil supplies become a bit stressed, the big and powerful nations will bully the supplier countries into reducing or cutting out supplies to the smaller nations.

As I have said numerous times, the rising price of oil will hit us very hard indeed long before any actual shortages of supply, in all probability.

<< Your cult responses... >>

Can’t you see that the use of silly terms like ‘cult’ just undermines your credibility immediately?

Now, all this stuff that you have listed as coming from your imaginary Cult Rhetoric Hand Book is just bizarre.

Rhetoric is right! Talk about spinning off on some completely useless tangent!

So, let’s get back on track. What do you suggest we do? Just keep up rapid population growth, keep up our addiction to oil, make no efforts to develop renewable energy sources, and just deal with the consequences when they hit us like a ton of bricks, with no forward planning?

I can’t respond now until tomorrow morning as this is my fourth post on this thread today.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 25 May 2012 12:24:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The worlds biggest Carbon Tax is 36 days away. Everybody will be bankrupt. How are we going to pay.
What about the carbon tax on beer, and haircuts.
1.5 c / kwh average, any normal house will use around 12 / day, now that is 18 c / day $ 65/ yr.
You are being compensated to the eyeballs.
Now that is not bad to clean the place up.
Posted by 579, Friday, 25 May 2012 1:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, if oil & coal become too expensive for us, we will have to change our usage. There is no reason for the ratbag fringe to force us to change before we reach this point. We have adequate hydrocarbon reserves for our needs into the medium, [hundreds of years], future.

Rhrosty, quite obviously this greeny change of tack, to try to drum up another scare campaign, based on ocean acidification, is a de facto recognition of the fact that Global Warming has stopped, & is likely to reverse. See the recently released Russian findings.

If you want to claim ocean heating, please state which Argo buoys show this.

The attempted change from global warming to climate change, & the attempt to climate disruption is all rather funny. Anyone with half a brain can see your retreat from the earlier garbage, as it becomes obvious that the whole thing is just another blind alley of science.

It is actually fun watching you trapped warmests, twist & turn as you try to fight your way out of the dead end you've got yourselves into.

It must be dreadful to see the bottom of the pot of gold, & realise the jigs up.

I'll watch with interest to see what you come up with, when you realise this ocean acidification rort won't cut the mustard either.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 25 May 2012 1:20:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, thanks for your response. I’ll respond on the serious basis you intended.

The issue of finite resources is well encapsulated in Agenda 21. The principle being that for Sustainable Development to carry any weight, two pre-conditions are required.

The first principle is that those who “have” should give to those who “do not”.

UN Environment Program (UNEP) produced the report called Our Common Future:

<< “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt life-styles within the planet’s ecological means- in their use of energy, for example. Further, rapidly growing populations can increase the pressure on resources and slow any rise in living standards; thus the sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem”>>

So sustainable Development is defined as “a systematic approach to achieving human development in a way that sustains planetary resources, based on the recognition that human consumption is occurring at a rate that is beyond Earth's capacity to support it. Population growth and the developmental pressures spawned by an unequal distribution of wealth are two major driving forces that are altering the planet in ways that threaten the long-term health of humans and other species on the planet”.

So far so good however, I’m sure you can see that unless someone actually defines (or fabricates) the “limits” of available resources, this whole concept collapses in a heap because there is absolutely no traction for the SD case if you cannot show what the limits are. Since we cannot show these (unless you know different) we have to “pretend” by alluding to “Peak Something’s” as you do.

Most skeptics will not respond to the “Peak whatever” syndrome because the warmers invented it, therefore it is up to you to justify it, your call, which should be interesting.

Lastly, the 34 analogous attributes of Cult Indoctrination (Self Indoctrination of CAGW) are a precise match to CAGW. Your role in this is just your compliance with these attributes because you have no choice.

Cont’d
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 25 May 2012 1:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy