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 > Rudd and Wong’s emissions trading choice > Comments

Rudd and Wong’s emissions trading choice : Comments

By Christine Milne, published 21/7/2008

Rudd and Wong are so paralysed by fear that, for all their talk of transformation, they are clinging to the past.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
What is it with all the right wing frootloops infesting this site. We have more ad-hominem than a star chamber, and any accompanying argument is trite or beside the point.

Christine is supporting the approach that Garnaut called for and being critical of Labor for wimping out. You can make the argument that caving in to rent-seekers now will just make the political problems worse later on, as well as making it slower to get started.

China and India are important, but we happy little 2% of global emissions vegemites generate heaps more pollution per head than they do. Is that something to be proud of? How could anyone reasonably expect them to cut back because we choose not to?

And in case Andrew Bolt is listening, the fact that 1998 was an abnormally hot year doesn't mean that the world is now cooling. Have a look at the temperature trend, the melting arctic _and_ antarctic ice, the disappearing glaciers, the droughts etc, and tell me if you're willing to bet your kids future on 1998 being the peak instead of a statistical blip on an increasing trend? See the graph soon at http://convenientsolutions.blogspot.com/
Posted by mvs, Monday, 21 July 2008 6:37:06 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
I wonder what some commenters think they are achieving by their nasty spoil sport approach to issues.
JBowyer seems more concerned with envy rather the issue at hand.
Mr. Right and Runner always seem only to attack the author. One wonders if this is because they have no real insightful alternative.
Mrs Milne is entitled to a civilized discussion of her issue, after all she is in parliament and the above aren’t. Discussion/debate might, where personal attack and intolerance won’t. So why bother? Zealotry of either side proves more about the participants than the issue.

Actually I don’t support the Green’s fixation on or as a single issue party. As I’ve said before The Greens are a poor second choice for ‘balance’ in the Senate, a limit on the excesses of the majors. But any balance is better than none.

The causes of “Climate Change” are complex and the relationships between various elements are not locked into absolute agreement or comprehension least of all by the [in]articulate unknowing (i.e. Journalists and the untrained).

Offerings based largely on political, self-interested or denial are doomed. The environment was but one of the issues that moved Labor to power.

Mrs Milne Why aren’t the Greens also concentrating on defensive strategies (harm mitigation) too?
Imagine a New Orleans here Brisbane or Sydney etc. The scale of which would be beyond a state resources. Too dramatic? Not really, if the ice in the Artic continues to melt as undisputed evidence shows and we match that to Paleo-Oceanographical history the Atlantic Current will stop causing world wide CC.
Either way would the resources be wasted in a country of extremes? Hardly.

In truth Mrs Milne, their absence leaves me with two possible conclusions.
• Either the greens aren’t up to the task. Are the politics too tough or is in-house ability inadequate?
• The Greens are just another wannabe political party.
The greens need to be credible beyond a movement of well meaning genies. Either way we need leadership not politics.
Posted by examinator, Monday, 21 July 2008 6:37:58 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
Why do we look at this article without consideration of the false premises on which the whole discussion is based?

The cynical exercise targets emissions of carbon dioxide, the proportion of which in our atmosphere is 388 parts per million.

Considering the observable benefits from CO2, the last thing we should do is reduce the proportion of this benevolent gas in our atmosphere.

The reason given for wishing to reduce it is that it causes global warming. As we have observed cooling during periods of increased human emissions, and there has been no warming for the last 10 years, despite the impassioned warnings of those of the warming faith, it is ridiculous to call for economic strictures on our community aimed at reducing this benign element in our atmosphere.

An examination of the spurious evidence put forward by the UN at the Bali fest shows that there is no justification whatsoever. Ban Ki Moon's impassioned performance was based on predictions made by the UN in its scurrilous Summary of 2003. The predictions had already been shown to be incorrect at the time of the talk fest, of the 12,500 ignorant freeloaders. No current science was permitted, and any genuine scientists were refused invitations.

The argument that despite the recent cooling we still have a warming trend, is another sideshow trick. A trend over a reasonable period, not commenced from a time when we are coming out of a mini ice age, shows a cooling trend, which is frightening.

If CO2 causes warming, which is doubtful, despite the many people who are prepared to believe it, we should encourage emissions.

If it does not cause warming, we should encourage any increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, for the many benefits it brings to our life.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 21 July 2008 7:24:38 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
It is interesting to not that the last 4 Newpoll voting intention polls put the Green consistently between 10% and 12% federally, and even 10% in the last QLD poll - that pretty amazing for QLD. Given that they usually pick up just before an election, I wouldn't count them out of some major gains at the next election.

Leo Lane wrote: "The cynical exercise targets emissions of carbon dioxide, the proportion of which in our atmosphere is 388 parts per million.

Absolute percentage is meaningless. Would you get off a drink driving charge because you only has a fraction of a percentage of alcohol in your blood? CO2 starts to become directly toxic to animal life at just 0.5% concentrations (5000ppm) - does that sound "benevolent" to you?

Leo Lane wrote: "If CO2 causes warming, which is doubtful" ...

Go and look at a peer-reviewed science journal such as "Climatic Change":

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/

All of the climate scientists there think human are causing climate change due to CO2 emissions. Frankly, I'll take their word over yours any day.

keith wrote: "they've woken up to the fact CO2 emissions are rising while global temperatures are falling"

Not according to NASA:

"'Global warming stopped in 1998,' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Posted by Sams, Monday, 21 July 2008 9:56:38 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
@ Sams
I dunno but I think this whole MMGW crock is just that, a huge crockabaloney designed to swindle more money from the unsuspecting public.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Posted by RawMustard, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 1:31:47 AM
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
@Sams and everyone.

Please read the following article titled "Recent Cooling and the Serious Data Integrity Issue" and PLEASE!! address the science (It's all referenced) and refrain from attacking the author as you typically do.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Recent_Coolingand_the_Serious_Data_Integrity_issue.pdf

I take serious issue with the constant reference to anyone who is a GW sceptic being right wing! I have voted left all my life, I even voted green at the last election. I would love to see Australia invest in renewable energy etc but I will not be hoodwinked into approving such action by the deceit of the Church of Global Warming.
Posted by Janama, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 7:21:35 AM
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. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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