Hasbeen

I have the greatest respect for Penny Wong in her abilities as a pollie and her ability to understand, to a fair extent, climate science.

What I question is Fielding's methodology. He appears to deliberately avoid seeking answers from the very people who could offer all the information, examples and evidence he could require; institutions like NASA, CSIRO or even BOM, or the many other independent science-based organisations who have been studying and observing climate around the globe for decades.

Fielding would be a 'non-event' if it wasn't for his public profile and the influence he may exert on those who are even less educated and informed than he.

The simple truth is we cannot continue to consume all and natural resources and pollute the atmosphere, land and water systems. Whether you accept AGW or not is irrelevant; the treatment of the planet as a magic pudding must cease. And we have the knowledge, the technology and the ability, what we appear to lack is the will.

This will to change is being undermined by the likes of Fielding and others who have a vested interest in business-as-usual.

Dear Fractelle,

Well said!
You've summed it up beautifully!

Anyone who questions the fact that we
seriously need to wind back the pollution we're
doing to our planet - should try living in places
like Los Angeles (or Tokyo) for a few years.

Come on you are all computer literate, or you would not be here. You should all be Googlers. Google underwater volcanoes and warming seas, and you will see that today, the sea if warming is not warming from what the sun is doing, but from what the earth is doing. Climatologists may be observing the effects of a warming ocean, but unless they consult a vulcanologist they are shooting the wrong dog. Steve is asking the hard questions, and they need honest answers. There are lots of people posting here who are convinced by the hype that is necessary to get green preferences, but if we are really seeing the oceans warmed from below, taxing carbon will not help.

Volcanoes are erupting all over the world. They claim that there are five thousand of them, and that is a lot. Maybe this little space rock is in for a rumble or two, and there is probably bugger all we can do about it. It may well be that like the Prophets of Baal, in the First Book of Kings, we can do whatever we will and it will not make one iota of difference, except increase homelessness, destroy families, and redirect resources away from necessary purposes.

One volcano spews more CO2 in a day that all the power stations in Australia if we can believe the vulcanologists. I am not a genius but duh. It could be volcanoes, putting the heat under the oceans, and warming them up from underneath rather that heat from the atmosphere warming them from above. In deep water the CO2 would go straight into solution, but the heat is still a problem. If Steve’s report in the Australian is correct Penny Wong’s scientists say that the problem is water temperature, not atmospheric temperature, and just because his questions are unpopular with some, does not mean they do not need an answer. He may just be right, and that would have nothing to do with his Christianity. Christians can be right and wrong, just like anyone else, but they deserve to be given a fair go.

it is sad intelligent and reasonable posters..foxey and fractile at last call..think the global carbon tax is going to cure polution./.great one guys..

it will also cure dumping polution into the oceans..[and all carcenogenic polution of water air and soil everywhere..as well as stop them peskey plastic bahgs strangling tutrles..[god knows they so full of carbon

look its greatr you guys are getting off on this tax..and supporting each other like your blogging from the same depo..but lets get real the tax wont fix a single thing..as has repeaTEDLY BEEN STATED BY OTHERS READING THE POSTS..

not meaning to yell...but the facts are clear..coal fired power generation are still being planned and built...so aRE petro/GAS CONSUMING auto's still being built..and will continue to for a long time,,,you deney the corrective evidences..imply fielding hasnt done the research...

present your proof..he didnt talk to nasa or csiro..your peddling rumours..stop flirting with dubious facts..and go flirt with each other some other place

Dear OUG,

We can't keep on doing
what we're currently doing - and
expect different results. It's
obvious we've got to find alternative
solutions. (We have alternative solutions -
but big business and greed - stock-market
speculators - don't want to lose their
big profits). The pollution tax would bring
revenue to fund alternative energy sources.

What do you suggest we do?

cont'd...

Senator Fielding couldn't be more wrong.

Tor Hundloe in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: seeking sustainability,"
tells us:

"Economists know that pollution, resource degradation
and all sorts of negative environmental impacts come
at a genuine cost to society - usually not all of
society, but significant parts of it. One person's
free disposal of toxic waste is another person's cost.
That cost can be severe and life-threatening, as with
water-borne diseases and particular air pollutants.
These facts we are all aware of... extreme weather
events could be more like a nuclear war, and come at the
expense of all..."

Hundloe goes on to say that, "There is a tired and true
way of reducing and, if need be, completely curtailing
adverse environmental impacts: taxation on pollution.
Taxes reduce consumption. If high enough they curtail it."

Hundloe is an economist. He's worked as a professional
economist at the highest levels of his profession (in both
public and private sectors) and he's never met an economist
or read a report by an economist, which didn't advocate
pollution taxes as the preferred means of dealing with
environmental harm.

As Hundloe reminds us, "It took the medical profession
from the 1960s to the present era to get the public, and
the governments we elect, to act on the toxic, life-taking
efforts of tobacco. Eventually sanity prevailed, but it
took 40 years... it is clearly time for economists to
commence their campaign for pollution taxes and getting
prices to tell the truth. With all the power and influence
in society and government, economists are sitting on their
collective hands... Not good enough."