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 > A climate catastrophe or a carbon agenda? > Comments

A climate catastrophe or a carbon agenda? : Comments

By Ian Read, published 1/4/2010

The climate change debate does not follow the principles of scepticism, repeated independent measurement and analysis, or open communication.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
You know Amicus, it would be disturbing to genuine 'agnostics' when someone links or parrots right wing think tanks - the Lavoisier Group - or Heartland Institute, or Cato, or Marshall, or Tech Central Station ... or anyone, add your own.

It demonstrates that those that do are only out to spruik right wing propaganda. I was hoping you were above that.

Aside: It’s the same with right wing media shock-jocks; aka Andrew Bolt - or Piers Akerman, or Miranda Devine ... or anyone, add your own.

You should understand that science is above politics (and religion) – but when you do this yourself, well ... it belies an agenda (or rose coloured glasses) - whether you believe it, or whether you don't.

Amicus, the vast majority of scientists are straight shooters - politics (and religion) don’t compromise their science, despite what some people may want to believe. A scientist’s integrity must be beyond reproach, otherwise their whole reason for being is null, it is void - their career would be finished.

I respect genuine 'contrarian' scientists' research - however, some have backed themselves into a corner - Plimer and Carter come readily to mind, particularly after emboldening the 'Lord' Monckton - notwithstanding they are respected longstanding 'ambassadors' of the Lavoisier Group.

So called ‘sceptics’ of AGW may pounce on this, they will be wrong. If there is incontrovertible science that dispels human activity significantly influencing climate, it would have been found, analysed, reviewed and substantiated – it hasn’t.

You talk of AGW believers and the ALP (further demonstrating a belief in an ideological agenda) but I am saddened that you don’t understand that politicians (and countries) all over the world, from whatever persuasion, are having a stoush, not about the science, but ... what, when and how to do something about adapttion and mitigation.

Some people will never acknowledge that we (humanity) can influence the Earth's climate. But we're 7 billion strong (getting bigger) with a ravenous and rapacious desire for increased energy - primarily dependent on fossil fuels. This does not bode well, whatever you may think.
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:03:39 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
Your interpretation of the CPRS clauses is entirely incorrect. The CPRS does not abolish the right to avoid incrimination. Like many laws, it doesn't allow you to withhold documents that might incriminate you. A very different reality to the spin you try and give. Similarly, the CPRS does not abolish the right to silence - it requires compliance with an order to produce documents. Not exactly revolutionary. And your claim regarding presumption of innocence seems completely fabricated - section 336 has nothing to do with your claim. Further, your reliance on a bill that never passed as 'precedent' is just silly - as is your interpretation of the clauses that you raise. It's just shoddy work. The irony of course is that you claim the IPCC report is alarmist while your fabrications constitute reason. In over 3000 pages 2 real mistakes have been found in the 2007 IPCC report. You have at least 4 in one paragraph
Posted by next, Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:38:38 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
qanda, your scolding aside, should I get my political information at left wing think tanks then?

Is your opinion, a right wing think tank, " must be wrong", because its a right wing think tank (I hadn't heard of Lavoisier before, I don't follow these things all that enthusiastically)

In your agnostic or skeptical role, surely you consider all information?

Mentioning Lord Monckton upsets some people, it was in context though.

I have reacted to what appears to be an analysis of a legislative proposal, drawn up by a minister, a lawyer, and other lawyers.

Why?

I know from some other work I have done that the Dept of Climate Change is hiring investigators, lots, that may have slowed, this was July last. Hiring ex-police and other investigators, they told me they will have right of entry into businesses and eventually this will extend into homes, with "extraordinary powers".

Now that has to be backed up by legislation, or they would not be able to do their jobs.

I work in the investigative/intelligence world, lets leave it at that. These people were very casually talking about their expected future role.

So when I saw the references above, it all made sense.

Are you of the opinion these clauses do not exist?

Do you think the references are wrong?

If true, are you happy with these sort of powers being given to a new government department, set up to further regulate the citizens?

These references were probably why the government was in such a hurry to get this bill through last year, Turnbull was given a week or so to get it passed - PM Rudd and Minister Wong were apoplectic at the time and scathing in any comments they made about any questioning or opposition.

As luck would have it, Turnbull got rolled and Tony Abbott got up - we've probably dodged a bullet.

No wonder the ALP applied so much pressure and used science as a political tool, did they not?

So science aside, this is worrying when governments behave like this.

Would you agree?

TBC
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:05:34 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
qanda II, ok now on the science side.

I do see many people mix the science and politics of AGW readily, the government and their minions CSIRO, BOM, ABC and also IPCC and UN etc do it all the time. Though right now the CSIRO is trying to extricate itself from the cheerleading it has previously been famous for.

That seems to be fine, unless you reference a right wing think tank evidently - that seems less than objective, but let's move on.

"You talk of AGW believers and the ALP (further demonstrating a belief in an ideological agenda)" yes and an environmental activist agenda at that, as it can justify new laws and taxes, so of course it is attractive to the ALP.

"Some people will never acknowledge that we (humanity) can influence the Earth's climate." How unfortunate this is. I don't deny that mankind changes the climate, after all clear felling millions of acres in Australia to "improve" the land has to have some effect surely.

I do have a problem though, as you know, with the whole "CO2 is the culprit" stance though, and the attraction to controlling climate by reducing CO2.

There are so many things we could do to improve our interaction with the planet, but what has big science come up with - CO2.

To most people, the land clearing, river and water use are irrelevant to climate change, because they know from the media, government and scientists that it is CO2.

All we have to do is reduce CO2 and everything is fine. So we'll fine people, even jail them for producing too much CO2, we'll have a CO2 police force.

The problem will be solved, it's CO2, it's evil corporations, it's fossil fuel.

So keep clearing land, doing those other things that we know have some effect, but it will be OK, we know if we control CO2, we control the climate - what temperature would you like?

The message is wrong. Telling people they can offset, thus reducing involvement is wrong. We need a holistic approach, but we won't get it.
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:26:01 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
So many high falutin words in this article when all the author needed to do was state that he was a climate change denier and then put his spin on the facts.He might have got a couple of paragraphs out of that.
Posted by Manorina, Friday, 2 April 2010 8:02:31 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
Ken

The climate-science carbon-dioxide alarmism produced by those ‘expert scientists’ and disseminated by the news media is flawed, simply and firstly, because of their deliberate denial of all the real environmental problems from deforestation and the big paddock agribusiness that follows. To simply attach all problems to greenhouse gases while deforestation goes on unabated is absurd. Deforestation is causing drought, higher temperatures and degradation in the soils of the world – so it is impossible then to attribute all blame to carbon dioxide causing AGW. Deforestation and big paddock agribusiness are causing erosion of soil, compaction of soil, depletion of soil structure, depletion of soil fertility and release of greenhouse gases from those soils. In the news media there is scant mention of how soils wash into waterways, lakes, rivers and sea. There is no debate over the lack of media ethics in ignoring salinity, mercury, strontium 90, lead, zinc, toxicity from degrading pesticides and fertilisers becoming oestrogenic mimickers and so causing sterility in all sexually producing vertebrates including humans, no mention of the increase in nuclear reactors since climate change became an issue, no mention of the radioactive waste dumped in the seas by the Italian Mafia and others, no mention of the increasing mechanisation in deforestation and so increasing the rate of deforestation and drought and how most of these problems are now attributed in propaganda to CO2 AGW. There is no mention of all the indigenous people locked out of their forests as these forests are now offset carbon sinks to rich nations and big business, no mention of the news media ethics of denying all these old and long acknowledged environmental degraders. No mention of the new health issues in genetically modified organisms, no mention of the lucrative carbon cap and trade bubble that will serve Goldman and Sachs and other big banks, investors and their directors, and all this will cause another huge economic downturn if not a depression when the bubble bursts.
Posted by davida, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:26:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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