Tony, I have to pretty much agree. I never thought Rudd was ever serious, pretty much from the day he addressed the UN and made it clear that that biggest of all greenwash scams, Carbon Capture and Storage was the way to go and would be the excuse to continue to expand Australia's place as the biggest exporter of coal to monumentally bigger. New coal and gas mines are getting approved as fast as state and federal governments sign off. Anyone who imagines Australia's part in the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant clearly fails to include our exports of fossil fuels as part of our contribution.
It's not the politics of the fringe that are failing us, but the politics of the mainstream. LibNats as well as Labor have the same scientific advice at their disposal. Choosing to dismiss that advice and seek out 'other' opinions is pure political expediency, made especially despicable for choosing policy that will exacerbate the problem for the sake of the votes of the mislead and misinformed. If the chances the science were right were as low as 1 in 100 rather than being next to certain, the scale of the consequences ought to make all sides of politics determined to prevent them - instead we have a chorus of voices like we have here, cheering over choosing to have AGW go away by the power of mass disbelief.

What was that about a fish rotting from the head down.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_and_the_ipcc_no_fossil_fool.pdf

Yet more evidence of Pachuaris astounding conflicts of interest and total unsuitability for the job and over which most of the AGW scientists have remained notably silent.

So much for the integrity of the science and the proceses... underscored even more by this from John Christy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcGgLoPpbBw

Tony
Please admit that science does not supply value judgments, and therefore that
a) climate science does not, of itself, supply any justification for any policy on global warming, and
b) when climate scientists "advise" governments to adopt certain policies they do not do so in their capacity as scientists.

Hey Tony ... it's Ground Hog Day for Peter Hume.

He keeps asking the same questions

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10368#169655

I don't think he comprehends the answers though - surely he's not blind and deaf?

Anyways, suggest you just nod and mumble something about scientists being involved in some kind of Bolshevist plot.

Thanks, Qanda. I withdrew from this thread on 11 May but Peter Hume seems to have missed this. If I were still contributing to this spirited thread, I would have responded thus:

"Peter Hume - If you went to your doctor and he told you that in his medical opinion you were showing symptoms consistent with a professional diagnosis of high blood pressure, would you regard that as a value judgement or a scientific judgement by your doctor? If he then prescribed for you anti-high blood pressure pills for you to safely control your condition, would you regard this advice as being offered to you in his capacity as a doctor or as a value judgement? Would you take the pills? And if you don't think this is an appropriate analogue in reply to your questions to me, can you explain to OLO Forum readers in what ways you think it is inappropriate?"

I am sure Peter Hume would like to have the last word. Go for it, Peter. I won't reply

So in other words yes, a climate scientist can do a study measuring air temperatures and thereby attain moral authority to decide who should live or die?

That is not science: it is voodoo.

The relation between patient and doctor is voluntary; the relation between any government-funded climate scientist or the IPCC, and the human population whose lives and liberties policy proposes to forcibly "treat" is not.

Thus the climate science of the warmists is not capable of supplying the justification they rely on it for. It rests instead on an underlying belief system that the individual has no right to life but what government decides he has; and that the lives of human beings are or may be worth less than those of polar bears.

The science, the ethics, the epistemology, the economics and the politics of the global warming belief system are false and anti-human and they stink.