Perhaps media shock-jocks and the 'denialosphere' are spinning this?

http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

An extensive rail system once mooted by both Liberal and Labor governments has benefits for better urban planning not only carbon emission reduction. The latest Budget provides money for upgrades to some rail networks but national rail network is off the drawing board.

If we want to reduce congestion and burgeoning growth in our larger cities, a national rail system (freight and passenger) including a speed train network would benefit decentralisation projects and boost services to regional areas. Business may be incentivised to move to smaller cities if transport issues were resolved.

It will also benefit the agricultural sector and provide faster access to ports.

What happened to these best laid plans. What a better nation building project this would have been instead of school halls and faulty insulation.

This author has a Carbon footprint the size of a small country while she berates the world for excessive air travel. Geez give us a break.
Similarly, Kev took 114 people on a plane with him to Copenhagen because he cares so passionately about his carbon footprint.

I don't get it. She suddenly becomes aware of her massive carbon footprint (in 2010!) and then begins preaching to everyone else to stay home. Its such a Greenie thing to do to justify your own excessive behaviour while berating Mr and Mrs Average.

At COP-15 the IPCC actually proposed that air travel be excluded from a country's Carbon emissions calculations because it was "too hard to calculate" What a laugh! (it was actually because they feared travel restrictions would interfere with the UNs hundreds of sub-organisations and committees and their extensive international flight schedules!)

The fact is that the UN itself is one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions through its extensive use of air travel. This means it will make no effort to restrict participants using travel to Cancun by air. I bet she's there too. That's how Greenies operate. Make everyone else feel guilty and justify your own apparent 'sins' as necessary for the good of mankind.

qanda, I did say clearly “The Times”. Instead you went of “link hunting” to avoid having to face more reality.

When are you going to start reading and comprehending posts? When are you going to start responding to issues in the debate? When are you going to challenge the comments from Phil Jones? When are you going to look the AGW debate in the eye and admit you have been “had”, when are you going to get angry with those who conned you?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece

spindoctor, spin it all you like. The fact remains, you clearly said;

>> The Royal Society (who) recently made this statement in The Times;

“Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by 43 members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures”. <<

The Royal Society did NOT make THAT statement in the Times - as your link clearly shows.

As to your inferred derision about me "link hunting to avoid facing reality".

Some would call it "fact checking", or going to the primary source. You know - the thing that real scientists and sceptics do. Real journalists do it as well, but pseudo-sceptics like yourself - apparently not.

Indeed, it's people with blinkers on and hands clasped tightly to their ears, that twist, spin and distort the facts. Some spindoctor, even make up their own "facts" ... make up their own reality - as you demonstrate time and time again.

Btw, I am not surprised you won't comment on Professor Abraham's presentation telling it like it is, the reality is too confronting for you.

qanda, It said: (The Royal Society) “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect”. Professor Phil Jones declared “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995”

If you don’t like what they said take it up with the Royal Society and Phil Jones. Your last two posts go round and round the topics but you won’t pick them up. When you’ve finished playing semantic silly burgers, you can start addressing the issues or refute what their “eminences” have said.

Your call.