Malcolm Roberts

I agree with you entirely.

One doesnt have to try and debate the science with these types because they fall over on the fundamental issue of ethics and managerial competence.

Your references to John Mcleans work, and indeed the latest assessment of the IPCC is a stark contrast to the pleas from authority that the AAS and ANU et al types herein try to inflict on us all.

As Mclean says on page 3 " The IPCC is a disgrace to science."

I note that Mclean hasnt even mentioned the appalling conflicts of interest of the IPCC Chairman Mr Pachauri..and notably all we get from the AAS and ANU types on this issue is SILENCE.

What many don't realise is that the neo-cons in the USA,Europe and Israel are using climate change as a justification for their New World Order.There are many within the Green movement who see humans as a blight on the planet and this fits snugley into their plan for a single world Govt with no democracy.This is no longer in the realm of theory,both the Bushes,Obama,Clinton, Henry Kissinger all sing its praises.

So when the USA ,Europe,Britian and Israel invade Iran,take it's oil, get their pipleine through Afghanistan,take Saudi Arabia and other energy/mineral rich countries,our enslavement will be complete.

Scoreboard: planet versus the rest in the Global Warming stakes
Game so far in the current fixture:
Science 5
Undecided 1
Ponzi Schemers 15

The jigs up. Now we know. We see right through you climate changers.
Money and politics rule climate change’s disco-science. Now we know. And those who push it are liars using it for political and or financial benefits. Consensus by these alter boy abusers of science, are criminal liars, dogmatically and rhetorically researching and pushing what can’t be proven or disproved. *
* “Is climate change real, is no different from “does God exist?” or “does the fairy god mother” exist and history will view this as science’s and mainscream media’s and the political left’s (Harper included), Iraq War of WMD lies. The climate change lie is a page right out of the neocon’s playbook of criminal deception and rightwing fear mongering.
Since voters are the ones with the real consensus, the REAL consensus that counts, it's fair to say that unless the voting public actually starts swimming to the polls through a 1970’s-like smog cloud in a Canadian winter, starving from food shortages and dying of thirst, the entire issue of the environment being doomed, cannot be sustained for another 24 years with this needles fear.
On behalf of all deniers (who outnumber believers at the voting booth now), let us be absolutely clear: Climate Changers at ALL levels, from lazy teachers and news editors, to the parent denying their child a future, to pandering politicians and to lab coat consultants ARE ALL LIARS? You know it. We know it.
If you, in your heart of hearts, are delusional enough to actually believe in this proposed misery, get ahead of the curve and follow the wave of rage from the coming backlash of deniers and a coming generation of real radicals, radicals who don’t take kindly to lies and threats of death by CO2.

Colinsett writes:

<< Scoreboard: planet versus the rest in the Global Warming stakes
Game so far in the current fixture:
Science 5
Undecided 1
Ponzi Schemers 15 >>

And those that support Ludwig’s assertion that we are going about this in the entirely wrong way and that the existence or absence of serious AGW is by-the-way compared to a much more important motive for action for us here in Oz…..

Zero!

No knockers either, just no interest…..which is just extraordinary!!

This is one of the most important and urgent issues of our time – the critical need to get the bujeezus off our oil addiction!

Shouldn’t climate change advocates, skeptics and denialists all be united on this?

Isn’t the thing that we need to sort out just how to go about it, rather than squabbling about the veracity of AGW?

Can’t we just step past this tired old climate change debate and concentrate on something that it intimately related but of a much greater urgency?

So, can I ask; who on this thread thinks that we should be feeling very precariously positioned with our dependency on oil in Australia and that we should be striving to develop alternative energy sources with great fervour, and who thinks that we should just continue on as normal and deal with oil shortages or price hikes when they happen... and hope to goodness that the effect on our society and quality of life is not too drastic?

Here is a general discussion that I started on this subject last month: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3836

Ludwig demanding a recount?
On this blog by Geoff Davies the votes are still coming in, but the troglodytes are way in front.

But, if we are voting on the relative importance of issues, I will put my personal vote with Ludwig on the immediacy of peak oil; but against him on the greater importance of climate change/AGW in the longer- term.

Then again I am with Ludwig once more when it comes to the tally of human numbers: with 6.8 billion, and continuing to expand at about 1.1 per cent, there is a snowball’s chance in hell that business-as-usual economics (i.e. sanitized Bernie Maddof) can deliver the necessary atmospheric garbage-collection service, and cheap fossil-fuel type benefits, for everyone on any distribution system - let-alone on a non-apartheid basis. But, obviously there are people who are determined to believe otherwise.