Squeers, I hate to burst your self-righteous little bubble, but Chief Seattle never said any of the those feel-good, hippy homilies you attributed to him.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/seattle.asp

After all, we wouldn't want anyone promoting AGW to put out false data, now would we?

"The bloggers are as predictable as Pavlov's dog."

agreed, yet, the same can be said of you jediimaster

Deep Blue"all we humans have done is Quickened up the processes.
Its as simple as that."

Dead wrong. The processes have not quickened up, except in alarmist media releases with no basis in science or fact.

Ludwig:" I advocate just the same sort of strong action as those who believe that AGW is real and very serious.".

This makes you worse than the alarmists. If you know better than they do, why do you not advocate something sensible, instead of the same ineffective non solutions that they do?

perhaps if you have a problem with OLO jedimaster, instead of posting completely off topic with nothing to add and some suspect an agenda to suppress any comment or debate, you take it up directly with the publisher in direct email and not publicly?

I for one enjoy seeing the cut and thrust of people and their passions, and am not offended by people disagreeing with me, as often as I prefer they didn't. (I'm often wrong, but am able to learn)

it's their right and their duty in fact to express their difference of opinion, otherwise, we would assume everyone agrees with us and go about life not realizing there are indeed differences of opinion that people are passionately prone to defend.

you seem to be astonished that anyone could possibly behave the way they do, it's the real world out here, and people behave as they do because it reflects what the feel

I agree with squeers on this one "Unless you can disabuse me of my prejudice, please spare me your fictitious facetiousness."

Back on topic, Skeptics have lost the war in Australia, but for some reason alarmists still feel the need to "defend", with all the media resources, the BOM, CSIRO Big Government funding, Dept Climate Control etc, they still can't come to terms with the fact, most Australians simple do not believe in AGW.

I’ve just spent three months in Europe M.E and North Africa. My last study tour was 2006 and my goodness, how things have changed.

Hans Blick goes on record to state that renewables max out at 10% energy contribution, the United Arab Emirates announces a $20bn budget for three new nuclear power stations, Angela Merkel announces that their 19 nuclear power stations will not be decommissioned as planned and that Germany will open new coal fired power stations, burning guess what? “Lignite”. These will operate at 42% thermal efficiency of course.

As austerity strikes Europe very hard, more and more questions are being asked publicly about the costs of carbon mitigation and renewables.

The Telegraph columnist, Christopher Booker, speaking to British MPs in the House of Commons, London, on Climate Fools Day.

"The Climate Change Act was not only by far the most expensive law ever passed by Parliament, it represented as great a collective flight from reality as this once great institution has ever witnessed. It is time that flight from reality began seriously to be reversed. And I would like to think that the fight-back for reality might begin here today.”

“Two things were particularly astonishing about this new law of the land, The first was its truly mind-boggling cost to the British people, estimated by the government to be up to £18.3 billion every year for the next 40 years, which if you add it up comes to more than £700 billion. The other was that not a single one of the MPs who voted for the Bill could have begun to explain how such a target could be met in practice without closing down virtually the entire UK economy, almost totally dependent as it now is on computers and fossil fuels.”

It seems that the whole carbon phenomena exist through political sponsorship and the financial returns of the investments in carbon industries made by many politicians.

Whatever is going on in the rest of the world seems not to be reflected on OLO. Is it because we don’t know or don’t want to know?

Thanks anti-green for elucidating your philosophical position.

I'd like to explore it further, but not now. It can wait until I return home and can spend the time to do it justice.

----

I wrote: << I advocate just the same sort of strong action as those who believe that AGW is real and very serious. >>

Leo Lane replied: << This makes you worse than the alarmists. If you know better than they do, why do you not advocate something sensible, instead of the same ineffective non solutions that they do? >>

Dear oh deary me, Leo. This makes me worse than the alarmists!?!?! Pfff. I'd love to know how you reach this crazy conclusion!

The worst people in this debate are those that not only think we can continue business as usual, including the usual state of never-ending expansion, but also just completely condemn all those who see it differently.

<< If we cut all human emissions world wide, it would have no measurable effect. >>

What?? How do you know? You don't! You cannot possibly make such an assertion and expect to maintain any credibility!

Erring on the side of caution with respect to climate change is just one aspect of the absolute need to err on the side of caution with ALL human impacts on the environment, resource base and hence on the ability for us to sustain a high quality of wellbeing.

Nothing can be more basic than this. To ridicule this fundamental precautionary principle or those who espouse it is just bonkers.