Bugsy,

Sorry - rhetoric when I said “most opposition” and “your fantasy”. My comments weren’t to you personally and I apologise if you have interpreted this as a criticism of who you are or what you stand for – none intended. And call me crazy, but I have simply expressed my opinions on a forum entitled “onlineopinion”.

The intent of my last post was to suggest that science has been perverted by the conclusions, predictions and policy/actions that have resulted. Again – I have no problem with the science (although I reserve my rights to disagree and do with some of it); it is the management, interpretation and manipulation of the science that is wrong (yes, in my opinion).

I will let you know how I started my (almost obsessive at times) research into AGW. I was watching Sunrise several years ago (yes, I know, have a chuckle now! – I don’t anymore) and they were promoting a global warming action initiative with a snazzy slogan. I was curious to find out more on the subject so went to the Channel 7 website and clicked on the link. I was directed to a webpage that asked for my credit card details to buy carbon credits. “Hmm”, I thought, “that’s interesting!”

Several hundred websites, blogs, scientific papers, journals, articles, discussions, emails, meetings and books later and my initial cynicism has only been reinforced. Some of this has to do with science, but most of it has to do with “the politics” of the issue.

However, whatever you or I say or do, carbon taxes and ETSs will be introduced, carbon dioxide emissions from participating countries will be reduced or kept in check and money will be spent on renewable energy research. If the climate stops warming, it will be hailed as a triumph of global action and vindication of green activism; if it continues warming, AGW proponents will say it was because we did not act soon enough. The science and the truth will be irrelevant.

Tax women who want more than two children and immigrants who want immediate astronomical rises in their living standards or face ugly consequences

Why?

People cause climate change, NOT Carbon.

Listen, Canberra is full of politicians which means its full of cheats and liars, and when they're not kissing babies they're stealing their lollipops. But it also means They keep their options open.

It could also mean Canberra is full of schizophrenic politicianss who can happily KNOW the truth but act contrarily with ease and panache. Which accounts for the huge agreement to extend budget bonuses to mental health care ... presumably for when they retire. Gillard's Flannery/Garnaut santa Clause Climate report highlights this. It is just a blunt instrument to beggar average Australians while gaining immense power over them as they continue to squeeze more immigrants into capital cities which inevitably raises stress levels and dilutes the power of any individual to have a say in the future of this nation.

Now we know its people who kill people not guns and likewise people cause climate change, not Carbon. Politicians know this yet immigrate more people to the hilt and supply over generous baby bonuses paid for with all the extra immigrant GST. They don't care about jobs or old age care. CEO's take care of the former and the grim reaper takes care of the latter with great assistance from peak hour traffic pollution, a lot of which comes from 4WD's that should have been banned as a climate change policy before any Tooth Fairy Climate report was ever commissioned. Canberra is just externalising the costs of more people onto communities in the capital cities while they reap the economic rewards and political power. Then they say they can't understand why teens stab each other to death in fits of mindless and utterly disrespectful rage in peak hour on Bankstown station.

Continued ..

Continued,

Politicians know the right approach is not to ban guns and knives but to reduce and stabilise population to ease social pressure. They know that to stop climate change in OUR region all you need do is halt immigration apart from replacement levels and tax women who choose to have the UNEQUAL right to have more than two children in their lifetime without taking responsibility and maintaining the right to picket and blame everyone else but themselves. But the truth is unpopular. That's why it is a prerequisite to be Schizophrenic to be a politician. That way you can know the right thing to do and act contrarily ( to be popular and rich ) and NOT lose any sleep over it.

The point is should Australian's have to tolerate mental patients running this nation?

People like Cameron Leckie have spelled out to the last detail what the reality for the future is if we continue to pursue the Ponzi schema of endless economic growth based on exponential population growth. His reply to Budget Reply article from his "Catabolic Collapse Party" that contrary to Economic Growth Maniacs, stabilising population will result in great benefits to every Australian as the Fiscal Pie can be divided more equitably among fewer people.

Canberra should pay particular notice to Justus Von Liebig's law of the minimum as an antidote to their crepuscular economic growth mania..

I have to conclude that the best course of action for Curmudgeon would be to simply shut up. Curmudgeon says (repeatedly) that he is not satisfied with the science, so we are aware of that. But he offers nothing to replace what he asserts is at fault. He seems to believe that climate scientists, who have been studying climate change for decades, have somehow missed the gaps in their own - and their colleagues - arguments. His complacent view is that something may be happoening to the climate, in some small degree, but there's no need to worry.

His ideas about academic funding are merely insulting, but tell us something about how his ideology affects his observations.

Surely we don't have to spell it out again: climate scientists are in general agreemnent that the chance of human activities affecting climate is very high, and that there is no other credible cause for the observed and measured global warming. Many such causes have been suggested, a few by credible climate researchers, but none has survived careful scrutiny. (As has been suggested, it could be the work of leprechauns, but the evidence that it is industrial CO2 is far stronger.)

When Curmudgeon can offer something constructive, and not simply waste everyone's time with his Panglossian opinions, it will be time for us to hear from him again.

Nicco,

As we have just seen, Mark Lawson (curmudgeon) not only can't understand the scientific papers he himself cites, he deliberately distorts and misrepresents the conclusions of those papers to somehow give weight to his own beliefs. This is extraordinary from a supposed 'scientific journalist'.

Despite the fact that curmud’s distortions and misrepresentations have been pointed out, numerous times - in this thread and elsewhere, by many posters, he repeats the mantra. From my understanding, this is a behaviour pattern of anyone in "denial" - a psychological defence mechanism. It really does give the impression that his eyes are closed, has ear muffs on, and is chanting some dogma of his own.

Nicco, I doubt he will simply shut up though - look at his post history. He demonstrates an innate capacity to repeat the same stuff time and time again, often in a guise with similar ideological bent. And time and time again, as you suggest, people have had to "spell it out again". It becomes tedious and tiresome. Quite frankly, I think many casual but dedicated OLO observers just turn off - I can't blame them.

However, someone must/should take these defenders of deceit to task; they can wreak confusion and despair on an already confused and desperate society. So, thanks for your efforts.

Will common sense prevail? Only time will tell. You can be sure of one thing; as long as Australian politicians and 'stick-in-the-muds' play the denial and negativity game and oppose just for the sake of opposing, delay will be the outcome. In that they will have succeeded in entrenching our ultra-conservative world view reputation and demonstrate yet again how slow we are to adapt to the changes that confront us. This is a wrong in the global environment we live today, but there you go.

bonmot is right to point out that those who misrepresent and mislead in order to substantiate their “skeptical” views about AGW its causes and effects must be taken to task. However, rather than prove they are wrong, surely the onus must be put on them to prove that they are right? Their response is usually that they either remain silent or offer nothing. They know perfectly well that to speak-up will result in the error of their ways being pointed out to them and other readers.

In this instance curmudgeon failed to take the sensible advice on offer: put-up or shut-up. So thanks again to you and nicco for once more pointing out the error oh his ways – and the fact that his profession is that of a journalist - and a science writer to boot!. Science fiction maybe but he certainly offers nothing by way of response to the article under discussion or unfortunately, as a contribution to debate on AGW.