Hi Hasbeen … I did take the wrong “spin” form your list… apologies

I have found the difference between the left and the right of politics is:

The right is prepared to allow business (ie individuals), to run with the ebb and flow of demand and supply to determine the market, be it for pumpkins or people and jobs. This I feel is the superior approach for government.

Whereas the left, prefer to operate as a government which pretends it has a solution, through intervention in different markets, to “preserve” what cannot be preserved by its own efforts (aka saving the inevitably “unsustainable”).

the Lefts approach is inferior and one which, in the long run, as we have seen repeatedly in the past, does no one any good. - unless you believe in "the recession we had to have"

Thus, Howard was OK with the idea that Australia, in following the free-market, non-protectionist position, initiated by Hawke, would end up where it deserved to be, wherever that might be.

Now we have the opposite, Gillard and the swill, wasting money on pointless school halls by mortgaging our childrens future with public debt (previously paid off by Howard) and pretending what they are doing is in the name of the future…. The usual socialist double-talk, designed to engender the sympathy vote at the expense of common sense.

As for growing – agree – academia is not the sole source of either achievement, human knowledge or ability and it should never assume for itself to be an elitist pinnacle for decision making -

Especially when we remember, those who can “Do” and those who cannot “Teach”

bonmot "I don't know where RObert stands on AGW"

I'd say a sceptic. Enough weight of opinion from scientists for me to take AGW seriously but also enough spin, lies, tricks and people clearly trying to use it for other purposes to be seriously concerned.

I suspect that it's getting more vocal support in some quarters than it otherwise would because of those who see it as a vehicle to push other barrows. At the same time the hypocracy of some of the key public voices undermines the message, the preference so many of the public voices have for private jet's and international travel rather than economy seats and teleconferencing has done no end of damage to their credibility. I don't tend to take people who need a private jet to travel all that seriously when they tell me I need to be in a slow overcrowded train for the good of the planet.

I think that much of the support for the Carbon tax is about doing something rather than a genuine expectation that the carbon tax will actually help, I also think that it's seen as a handy tool to do some wealth redistribution. I suspect that in the short term the middle class wage earners will wear the cost of it and be joined by lower income people when the money run's out. Millionares will for the most part avoid any real personal pain.

At the same time a lot of the opposition is built on the same type of lies and spin. Religious denial of change regardless of the science, vested interests, standing along party lines etc.

I do think that putting the AGW debate aside that there are good reasons to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels, to find lower energy way's of doing much of what we do now. Trying to mask one behind the other hinders both. A more honest debate on nuclear energy would help, it's risks compared to the alternatives, it's cost and it's waste are all issues that are all to often hidden behind spin by both sides.

R0bert

RObert, thanks for the reasoned and rational reply.

Anyone who really wants to understand ‘climate science’ should put aside their ideological blinkers – this is what Schneider was trying to convey. Unfortunately, this is harder to do for those that haven’t got the time, resources, ability or the inclination. Short swift sound-bites seem to be the order of our society today.

Any sceptic (in the scientific sense) investigates and evaluates all angles. As a lay-sceptic you appear to have done some homework insofar as going to some primary sources. I can only encourage everyone to do the same.

The calulated CO2 given off in Iceland in recent volcanic emmissions in 5 days was equal to the total emmissions given by the human population in the last 5 years. Has anyone calculated the amount of Carbon Dioxide released by the Volcanoes in the last 12 months latest in Nicaragua at.

http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/05/19/nicaraguan-volcanos-dramatic-eruption?videoId=210940221&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=JPTopNews&videoChannel=200

How much nitric oxide has been released by all the grass mown in built up areas?
How will a tax reduce those emmissions? How can that be reduced?

Philo, rather than just assert stuff, would you please provide a primary source for those “calculations”?

I don’t think that video clip of your South American volcano gives them.

Perhaps you can ask Professor Alan Robock, he knows all about that kind of stuff:

http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/

He said of that unpronounceable volcano last year:

“There was more reduction in CO2 from airplanes not flying all week than in the amount that came from the Icelandic volcano”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/20/the-ash-cloud-s-silver-lining.html

Your last questions? Please, enlighten us.

Philo do you have a source for that claim, a few links below which while not dealing specifically with the recent Iceland event would seem to make the claim look plain wrong.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

bonmot, thanks for the response.

R0bert