Spinny, in your double post on sustainable development, you didn’t…

1. Address my questions at all

2. Add anything useful to our debate whatsoever!

What is the point of your posts? Surely you are not just completely denouncing the principle of sustainability and the desire to achieve sustainable societies, are you??

I’ll reiterate my questions in an attempt to get us back on track:

What do you suggest we do? Just keep up rapid population growth, keep up our addiction to oil, make no efforts to develop renewable energy sources, and just deal with the consequences when they hit us like a ton of bricks, with no forward planning?

579, yes the world’s biggest carbon tax is 35 days away. World’s biggest! Wow.

And yet it is a piffling token effort, compromised by compensation and hated by most people. It should be the first little step towards a much greener style of politics and the development of a sustainable society. But it appears as though it is as far as we are going to go in that direction.

Well, I think spindoc, Hasbeen and the like are going to get their wish; no meaningful forward planning and only a mad highly disorganised very haphazard and unfair rush to adapt when the sh!t h!ts the f@n, where the richest and the most aggressive and ruthless people will win the day, and the vast majority of us will suffer enormously.

Hi Ludwig, a crucial marketing tool is the “educated customer”. We have all met one over dinner. He might have just bought a new BMW 325i AMG. He can bore you stupid with all aspects of the non-linear torque curve and the value of the fluidic final drive in reducing transmission losses. In such circumstances we know not to mention the Mercedes 350 CLK AMG.

He will not mention the Mercedes, nor will he ever visit their web site because he is “self indoctrinated”. He sees the main game as his new car, but for the salesman the real game is his sales bonus!

Imagine you are a fish. You discuss with your mates the relative technical and nutritional values of the different baits on offer and the debate becomes intense as your beliefs are tested and reinforced by this discovery process. All this effort fails to recognize that the person with the fishing rod is the main game, because he has dinner in his mind.

I can’t put your predicament any other way; you’ve been had by people much smarter than you.

The IPCC themselves now tell you the main game is international wealth redistribution not CO2; they tell you quite clearly that you must “free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”.

I’m not asking you to believe me but you do need to go back to those who “sold” you the product. You need to ask yourself just how you became an “educated customer” of CAGW? How on earth did one of the most complicated geo-science topics come to be debated in the public domain by people without any qualifications on the topic? Just well intentioned people making themselves into pseudo-scientists trading political pseudo science.

I have never seen the “algorithms for the wing lift coefficients” for the A380 Airbus published for comment on the internet and nor would I ask you to fly on a plane built on “consensus”.

Why must those of us who saw right through this phenomenon, be abused because you and many more like you didn’t

There are so many people now who have their monetary umbilical cords connected to this flawed science,they will not relent and admit the truth because their livelihoods depend upon it.

Labor needs the carbon tax because of their socialist bent and wasteful spending.The CO2 tax is better than the GST because no one can escape it.Labor are treacherous liars who have betrayed their own followers.

I love this quote concerning some of Plimer's claims, by Michael Ashley:

"It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."

Also, after claiming consistently that CO2 has little effect on climate, Plimer claims that undersea volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, and that these gases are 'vastly under-represented in climate models'.
(?)
Actual climate scientists (as compared to 'virtual' climate scientists like Plimer) have pointed out that since the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than levels of the dissolved gas in the oceans, this hypothesis is simply not credible.
And as for “snouts in the trough”, is Plimer suggesting that monetary considerations can unduly influence scientific objectivity?
Such as perhaps being a director in a number of mining companies, including coal miners?

Hi Grim,

FYI

"No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect. The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past...'In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,'said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. 'There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.'"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm