There is a rumour going round that some right wingers want to ditch the rape laws.
Clearly the Australians laws are having minimal effect on a world wide basis, as a percentage of total world wide rapes Australia account's for a considerably less than 1%.

1. Medical science
Has not proved that being raped is physical harmful, provided the rapist does not use physical force, which would no longer be necessary as rape would no longer be illegal.

2 The positive effects
Less women murdered or injured because of no risk of going to jail.
Women could claim they were raped, when if in fact they were having an affair, which in turn would lead to lower divorce rates.
The resources of the police would be available for other tasks such as catching out scientists who lie on their research applications.

3.Whether policy an improvement
Jails less crowded
Money saved on housing prisoners
_____________________________________________________________________

Now Jardine K. Jardine that is total bullsh!t.
I have extreme prejudice against people who are determined to rape this planet, for some short term ill-conceived gain, based on some of the stupidest arguments I have ever come across.
It may have escaped your notice, but liveable planets are hard to find ,and we are well on the way to trashing this one.

I hope the liberal party will wake up before it is to late, that just because a law or (Carbon) tax is not having an earth shattering effect ,does not mean we should not impose it.

warmair

Notice how that ASSUMES that we face catastrophic global warming that policy can improve?

But that's we're waiting for you to prove, remember?

FAIL.

Your lack of proof, and of rational argument, isn't somehow made up by substituting the concept of rape for the concept of global warming.

Thanks for proving the skeptics right, and the warmists wrong - again!

Come on guys. Got those data sets there yet? Just show how you've accounted for the distribution and abundance of species, and all relevant human evaluations both now and in the future, in both scenarios, in units of a lowest common denominator. That's what science and rationality require in order for your claims to make sense.

What you've got is religion, and a nasty anti-human religion at that.

So long on blind faith in experts and so short in common sense.

How is that 3C (or more) per century warming the climate models predicted coming along (not)?

There is a mountain of evidence supporting the fact that we are altering the climate by pumping vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but if people are going to regard all sources which do not accord with their opinion as suspect, nothing I can say will convince them of anything.

Anyway if people want to believe the world is a cube and spaghetti grows on trees good luck to them. It would however be a great to see people actually understand the basics of climate science, rather than some of the garbage that emanates from the popular press, a good start would be an Internet search For "climate change science"

Hay warmy, ain't you heard mate. CO2 is replacing water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Strange none of your so called scientists predicted that. Interestingly they appear to be interchangeable, or at least do interchange, not add together.

Now, as you probably dont know, water vapour is a much more effective heat absorber, than CO2. Thus the more CO2, the less water vapor, the less of your beloved "greenhouse gas effect" that will, or can occur.

I've been waiting for a while now for all the usual suspects to start proclaiming the new global cooling disaster.

When do you think it will happen?

Csteele; the line in the article is not ambiguous; only a fool would think it was; only a pedantic fool would persist when the ‘question’ has been answered again in the comments; are you illiterate? Only a pedantic fool would think someone could not understand that a record can occur among the agglomerate of parts without a record occurring in any of the parts. Why don’t you google Simpson’s Paradox?

Only a complete nuisance would not understand your ‘point’ is not the point; the point is:

1 BOM has not revealed its methodology and therefore Ken Stewart’s alternative suggestion of how a record could occur is valid; that is, an alleged National record could be based on an alleged Regional record of a different temperature type.

2 BOM and the CC have made demonstrable errors, at least 25% in its headline graph, and therefore doubt on a new, unexplained temperature metric attributed to AGW is entitled to be held.

3 Anthony Watt’s graph is a reasonable and statistically valid interpretation of what OHC has been doing since the most reliable measure of OHC, ARGO, was introduced in 2003.

4 The CC has track record of sensationalism, distortion and alarmism and therefore scepticism is not only warranted, it should be the reaction of any reasonable person.

I keep asking these questions, basic questions, of you and other advocates of AGW and all I get is junk and puerile point-scoring from you and Poirot, a job application from Bugsy, the greatest scientist ever to infinity in the history of the world, and snark from Agro; at least Punter was funny.

You guys are a big disappointment; why don’t you do something useful, apart from answering the queries posed in the article and listed above, by considering the release of the latest emails and note the motivations of the person who has released them:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/climategate-iii-the-password-is-out/#comments

Warmair, you are a sick, little puppy; Robin Williams compared sceptics to paedophiles; now you compare them to rapists; is that what you are saying?