Hi Mr O,

I am trying to think of points in common and points of difference. Would you agree that the main points in common with others of your ilk is that the earth is headed for a catastrophe unless drastic changes are made now to avert or at least ameliorate the catastrophe predicted to occur many decades into the future? Would you agree that this makes you more concerned with the future than the present?

As a point of difference would you agree that the people you argue with doubt the likelihood of catastrophe and are more concerned about the present than the future?

Cheers

Climate Change (for Whatever Reason) increasingly = Drought where fire can spread and faster = Longer, More Severe Fire Seasons

Basically fuel load reduction is a Furphy in many/most cases.

Fuel load burning is not a solution where:

A. many coastal and inland homeowners (from SA, VIC to QLD) wish to build their homes in existing or expanding forests.

B. in vulnerable cities and towns where suburbanites have large combustable gumtrees or pine trees in their yards.

C. where much fuel load is mixed into farmland. Understandably Farmers don't want their mixtures of homes, sheds, paddocks, windbreaks, orchids, and carbon-credit tree clusters burnt down by others. Farmers with vineyards often don't want fuel reduction (or backburning) smoke anywhere near their vines because smoke taints the wine, making the wine less palatable, drops the price or its a writeoff.

D. RFS managers report that Fire seasons are now so LONG that periods/windows to do fuel reduction burning are now very short and, even then, it is often too Wet for burning off.

Mr O, I've jumped right over the pages following your challenge about writing to the ministers about taking action on CC.
Well old chap, and any others who like to talk a lot and do nothing, I on the other hand am one who talks a lot, but follows it up with action in an attempt to DO something about it and not just talk about it.
I HAVE written, not to the ministers, but to the Prime Minister, explaining and saying essentially what you have challenged us to do and that is to do NOTHING about CC because it is a natural occurrence and the science confirms it.
I also explained that the little CO2 WE are alleged to produce is insignificant by any measure.
Adding that ANY attempt to introduce ANY of these renewable schemes at this time and of technological malaise, will be disastrous to our economy, especially when it is obvious that we need not do anything.
And any of these renewable suggestions are not solutions, only concepts, that to implement will prove far too expensive, unreliable and ultimately unworkable.
So there you have it, while every other fool in this country and around the world gets sucked in, there are more and more people like myself and a few other realists here on OLO, who saw through the BS long ago, and are not prepared to lie and follow the sheeple over the cliff.
You guys are better off actually being a little more skeptical and work things out for yourselves, because if you rely on references and other peoples theories and reasoning, you will only go round in circles, if you are truly taking in your findings.
Well anyway, once more I've done my bit.
Alarmists don't bother, but realists, I would suggest writing in to govt, but direct it at the PM's office, it will get the best chance to be read, then passed on to the respective ministers, but at least there is some common sense getting around the govt, and not this alarmist BS of a con.

SR, you really don't get it do you?
For someone who preports to be an authority on EVERYTHING you fail time and again.
Now you challenged Alison to explain the correctly described as a 'simple'question of what it would take to accept that human induced global warming is occurring?
Oh, SR, that's just too easy, Alison can abstain because I have the answer.
It would take nothing at all, because global warming has nothing to do with mankind and everything to do with the machinations of the planet and it's relationship with the sun.
If you are so smart why did you not read, research a little more, and Oh yes, when you come across something which debunks this man made bunkum, don't just gloss over it, read it, and just maybe you will start to learn the truth about all this BS.
If you find the reliable reports, you will find that Humans are not the evil demons we are portrayed as.
The most important thing you have to understand is that CO2 is a good gas and we need more of it.
The planet flourished when there was a lot more of it.
Iv'e got some videos, that will go some way to explaining things and that this whole thing is a con.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdm-w6FmHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

Here's just a couple to get you started.

Roughly every thousand years, the earth warms and cools, warms and cools, in repeating and predictable cycles. And every damned "climate scientist" on earth knows that.

The history of the human race over the last five thousand years clearly shows that it was the warming periods which were greatly beneficial to the advancement of civilisation, while it was the cooling periods which were catastrophic to civilisation.

Cooling climates led to reduced evaporation and less precipitation. Coupled with freezing temperatures this resulted in severe droughts, crop failures, and wars caused by climate refugees (Vikings, Huns, Visigoths, Helvetii, Alans, and Vandals) abandoning their cooling and increasingly uninhabitable homelands and by sheer survival necessity invading the lands of other people who had the fortune to live in warmer climes.

The human race at present is in another one of the earth's wonderful scheduled warming periods which was right on time. And with over 7 billion mouths to feed we should be eternally grateful for that. But rather incredibly, instead of rejoicing that we are living in a warming period, somebody has invented a new quasi scientific doomsday religion which demonises what we should all be rejoicing in. I'll bet Tom Cruise and the Scientologists are gnashing their teeth that they did not think up this hoax first.

The shrill predictions of impending doom made by the climate cultist fortune tellers thirty years ago have proven to be laughably incorrect. So all they can do is point to every extreme weather event as "proof" that their wacky new religion's predictions are coming true.

And as the oceans refuse to rise alarmingly fast enough (they have been rising during warming periods for tens of thousands of years), and the Arctic stubbornly refuses to disappear and drown all the polar bears, and low lying island nations don't sink like Atlantis beneath the waves, they keep pushing Doomsday back yet another decade. And they will keep pushing it back until our present crop of psuedo intellectuals now supporting HIGW reverse their opinions, and pretend that they knew that HIGW was a hoax, all along.

LEGO,

Just in case you missed it earlier, here it is again:

One has to keep in mind that the AGW deniers do not know about a number of factors, including:

1. They do not know that the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas will create CO2.

2. They do not know that CO2 when trapped in the atmosphere will produce what scientists call the greenhouse effect.

3. They do not know what the greenhouse effect is.

4. They do not know that the greenhouse effect will cause heat to be trapped and stored in the atmosphere.

5. They do not know that the greenhouse effect exists.