We've had a posting from an member of the NSW parliament, Dr Jon Jenkins MLC on 20 September 2006 8:19:43 PM. Jon is a member of the Outdoor Recreation Party and the site he referred to is his own blog which includes a path on why global warming is a myth.

I would prefer that MLC's disclose their status when contributing to a debate, as they are under oath to represent the people of their state.

On the subject of the posting itself, criticising federal agencies like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology for propagating the myths of Global Warming is as credible as saying CIA orchestrated the faking of the moon landing. Indeed, even NASA gets a serve on Jon Jenkins website for using out-dated data.

The irony is that the Outdoor Recreation Party has a seemingly rational policy of supporting energy conservation, supporting renewable energy and thinking of our fossil fuels as ultimately a reserve or supplementary supply for windless cloudy days.

I suggest Dr Jenkins think about the role the CSIRO and BoM would have in realising such a policy before dumping on these apolitical organisations.

Gee Nahum,

But who pays the price if you are wrong? Probably not you, but the children who will inherit this Nation as slaves from you.

Your slavish science-avoidance and global warming toady is denying John Howard's neo-US-colonial mendacity and its cancerous damage to this nation:

* Creating social class divisions and effective reintroduction of SLAVERY via selective education http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/expert-warns-of-colonial-divide-in-education/2006/09/21/1158431843968.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/heckler/who-needs-values-lets-have-slaves-straight-roads/2006/09/20/1158431781702.html

* Getting Mandy-Vee the pig farmer to say skilled immigrants are OUR engine room when they are their own bloody engine room whose contribution to the economy is NET ZERO by Bureau of Statistics figures http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/skilled-migrants-are-economys-engine-room/2006/09/21/1158431843958.html

* Getting Mandy to endorse Euthanasia to solve the ageing population dilemma where forms can be rigged to make it look like undesirables want to 'end it all'.

* Turning a blind eye while NSW Labor turns precious public space around Botany Bay (Botany Vegas) and Cook Cove, Cooks River foreshore into a Mafia style casino complex. All in order to boost a corrupted anti-Australian economy http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Australians-gambling-155b-a-year/2006/09/20/1158431785330.html

Climate change is very much a minority problem and its impact is a diminishing class. The US will not ever have another landfall hurricane due to the open-secret of stricter wastewater management regimes that are currently controlling US climate. This has to be factored into the debate now.

Perhaps YOU will be the last one --- standing up to your armpits in sewage, saying it aint so.

But it's high stakes poker. And we lose our true fair-go, fair-dinkum Australian VALUES to Howard's mandacity if you're wrong. You'd hate to have spent an entire lifetime working to deceive people about something that could enslave and even kill them and their grandchildren.

Much like those in the tobacco industry or in the IPCC.

Oops I've just become the TRUTH

I can't believe you guys are debating whether global warming is real or not. Why do you believe some tin pot crank who publishes on OnLineOpinion when all reputable science in peer reviewed journals agrees that global warming is upon us.

In Australia we see the effects of it right now, with prolonged dry conditions, the continent is markedly hotter than it was 100 years ago and we have turned 100 fresh water rivers in south west Western Australia to brackish or salt in the last 200 years.

"Fraid to say it but the white man is the worst thing that happened to the ecosystem of this continent and we are destroying the land we are leaving for our grandchildren to inherit.

Gusi, et al, one should be very wary of anything out of the UK Royal Society as any credibility they may have had in the past has long since migrated to places elsewhere.

Their paper on the claimed acidification of the worlds oceans was based on the assumption that CO2 is only absorbed by the top 100m of our oceans. And as our oceans are an average depth of 4000m this neatly allowed them to overstate the modelled mixing of CO2 by a factor of 50 or 5000%.

They made this assumption even in the face of gulf stream eddies that routinely extend 1.2km deep and at the same time as some other Global Warming Spivs were talking up the risk of collapse of the very system that negates the 100m mixing assumption. That is the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation that exhibits the sinking of cold water off the UK coast that is supposed to cause an ice age in Europe if it stops.

So they, and the intellectual giants in the UK Dept of Environment have managed to support two entirely contradictory modelled outcomes based on assumptions that each rule out the other scenario.

And that certainly does not amount to grounds to trigger the precautionary principle. For this principle was never intended to justify any and every reaction to any outrageous risk scenario. It was always intended to incorporate a test of significance to ensure that threats had to be largely substantiated but not absolutely confirmed before the precautionary principle would apply.

That is not the case with global warming.

I couldn't help but be amused watching a documentary a little while back, when the CEO of Shell admitted he was worried about global warming... this was before the PR woman sitting on the couch in the office told him to zip it... Dang I wish I could remember the name of that documentary. It was british anyhow, and compared nuclear power to wind power and the like, and focused on the threat of global warming.
Can anyone remind me as to which one it was?

Response to TurnRightThenLeft:

The documentary was "The End of The World As We Know It"
http://www.rdfrights.com/catalogue/prodexd.asp?catalogid=2464
written and presented by Marcel Theroux.

I'd recommend it too.