I think our interaction has gone as far as it can, bushbred, and is probably a misuse of the site, as it is far from the topic.

The only further observation I have to make, is that I agree with Jung when he says words to the effect that in human progress, error is as important as truth.

So I consider that everyone here is contributing to progress, even someone like davsab.

rojo, I've been up in northern Canada where such passing of the last ice age is obvious as well as holding geophysical markings of various rising and falling of sea levels. Earth is a dynamic multifaceted organisation of systems not the static model "global warmers" suggest. There is also found in various parts of the world evidence that entire ecosystems have come and gone, replaced by another or mutated from the original or combinations of multiples. The truth is we don't honestly know exactly the natural outcome. We may be experiencing a very natural and prescribed planetary course of events that would transpire in the absents of human beings. The swindle is that politically bent scientist have come out for or against using their degree from "your guess is as good as mine" U. as authority for the side they have chosen. And as predicted the dupes are running around like headless chickens going yup, yup, yup. They too believe they are fully informed and running the right way round the circle. There are a number of web sites dedicated to the idea of the negative impact livestock has had on the planet in ecological terms. I've also read some work on the ecological impact of changing dynamics of the oceans and sea life, especially algae and other microlife interfering with the oceans ability to absorb or utilise co2. There are a lot of theories. There is even theories on the theories, which is basically what the U.N. I.P.C.C. is promoting. A unified theory on the theory of mans responsibility for global warming.

BB Part One

Cut out the officialdom, Leo. It is really yourself who has made a fiasco out of this. My main argument was about the way you mob treat the Greenies and Democrats, who like me have that simple sincere argument that man since the beginning of the machine age is gradually speeding up the present natural cyclic global change to its detriment.

Please put aside your complaints about not commenting properly on the main thesis because all you and your mate’s comments are only run of the mill anyhow. Though as a farm director, I am not in love with the Greenies, I do know as a qualified historian they are needed far more in today’s world than you and your mates ever will be.

Further, also please remember that it was you yourself who broke the theistic code by belly-aching to me about what political side your are on. As if I wouldn’t have soon found out.

As one formerly busy taking groups in general philosophy, your self centered empirical reasoning is easy to fathom. In fact I received Honours on the very subject in Ceylon, now Sri-Lanka, and called the Tea Economy, all about greedy grab-all colonialism - when the corporatised East India Company backed by British troops tried to force the Buddhists to give away their growing of rice in the valleys and clear their sacred hillsides to grow tea for the British market. Indeed, when the Buddhists and Janists refused, the company brought Tamils over from India to complete the colonialist corporatist endeavour

Now we're onto tea...hmm might go and have a cup

My view is that climate change is a feature evolution. Some things might accentuate it in either direction, hotter or cooler.

So who is to say by how much any human impacts on the earth?
It is arrogance to believe we are the determinant of earth changes or that we can even control (influence) them.

None of us are "inert" creatures. We were bred to manage our environment. Manage means to not leave as natural or as "wild".

Now, that might offend some folk who think that we should be inert. Those who think that "wildness" and "wilderness" is sacred and should not be tampered with but such notions are contrary to the very nature of mankind, who, as I said, before was designed to manage that wildness.

Managing resources and environment starts with cutting down trees and building shelters, it includes developing systems of farming and development of the use of minerals.

I suggest all those who think that life should return to subsistence farming, hunter-gatherer food collection and a zero-impact on the earth and its resources, switch off your PC's immediately, move out of your houses and go live by the values which you would seek to inflict on the rest of us.

For myself, I support the challenges brought by change and respect every human's ability to work to improvement of his resource use through "change".

Change is one of the outcomes of development and advancement and exercise of choice.

I am sorry to say, those who stand in its way are doomed to die beneath its advance.

Here we go again;

I was please to see that Michael of Adelaide has pointed to ;
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933
written by Professor Kjell Aleklett.

It says all that needs to be known by both sides of the global warming
argument, ie you are both all wasting your time as the fuel is not
there to cause the warming projected by the IPCC.

That is it, but I'll bet quids it will make no difference to the pollies
and greenies, they will go forward spending billions of our money all
to no avail. The very least we should expect of them is to say;
What is this about ? How does it affect our plans ?

Fortunately some of the expense will go to projects that will be needed
to mitigate energy depletion anyway. eg Such projects as solar thermal
power station work at Liddell should be duplicated at other power
stations trying different trechniques.

Farming and transport will need to switch to electrical systems so we
are not going to get away with solar cells and windfarms on their own.
The electrical demand will be much greater than at present.

So forget about global warming, if it is happening then it is out of
our hands, get worrying about that which you can do something about.