Col, not even economists agree on what inflation is. But I fail to see how that's relevant to my point. Energy costs as a portion of income has been falling consistently since the oil shocks of the 70's. There's no reason that trend shouldn't continue even after a period of rising costs needed to fund development of cleaner sources (compounded by inevitable rises in the price of oil as we face likely supply squeezes). Of course there will be individuals that will struggle for a time with rising energy costs, but there is no reality where everyone wins all the time, and myriad ways to mitigate the worst difficulties anyone might face (many of which no doubt you would classify as "socialism", but our country is not run by ideologically driven libertarians).

The only thing missing from the global warming idea is evidence.
So we can put it in the same bucket as evolutionism, and then toss the contents in the toilet.

(Don't forget to flush.)

Some people’s “opinions” on climate change or risk management are more valid than others.

Col says: “Hysterical novice computer modellers and the dull-witted who, like lemmings (real of mythological), blindly scamper after the cause of supposed “global warming” are actually ignoring the basic rules of “Risk Management”

AND

“Risk Management strategy would declare that the unproven, future theoretical consequences of global warming, when offset by a world wide recession and the expropriation of individual discretionary income through government carbon taxes is, on, a risk management basis, not worth pursuing.”

Does anyone else have thoughts on Risk Management when it comes to global warming, particularly after following the below links?

Climate Change and Risk Management – Australian Government:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/impacts/publications/risk-management.html

Risk Management and Decision Processes Centre, University of Pennsylvania:

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/J2007UPLR_ClimateChange_HK,EMK.pdf

The Association of British Insurers:

http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/Display_Popup/default.asp?Menu_ID=1090&Menu_All=1,1088,1090&Child_ID=552

The World Bank’s screen for climate risk:

http://go.worldbank.org/AWJKT60300

The World Economic Forum:

http://www.weforum.org/en/media/Latest%20Press%20Releases/AM07_climate_change

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html

Things happening in America:

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2007/02/01/hoffman/

Things happening in the UK:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

And from the popular on-line video on risk management:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI&feature=related

To name but only a few.

I would defer to any of the above “opinions” before Col’s, but that is just my opinion.

Oh yeah, it’s typical of global warming deniers to suggest that humanity has to go back to living in caves or humpies – a load of crock.

It really is about sustainable development, not just for the here-and-now, but for future generations.

Q&A “I would defer to any of the above “opinions” before Col’s, but that is just my opinion.”

Exactly, just your “opinion” and not worth any more than my humble opinion but lacking the prudence of my position in debate and my morality of keeping power out of the hands of politicians and scientific elites.

You may be happy to sell your liberty down the drain for some misguided sense of comfort that climate science has “got it right”.

I am skeptical about the basic accuracy of “climate science”, especially when it requires some carpet bag politician to front the “science” with slick (if inaccurate) slideshows and movies and when we are likely to experience a significant diminution in our individual quality of life and personal choices (liberty) through carbon tax diversions.

Re “It really is about sustainable development, not just for the here-and-now, but for future generations.”

Governments are not there to determine what is allowed due to its “sustainability”. Everything a government does is merely piggy backing on the endeavours of people making private choices to what they decide is suitable and "sustainable" in their private lives.

The problem is, those who seek the socialist policy are the ones too afraid, too feeble minded or too indolent to make the choices for themselves.

Simply because you think that you are backing “sustainability” does not make it so. All it means is you are either too afraid, indolent or feeble minded to make the choices for yourself.

As liberty said “The only thing missing from the global warming idea is evidence.
So we can put it in the same bucket as evolutionism,”

The only difference,

I do not recall a massive changes in the tax system (to pay for carbon emissions) ever being associated with “evolutionism”

Socialism has been defeated by libertarian capitalism as symbolized by the collapse of USSR communism (the authoritive goal of socialism).

Now we face “Socialism by Stealth” through ubiquitous introduction of artificial carbon trading taxes.

As Socrates observed, “Carthage must be destroyed”

So too this “socialism by stealth” must be destroyed.

As I have always said, it's not about the science - it's about power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda and the resources behind them with vested interests.

Col keeps on about "socialism by stealth", others could equally talk about the new world order under the neo-cons, but of course that would be wrong hey Col?

You are really into conspiracy theories mate - the scientists, the economists, big business, politicians of all persuasions, the national and international academies of science, the World Bank, our Liberal Party, our Labor Party, Republicans, Democrats, different religious groups, etc.

Yep, they have got it all wrong hey Col? You of course know better than everybody - beancounters rule the world.

Why aren't the people that count listening to you mate? They can't all be as stupid as you make them out to be.

Could it be they understand risk management or 'climate change' better than you? Surely not.

Q&A “ I have always said, it's not about the science - it's about power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda and the resources behind them with vested interests.”

I do so agree… it is what I have been on about all along.

I knew if I beat the drum loud and often enough even the likes of you and the other weak and feeble would eventually get it.

My agenda is simple. I am identifying danger of strong powerful centralist government and identifying it as the primary cause of real problems when it comes to

– and I quote your words here

“power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda”

Individual strength is only protected / achieved by a state constrained by “limited” authority.

Ultimately, a community’s strength is in the protection of the rights of the creative to create, the innovative to innovate, the inventive to invent, the entrepreneurial to invest and take risks.

It is never found in the strength of the government to govern.

As Lenin said “When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

He also said “A lie told often enough becomes truth.”

So, if you want to think of me as conspiracy deluded, all I can say is, it contradicts your own posts, since you now agree with my views on the dangers of powerful central government authorised to impose say carbon taxes on the electorate.

For you the next step is easy, resist with all your efforts a central government agenda which will deprive you of your choices by imposing unproven, arbitrary climate-science upon you.

Remember, “power and control of the masses by those with a political agenda”

cannot be achieved whilst “power” is distributed across many different people, only when it is centralized.

Your arrogance would not allow you to admit it but, despite your venal rhetoric, I see you have turned to my view.

I will take that as a success for the day.