Col, I hope you understand what I say in response because your last post opened a way for dialogue.

I have linked to various bodies that have assessed the risk of global warming. Have you any comments given that the common thread from these diverse bodies is that the planet is faced with huge risks?

You don’t believe the science – that is an issue you have to deal with.
I am a scientist and I know what I know – and I have to deal with it (I am concerned).

So your agenda is to warn everybody of a ‘powerful centralist government’. That’s ok Col, but please – please don’t use science in the context of climate change as an excuse to push that agenda – the UN is not a government.

I’ll rephrase; science is telling humanity that we have a problem. Scientists can not tell the politicians, policy makers, big business, religious groups, etc how to overcome their problems of ideology. What we can say is, if you don’t come to some agreement in tackling the issues of global warming, the consequences of such inaction will not be good, for anybody.

Col, you have misinterpreted my views on government, power and control. Example: the fossil fuel lobby got the nod from Howard in regards to their preferred option in dealing with the Kyoto Protocol. Howard did a back-flip on global warming (too late) and became a stick-in-the-mud when it came to climate-change policy.

The environment does not care whether you are Liberal or Labor (our Turnbull and the US Schwarzenegger are both conservatives). It's wrong to play the political ideology game as you seem intent on doing. Further, it is not a contest between you/me or us/them as you imply.

I would like to ask you (anyone that does not believe in global warming) a question.

Given that all countries (big business, different cultures and religions, etc) of the world take GLOBAL warming seriously –

How should they respond to the risk that can/will cause wars, political, economic, environmental and ecological devastation? What should they do?

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 central 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 protectged / achieved by a state contained by the most 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.

Just goes to show how much of a ranting old troll Col Rouge is.

He is challenged to engage in a reasoned and rational way yet the best he can do is re-post his epiphany from only 2 posts prior … from the same thread no less.

He has lost me, anyone else wish to continue the discussion?

Q&A “I’ll rephrase; science is telling humanity that we have a problem.”

No, some “scientists” are predicting a possible problem based on very dubious and limited observations.

Other scientists are critical to the accuracy of the observations.

Diversity of opinion is as prevalent in the science community as it is in general life. Example, if you want 3 economic opinions, just ask 2 economists to debate a simple subject. Or we could equally debate whether Hepworth is a better sculptor than Moore.

Now!

Q&A “I have linked to various bodies that have assessed the risk of global warming. Have you any comments given that the common thread from these diverse bodies is that the planet is faced with huge risks?”

the "missing linked"?

Q&A “I am a scientist and I know what I know and I have to deal with it (I am concerned).”

Your "concern" is my "opportunity"

“Col, you have misinterpreted my views on government, power and control.”

Those who have the temerity to disagree are misrepresenting you ?

Q&A “re-post his epiphany “

Yes I double posted, human error.

Q&A” Just goes to show how much of a ranting old troll Col Rouge is.”

Think what you like but first let us re-share some other folks views of you posts

In response to your “qualifications”

GrahamY, Friday, 14 December 2007 11:01:49 PM

On Line Opinion carries argument from both sides of this debate, but I acknowledge that there are two sides. Some, like you, don't want to. I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”

i bet they don't exist too.

Or for a more general analysis of your “posting style”

KAEP of 11 December 2007,

“Not only are you a naive amateur but you are a bully who is desperately trying to prove to people that you have a personality.”

Collectively, you have no “credibility” left to support any pet “scientific theory” or to challenge my “skepticism”.

Q&A “He has lost me, anyone else wish to continue the discussion?”

Q&A slithers out of the debate, a battered whimp, defeated, credibility in tatters.

A new site which puts the global warming claims side by side with the sceptics' research:

http://climatedebatedaily.com

With all due respect, the site is run by two members of a philosophy department in NZ. Until I see input from qualified scientists, I don't see much point in it. Having seen pretty much everything global-warming denier argument under the sun, most of the ones there are easily dismissable, if not utterly irrelevant.

There are some scientists that have done some genuinely interesting work calling into question just how severe the effects of global warming might be, but I don't any of it there. Which is odd, because they specifically state their position to be "skeptical of the threat of anthropogenic global warming", rather than taking the increasingly absurd position of denying that warming is even happening, or that human activity is not a significant of cause of it.

FWIW, I agree the threat of anthropogenic global warming is overhyped - not because I think the science is questionable, but because very few people are thinking much about all the other serious threats humanity faces in the next century. Global warming may end up being the least of our worries.