MichaelK; Sorry, but Dickie and I are two differant people.

Dickie; It is a sad thing that your defensive and angry replys are an indication of (or maybe it is just you) the indefensable position you attempt to defend. I can assure you that an authoritaian government would most assuredly put a halt to this kind of discussion. I can further assure you that you would do very poorly in that system, except as perhaps some role in the useful idiot department. All atempts to reason with you and dialog in an intellegent manner are a waste of time and energy. I feel sorry for you and those like you who have a position but not the intelectual capacity to defend it. Common sense is an alian concept, anger and vitriol are your capacity and see no virtue in any other. You speake of jack boots and such in a cavalier way and you do not see the historical context of the real degenerate mind behind such politics and policies. You are in short, a fool, and worse a complicite fool with out the capacity to see the lie. Your attempted Friend, TICK

Dickie,

Thanks so much for the fine welcome a few days back. So my word was not sufficient? You need links to prove my veracity? Fair enough. I think the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a complete fraud, cooked up by the left primarily to gain political power and stop economic progress. That this comes at the expense of billions of people who are poor primarily because they are denied access to cheap, fossil fuel based electricity seems to trouble them not a bit.

Here's a link to a 38 part series in Canada's National Post. They highlight the views of real scientists who believe that the prevailing wisdom on GW is either complete rubbish, or are at least highly skeptical;

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

So you know that these good folks are not cranks in the employ of Exxon, I give you the CV of one as a starter;

Dr. Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the University of Cambridge, discovered the process of "flux expulsion" by which a conducting fluid undergoing rotating motion acts to expel the magnetic flux from the region of motion, a process now known to occur in the photosphere of the sun and other stars. He is also distinguished for his work on the theory of convection, and for precise numerical experiments on the behaviour of complicated non-linear differential equations. Dr. Weiss is a recipient of a Royal Society Citation, he is a past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a past Chairman of Cambridge's School of Physical Sciences. He was educated at Clare College, University of Cambridge.

Take your time, read a few at your leisure, then tell me that there is no debate.

The angry words spoken between some of the posters here are very disappointing, and I don't really know why I return to this topic every now and again. I wonder whether the words I have to say are just a rehash of what has been said before. The original article, if I remember correctly, was posing the question as to whether our liberal democratic society was sophisticated enough to handle the response to climate change as recommended by Al Gore et al, or whether a command society would manage it better. It brings to mind a friend who told me that the LA Lakers had spent 10 years already trying to find a new site for their stadium, but the democratic dithering had stopped any progress thus far.

I'm quite confident that the fears presented by the climate change scientists are well founded, since there does seem to be plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis. That is certainly not to say that there is no chance of their being wrong. This is hardly an exact science, and doubters should be heard and considered.

But the balance of evidence does appear to indicate that climate change is accelerating. It does seem reasonably self evident to me that by converting so much of the earth into nasties that float around in the atmosphere thus affecting the planet's "blanket" and the effect of the sun on this earth could very easily affect the climate in which we live.

If this is likely to have a deleterious effect on ocean levels, with its rather disastrous knock-on effect to people living in low lying areas; if this is likely to affect climate patterns which will require large scale migration of people around the world, and the conflict likely to eventuate from that, surely, as a matter of risk management, we must embrace the warnings of climate change until they are overcome or proved to be false.

I am sure this point of view would have been canvassed in this subject before, but has been submerged in the insults from a couple of unfortunate antagonists.

"I think the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a complete fraud, cooked up by the left primarily to gain political power and stop economic progress."

Thank you for your interesting post VWRC and I am indeed happy to debate with someone who takes the effort to perform some research on the topic at hand.

However, I did not access this thread to debate climate change and you will note that my issue has been entirely on our eco-systems and industrial pollution, where my research has been more extensive including being a member of a government initiated advisory committee reporting on the impacts of industrial pollution on community and environmental health.

However, VWRC, I hold the view that if species are being pushed into extinction because of human interference; if this country has thousands of contaminated sites requiring remediation; if whales are washing up with their stomachs packed with plastic bags; if birds are dying by the thousands around the planet; if warmer oceans are responsible for the increase in hurricanes; if whole towns are being contaminated by hazardous chemicals and hundreds of thousands of humans are dying each year from air pollution, then it is obligatory that humans should try to reverse the process.

The strategy for the above is the same for mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Reduce the emissions of fossil fuels.

Therefore, I trust we can agree to disagree.

Thank you also for the links on the "Deniers" and I like you, hold Professor Weiss in high esteem. His credentials are certainly impressive and I have in interest in his papers.

Unfortunately, VWRC, the author of the "Deniers" series (Lawrence Solomon) has been exposed as less than credible and has seriously demeaned ethical journalism. He has even been described as a "Bush stooge!" Worse, he has incurred the wrath of Professor Weiss and this is one reason why I often endeavour to contact scientists or academics for confirmation on media reports:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007020201

Dickie “And who would know more about savage German guard dogs than you eh?”

You introduced “rottweilers” originally. All I am doing is pointing out the error in your post. For myself, I choose to have no pets.

“"Dickie" has no biological vulgar reference to girls”

So you are female!

Then calling yourself “dickie” must simply be a matter of penis envy.

“How on earth do you fit everything in”

I work hard and with effect.

“And still you remain ignorant on VOCs so why do you high-jack environmental threads of which you know zilch”

This thread has a title “Climate change, is democracy enough?”

I consider any “environmental issues” subordinate to the democratic processes which enshrine our social systems.

Whilst you seem prepared to dispense with our democratic processes and the rule of law, I am not. Because, my unscientific background at least has vision which can see beyond the end of my nose.

The “political expediency” of surrendering the decision making processes to a bunch of unelected scientists, driven by massive ego and a desire to swallow their fill from the public trough, will only reduce the quality of life to the point of mere existence for the vast majority of Australians.

Myself and others who have posted recently stated the democratic processes which protect you are the same as the one which protect me. I am not surrendering my democratic rights to you or any other wannabe despot, regardless of what “scientific credentials” they may claim or even if they know what VOC is.

Btw according to wikipedia

VOC: “Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie”

Dutch east India company (Indonesia & Co)

Or did you mean VOC “Volatile organic compounds”

I do recognise that as organic compounds, they have some carbon component (distinct from “inorganic”).

I guess you breaking wind would produce “VOC”. Should I conclude “VOC” has the significance of a fart.

For a wannabe scientist, you have fallen into the unscientific practice of “ambiguous definition”,

One now is suspicious to the veracity of both your scientific credentials and practice.

VRWC; HarryG; ColRouge; It is obviuos that Dickie is just an antagonist and has not the slightest interest in being a viable part of the discussion. She has bolted herself to her soap box and anchored it in concrete, from where she can belittle the rest of us. It is a shame because she is obiously an intellegent (though bitter) person.
VRWC, That is an interesting link you provided, it actually has some stuff that i may be able to use in a research paper i am doing on the media reporting on climate change. And the sunspot conditions are an interseting scientific theory. I have heard it discussed, and confess that i would like to hear more.
HarryG; You are absolutly right about Al Gore! Just filter the rest of it through that and you'll be OK. You are also right that there are some scientists that have made good observations on the current conditions of things. But what troubles me is that they are making those observations of a phenomena and relying on that to form their hypothisis on. But in their defense it would be a gigantic task to recreate some neutral experiment to test it to find out if they are manmade or a naturaly occuring cycle.
ColRouge; I realy like you VOC joke! Good Stuff. And, Of course you are absolutly right, If the left wing nut jobs take over we are all in very big trouble. Thank you for reminding us of that.
Thanks for letting me be a part of your discussion. TICK