Max Rheese

When will you get the message that we posters are exhausted with your GW crap? In less than one month, you and your toxic affiliates from the AEF an IPA have spruiked no less than five articles on OLO - Carter, Ridd, Marohasy, Quirk. Is that not a signal of desperation? Must we now endure your repetitive rants?

The Australian Environment Foundation eh? So why not speak on the actual environment - the trashing of our oceans, our underground water supplies, our soil, our air, our animals, our resources? We don't actually care if the climate is hot or cold. Nor does the hazardous pollution which you devils continue to promote - anthropogenic pollution which violates all the laws of nature.

"Some will never admit the falsehood of anthropogenic global warming - they will simply move onto the next environmental scare campaign."

So what's your next "scare campaign" Max? What about one on industrial pollution? Is that a "falsehood" too or is it an issue which you dare not allude to because the science is conclusive? Tell us why millions of humans are now dying annually from industrial pollution Max and what should we do about that?

And since your article relies mainly on the ad hominen to "reinforce" your silly argument, I remind you that when you accept sponsorship from the likes of Monsanto, you have descended into an unconscionable and ethics-free pit of slime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3798581.stm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm#roundup

Your greenwash is a pathetic endeavour to give cover to a whole range of corporations with environmental credibility problems - i.e. the "Monsantos" and the other morally repugnant corporate cockroaches who believe it is their right to continue vandalising and privatising our ecosystems.

Nice try Max!

The Heartland Institute has really fired them up!

I won't quibble on the Max dribble.

Stay tuned, next will come Ray Evans and the Lavoisier Group.

Don't expect an apology from the Government. The Government was partially elected on scaring the wits out of the gullible public when it came to GW. John Howard now looks silly because he had to pretend to be a believer in this nonsense. More than half the posters on here also tried to make out that they were some kind of scientist. They look sillier and sillier as each day goes on.

I knew a weather scientist who worked for the CSIRO back in the early seventies. (The late) Peter was in no danger of losing his job. He loved his work for it's own sake. He was in every way yer typical quiet, unassuming, slightly obssessive man of pure science.

He told me that he was in need of sensors that could measure the CO2 content of the air and be accurate to within a few parts per million. I think he wanted to fly them on his weather balloons, which they released in those days from the old Edithvale (Melb) weather station. He told me that the CO2 content of the atmosphere had the potential to make profound changes to the weather, because of the danger of entrapped heat energy.

All this, so long ago. So what did I do, having been given the inside running on this crucial piece of information? Why, nothing of course. I was young, full of testosterone, and what could possibly go wrong on such a sunny day? All of this was forgotten until the red flags really started to go up a couple of years ago.

In the intervening years as a miner, I burned vast quantities of coal and diesel to produce little bricks of gold. They paid me well, so I suppose I was good at my work. And this is the problem isn't it? How to separate a feller from his ego and his precious salary, long enough to shake a bit of common sense into him.

So farewell to the IPA, the AEF and their ilk. Their pronouncements will grow angrier but fainter, the more their economic tenets diverge from the new physical reality.

- have you considered a job in agriculture?

"More than half the posters on here also tried to make out that they were some kind of scientist. They look sillier and sillier as each day goes on." (Runner)

I say Runner, let's in on it, please. What's Rheese's credentials?

dickie,

Thanks for point out who the Australian Environment Foundation are. I hadn't thought to look it up, and it turns out it isn't difficult. This link gives describes them well:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

It looks to me that OLO makes the same sort of effort to strike a balance in their articles that other media does. So we have a couple articles from David Suzuki, and we have a couple from the other point of view.

What sticks in the throat is how the arithmetic is done. Suzuki makes his point by presenting the facts as he see them and his reasoning about them. The AEF's main method of making their point seems to be deception - starting with the name[1]. Outright lies seems to be OK too - its also not difficult to find where they have said things they know can't be true. Alls fair in love, war and making a profit, I guess. The point is, apparently in journalism one of Suzuki's articles equals one of AEF's. That just "feels" wrong.

[1] For those of you who don't know, the AEF was formed to protect timber interests, and got funding from them. The registration for their web site address and phone number are the same as Timber Communities Australia. In a structure reminiscent of chinese dolls, the Timber Communities Australia has the same director and Canberra office as the National Association of Forest Industries. The National Association of Forest Industries is funded primarily by Gunns.