There seems to me one or two things that most climate change "skeptics" have in common with each other. They are often right wingers who believe that the free market,economic growth, technology and human ingenuity will lead to a better world for themselves and possibly others or they are religious believers who regard God as the ultimate decider of the future.

Really the argument for these people is not about the scientific veracity of the actual observations or the underlying physical and chemical attributes of the substances that make up the earth's atmosphere, its land and oceans and the human induced changes to these. Nor is it about the models derived from the foregoing which seek to give some idea of the consequences of these man-made changes to global climate, sea levels, river flows etc.

No it is not the science at all (or lack of it) that leads the right wingers and religious fundimentalist to their view. The science is settled and the models of serious climate change carefully formulated and the probabilities (risks) of each potential scenario quantified as best as can be done.

In the case of the right wingers it's the values they place on there own material (and those about them) well-being as opposed to that of those unknown people now or in the next few decades who are most likely to suffer as a result of the effects of our actions today.

For the fundimentalists it is their faith in the All Powerful Creator and the value they attach to that faith that gets in the way of any rational thought on the matter.

There is simply no point in arguing with people whose beliefs and value systems automatically block out a rational and evidence based approach to understanding stresses that an ever-expanding human population and economic footprint place on finite global resources and sinks.

Does Australia have leaders capable of delivering a sustainable, low-carbon future that could be a role model for many countries? You bet.

There are many Australian scientists, academics, CEOs and politicians with truck loads of knowledge and experience to chart a new course.

How long would they last in power if they offered dramatic solutions that are necessary to re-engineer our energy, transport and livestock industries?

Rising to and meeting the challenges could make our nation's leaders a legend. I believe that history will harshly judge our timid, conservative Prime Minister and our uninspiring Opposition Leader - their disappointing strategies are pro-fossil and not worth the risk.

A good politician should be able to communicate the vision and plan a comprehensive transition plan that sensibly manages the all important employment impact of winding down polluting industries and creating new renewable industries.

Based on some of the theories proposed and wildy popular here - That doing something now is the right thing to do, JUST IN CASE there are consequences later, regardless of whether there might not be consequences - is most enlightening to me, as now I realise you must have been supporters of the invasion of Iraq, since they MIGHT have had WMDs - they didn't but, they could have!

Mind you I don't understand why you haven't been out there demanding the UN now invades North Korea and Iran - why is that? Surely there is a risk that these countries might one day use atomic weapons, so let's stop them now - JUST IN CASE. (how does the chant go .. the cost of doing it now is less than the cost of doing it later)

BTW - the science is not settled, another red herring by the religious AGWers who deny the natural course of climate (I don't add change to that anymore as it is redundant I've been told - the word climate, includes the understanding that it changes)

As I've sid before, I'm not nor will many other, be bullied into "believeing" so Kulu, put your vague insults away - go find some real science, not the cliched mantras of your high priests of AGW.

Daviy “First of all to Col Rouge. Does everything have to be isms?”

Everything does not have to be an “ism”

But this most certainly is

And I call it

“Socialism by Stealth”

As for “It makes no difference when you are dead.”

I sincerely believe the world, which my daughters and (yet to be born) grand children will inherit from people who see and understand the dangers of socialism / communism / Marxism and challenge such views by promoting the greater virtues of libertarian capitalism (with its reward and recognition for risk, effort and innovation etc), will ensure that-

whilst I may be dead, my progeny will be better off, spiritually, emotionally and experiencing a better quality of life than if

arrogant politicians and the luddite left of the environmentalist movement succeed in expropriating more of our individual discretion and freedom through pointless regulation, legislation and tax expropriation.



Q&A “Galileo was up against the fundamentalists”

The way the pro-AGW lobby is, “fundamentalism” seems second nature, having made heretics of anyone who dares challenge their dogma.

Kulu “They are often right wingers who believe that the free market,economic growth, technology and human ingenuity will lead to a better world for themselves and possibly others”

And such wisdom is never found in the left(overs).


Quick Response “There are many Australian scientists, academics, CEOs and politicians with truck loads of knowledge and experience to chart a new course.”

Then let them stand for parliament or better still

Let me see them put their money where their mouth is, by funding their ‘schemes’ with risk capital, to compete in the market for my custom, rather than looking for the soft option of taxpayer guarantees and handouts.

“A good politician should be able to…..”

I always treat such generalizations with deep suspicion, especially when “good politician” is an oxymoron.

Like rpg said and I plagiarize here

“As I've said before, I'm not nor will many other, be bullied into "believing". So, Q&A, go find some real science, not the clichéd mantras preached by your high priests of AGW.”

Kulu writes

'The science is settled and the models of serious climate change carefully formulated and the probabilities (risks) of each potential scenario quantified as best as can be done.'

If the science was settled why have so many ridiculous predictions made by the true believers be shown to be totally fraudulent. Your idea of science being settled is simply crap. The science is as settled as those who claimed the aboriginals were the missing link. Stop allowing your dogmas to blind you from the lack of any real evidence for gw.

Well said Kulu!
Runner, you are full of it. Show us the fraud! Where are your authoritative sources? Big accusation that: World wide scientists have abandoned their entire professional life to lie for ...Who?
I've been following the climate change issues for over 15 years and the science *is* now settled...for those who know what science is.
I believe you went for Kulu's statement because it is too close the truth!
That profit motivated God botherers seem to make up the majority of the so called GW "skeptics" (Damn, another word ruined) is beyond doubt. I'm guessing "us and them" is just the way they think. Small minded folk need a pedestal to look down from, and being friends with the Big Guy and having access to highly technical truths *without any technical understanding at all* is part of the mindset. If they could keep their ignorance to themselves I'd happily ignore these nutters, but alas, the runners of the world are getting just too scary to ignore.