A mathematical proof from sillyfilly, no less.

And “by any scientific measure” must mean there's really no relevant debate to be had, because research and conclusions contradicting AGW cannot be defined as “scientific”. Very neat: “an inconvenient tyranny” perhaps? That would also mean Guy Le Blanc-Smith, William Kininmonth, Bob Carter and so many others similarly qualified (Evans just one among them) should actually be disqualified. How did such august bodies as the World Bank and IMF – so influential in privatizing our education system into “user pays” feudalism – allow those people to attain, or at least keep, their academic qualifications?

Proven in this brief discursive “equation” is the following set of hypotheses as mooted over a decade ago:

1) The leading role of IPCC scammers as headed by such monetarist flunkies that I mentioned.

2) The complimentary tyrannical impulse prohibiting open debate by denying a fair chance of contribution from qualified scientists, denying them also actual influence on conclusions ergo policy, and;

3) The AGW promoters' rubbery flexibility and back-flipping when later deciding that ice core data is not suitably relevant to describe planetary temperature, as many millenia of temperature rises preceded greater CO2 emissions. Same with the criteria defining (and demanding) the “hot spot” (or was that just “signature”?).

Divergence: the “Bush administration” launched major war crimes; “deseperate efforts to shut up” Hansen would be unnecessary to such people - Hansen got promotion and is still on the state payroll! As with superliar Howard, Bush's lip-service “opposition” to AGW was merely to keep some vulnerable (non-financier) resource capitalists onside to prevent them funding non-mainstream dissent. These political puppets' real bosses are the same financier-parasites who back ex-WB Stern, Garnault et al.

The same people who created the derivatives-based monetarist sytem that's falling apart now, and you want to trust their claims to “risk management” over climate science and new speculative schemes in ETS! Hah – ROFL!

“Oh well”, you'll say, “at least this global depression will cull a few billion 'excess' people” (excluding your brilliant, noble and useful self of course)...”so maybe the genocidal oligarch-scum really are clever”.

Mil-Observer

You are right that the whole global warming thing is a scam on wheels. The only people to promote it are either the cynical interested, like the governments and banks who intend to profit from it, or religioius half-wits, who think it's a sin for human life to use natural resources, and don't care what the facts are.

However you are wrong in thinking the derivatives bubble is the root cause of the current economic crisis. It can't be: the name alone should tell you this. A derivative, by definition, is a derivative *of* something else - namely, the underlying contract. And the function of a derivative is to hedge risk. That also should have told you that what is driving the derivatives bubble is the underlying risk in the monetary system.

Ultimately the bubble underlying the economic crisis is the scam that the US dollar is money. It is government's addiction to inflationary finance based on fiat money that underlies the entire economic crisis. You have mistaken a symptom for the cause. The cause is fiat money, without which, neither the derivatives bubble nor the economic crisis would exist.

What if nothing can be done about it.

Mil-observer,

Bush is hardly smart enough to think in the convoluted way you imagine, nor the oil and coal companies too stupid to know if he were selling them out. Why not just accept that he denies global warming like you? As for Hansen keeping his job, things are not yet so bad in the US that a prominent American scientist can simply be made to disappear or even be blatantly victimised.

Outside of your fertile imagination, no one is advocating a cull. If any culling takes place, it will be done by Nature or by the cullees' neighbours. This actually started happening in the Rwanda genocide. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, a minimum of 0.053 hectares of arable land is needed to provide an individual with a nutritionally adequate diet, even with the best modern agricultural techniques (State Land Administrative Research Project for Cultivated Land Protection, 1998). Rwanda, the country with the densest population in Africa, got down to 0.03 hectares of arable land per person at the time of the genocide. James Gasana, Rwanda's former agriculture minister, wrote an article that was published in Worldwatch Magazine in 2002. It contains a table showing the correlation between calories per person in the various cantons and the numbers of people killed in massacres.

Divergence: There's nothing "smart" about keeping (or trying to keep) constituents onside for the sake of political power; it's sometimes called "representation", or even "networking". The process is a bit of a no-brainer, especially in mediocre leadership, whether political or business. It's not "convoluted" either for politicians to pander in bad faith: it's plain dishonest and gutless (just ask Howard, Costello et al). I agree Bush seemed no master tactician, but he's an old-rich oligarch used to such games, and still has plenty of advisers and strategists to drive such decisions.

But your comment suggests volumes about how "convoluted" can pass for "clever" or sophisticated, and what's meant to constitute "smart" these days. Sickening that our civilization became such an unprincipled, barbaric zoo.

Outside of my fertile imagination plenty of people advocate culls. Indeed your strange wording contradicted your own claim when stating: "If any culling takes place, it will be done by Nature or by the cullees' neighbours."

That is exactly what so many Malthusian AGW advocates seek (they rarely talk about nukes or death camps except when they get p|ss3d together). Depopulation psychopathy goes back to Malthus, but gained a further boost from Kissinger's "NSSM 200": a nasty, brutal and paranoid document which views the world in a typical "they lose, we win" perspective.

By "nature", Malthusians pretend a "free trade" model - a mythical system inevitably causing crashes (and famines, wars, etc.) within an unregulated "natural" interplay of market forces. The genocidal potential of such simplistic silliness can now be realized more widely in the monetarists' derivatives-driven systemic implosion and its hyperinflationary bail-out storm.

That's where people like yourself come in. AGW encourages various other lies quite compatible with Malthusian "finite resources/people as cattle" myths. For example, millions of kids can't eat because crops have gone into bio-fuel, spiking food costs further too? Ah, but that's to "save the planet", in artificial programs backed so enthusiastically by Bush, Howard, etc. - damn their black-green hearts.

You Rwandan reference is bizarre: a finite figure of "arable land per person"? Same for wheat or cattle, medieval rotation or half-fallow?

Wake up Australia.

If Climate Change does exist & it is caused by human beings, then don't you think the Rudd Government would stop all IMMIGRATION programs forthwith?

The only reason Rudd is dicking around with Kyoto policies, apart from 'trying' to do a facsimile of an international susperstar, is that he DOESN'T believe in Climate change.

Oh he mounts media campaigns to get 'us' to believe it so we will SPEND UP BIG on putative changes and grow his Labor economy. That's the extent of it & its as plain as the nose on your face.

Rudd's secret theme:

Onwards IMMIGRATION!
Sent from above
The extra GST for me.

Sung by Howie Rudd,

How cute!

NOT.