The Forum > Article Comments > Heaven, Earth and science fiction > Comments
Heaven, Earth and science fiction : Comments
By Mike Pope, published 11/6/2009To avoid following the polar bear to extinction, 'homo sapiens' would do well to reject the science fiction espoused by Professor Ian Plimer.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Page 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- ...
- 43
- 44
- 45
-
- All
The GloBULL Warming Theory is officially now a 23 year old liberal WMD scam misleading the country to war under false pretenses. Calling a country to battle against a counterfeit enemy is treason and we pray the courts will condemn these politicians and scientists to the severest of punishment they disserve
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 18 July 2009 10:30:44 PM
| |
Hmmm
That sounds like a conspiracy to commit treason. Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 19 July 2009 12:03:07 AM
| |
The toxic Meme suffers verbal diarrohea. He's just talked my glass eye to sleep! Snore..........snore........!
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 19 July 2009 12:15:39 AM
| |
The climate change skeptics keep attacking the messenger.
If they believe that the IPCC has it wrong why are they not trying to change the way that body functions and reports. I still have not seen any peer reviewed published document to refute climate change. Posted by PeterA, Sunday, 19 July 2009 10:18:39 AM
| |
<< I still have not seen any peer reviewed published document to refute climate change. >>
Me either, PeterA; a plethora of scientific reviewed publications explaining the correlation between pollution and climate change is available from established science journals and while there is dispute among scientists as to the level of impact on the planet's environment, there is not a single peer reviewed publication that offers any evidence that human pollution has zero effect. A lot of hysteria (from a notably non-scientific chorus), but no evidence. Nor is there any justification provided to continue to exploit and excrete fossil fuels till absolute depletion. Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 19 July 2009 11:41:44 AM
| |
Exactly! There's no ECONOMIC reason to do so either. If you count the health costs of mining coal and the TRUE subsidies to fossil fuels, renewables may just come out on top!
"GOVERNMENT subsidies to some of Australia's electricity generation companies are so big they exceed the profits made by those companies, a report on energy and transport subsidies says. *Government support for the coal industry and coal-fired electricity is so generous that in some cases it has led to the construction of coal-fired power plants when other types of electricity generation would have been cheaper, the report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney has found.* Subsidies to fossil fuel energies, worth close to $10 billion, result in a serious market distortion, create an unfair disadvantage to renewable energy, and help increase greenhouse gas pollution, says the report, written by the institute's research principal, Chris Riedy, and commissioned by Greenpeace. The report identified energy and transport subsidies in Australia during 2005-06 of between $9.3 billion and $10.1 billion. More than 96 per cent of that money flowed to fossil fuel production and consumption, with the remainder going to renewable energy and energy efficiency. " http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/whatsnew/ISFsubsidiesreport2007.pdf (UTS study, sadly PDF link is now broken). Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 19 July 2009 1:04:09 PM
|