Anne, you do understand, don't you, that the globe is not warming, and that the science on this is settled?

Also, how have you figured in the negative consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels that now supply food, shelter, medicine, transport and communications to billions of people? Since these are now supporting human life, and you advocate a reduction, please show your workings. How many lives do you want to be sacrificed? Ethically, how do you justify killing even one person?

As to the future effects of climate change, show how you have figured the balance of positive as against negative results. Where I live, there is markedly different micro-climate than 3 km down the road. Please show your workings for the entire continents of Eurasia, North America, Africa and South America – or admit your vapid dishonesty.

Carbon is the basis of all life. It is no more a pollutant than is oxygen, or water.

Irrational quasi-religious human-hating neo-fascist state-worship is very fashionable for young arts graduates, I see.

I see that Wing is a true believer in the ideology of scientism or scientific materialism---at least when its suits him.

And like all true believers he is thoroughly intolerant of other points of view. Indeed his various statements on this site are full of the language of binary exclusions---I am right and everybody else is wrong.

A quote re the "culture" produced in the image of scientism.

"Institutionalized scientism is intent upon controlling and managing humankind and the total human world, and even the entire conditionally arising universe itself, on an exclusively non-sacred, and even anti-sacred, and thoroughly godless basis.

The everywhere-and-everything-and-everybody-institutionalizing power of scientism would, if allowed to function at will and unimpeded, control and manage, and thoroughly institutionalize, and, altogether, exoterically limit ALL of the political, social, economic, and cultural conditions and activities of globally-institutionalized humankind.

This power that institutionalized scientism exercises is of an inherently intolerant nature, because it is possessed by a reductionist, and tribalistic, and exclusively exoteric mentality, that cannot accept any non-"orthodox", extra-tribal or extra-institutional, or otherwise esoteric exceptions to its Rule.

continued:

"Exoteric scientism achieves physically effective control over human populations by means of physically based technologies.

Exoteric scientism achieves physically effective mind control over human individuals and collectives by means of physically effective technologies, practical and consumer oriented inventions, power alliances with social and political institutions, the broad scale ritual propagandizing of "scientific" myths, and the broad scale persistent propagandizing of IRREDUCIBLY objectified beliefs in such ideas as "rationality", "materiality", "objective certainty", "progress", "analytical reason" as an exercise superior to ALL other human efforts, the necessary mortality of nature, mind, and being, and both the "authority" and the "ultimate sufficiency" of scientism itself."

Plus this reference which begins with the statement:

"Only one human force is dominant on Earth at the present time. It wants to take over and change the entire world. It wants all human beings to conform to a model of existence. It wants to change the total environment of Earth into a technologically mastered condition."

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index2.html

In the same book the author also points out that the world-process would, and will, inevitably bite back fulfilling its objective---and indeed it is already doing so.

<'Also, how have you figured in the negative consequences of reducing the use of fossil fuels that now supply food, shelter, medicine, transport and communications to billions of people? Since these are now supporting human life”>

Fossil fuels are artificially propping up human greed and gluttony, used in the right way they'd be a life support, but currently, are a fatalistic approach.

<”Ethically, how do you justify killing even one person? “>

How do you justify killing, enslaving and torturing even one animal to satisfy your gluttony.

Wing Ah Ling, the author may not have presented her piece exactly as she wished to express, but she at least tried. It's not one thing like global warming, which is the problem, but the approach to life by ideologically controlled humans of every description. It's a mental disease which seems to create delusional expectations of illusionary hope, we see it in every form of governance, business and cultural society. It's not science, which is at fault, but how it's implemented by humans controlled by vested interests, or ideological desire, both really one and the same thing.

The planets ecology and biodiversity has allowed us to live and evolve to this point, now it's collapsing, irrelevant to global warming or Co2 production. It wouldn't matter if we put no extra Co2 into the atmosphere, we are putting huge amounts of particulates and destabilising gases into it. But the most important thing we've done and almost completely irreversible, we're making extinct the basic requirements supporting our food chains, destroyed most of the planets productive land and ecosystems which supported it. Quasi religion, is all ideology, including your's.

Fossil fuel lobby controlling the debate? Pardon me but where has the author been. The reason the Kyoto accord was not signed initially by Australia was because the agreement was a complete waste of time and effort. Also, unlike all the other countries who did sign, Australia had no easy out (for various reasons, most of the signatories could easily meet their obligations), and would feel obliged to do something about its international commitments. A number did not bother - notably Canada.
As is now widely acknowledged, Kyoto had not the slighest effect on emissions. The world is having another go in December, but it is extremely unlikely that anything useful will result.
Added to all of that if you look at graphs of annual global temperatures constructed by the likes of the Hadley centre it looks worrying (at least worryingly to activists) as if it is coming off a peak. The author's ambulance may be long delayed but the patient may not be as sick as first thought.

"Delaying effective action on global warming for 20 years is not commonly viewed as a crime, and yet it could condemn humanity to oblivion."

and nor should it ever be viewed as a "CRIME".

"Laws" and thus "crimes" should never be based on the ill concieved perceptions and limits of an extremist zealot minority.

The notion that humanity could be "condemned to oblivion" is pure hysteria ...

Someone needs to get a life and deal with some real issues, instead of prancing on about the disputible causes and consequences of "global warming", especially when we note the world is in a constant state of "temperature flux".

These fanciful whims of extremists and hysteria are not the basis and never must be the basis for any criminal or even civil prosecution.

"Last week, on May 27, at 8am we held a banner,"

and last week, on 27 May I was making soup and it is very nice.

"no taxpayer dollars to polluters".

No argument from me there... trouble is Krudd and Co are going to consume too many tax payer dollars to fund the interest on his foolish borrowings... imho I would rather see a banner

"no tax payer dollars for a profligate federal government"

....

"I resent the continued influence of the fossil fuel lobby."

and I resent the continued influence of environmental extremists who demand the criminalisation of the fanciful and the curtailment of everyone elses civil rights.

Next.....