The Forum > Article Comments > All in favour? Let's debate it ... > Comments
All in favour? Let's debate it ... : Comments
By Peter McCloy, published 26/10/2009It's hard to believe every single member of the Labor Party is in favour of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Where is the debate?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Hi Peter, I can see the political class have cooked up this scare campaign because they know it is going to get cooler and more people will want to move to warmer living areas (boat people first signs of panic). So if cooler can deliver more rain and extra Co2 delivers a higher return on crops and vegetation growth rates are higher, a new environmentally sustainable agricultural era might usurp the collective thought bubbles of the lazy lefts social engineering and modeling programs. When cooling increases and the global warmers "read, the lost new hippies" might find a new Nimbin or Cedar bay only in their high density ghettos within inner city squats which could be very cold, day and night. What then, more Australian made woolen blankets? Or dare I say, heaps of unsustainable synthetic undergarments.
Posted by Dallas, Monday, 26 October 2009 1:42:51 PM
| |
Politicians, having been elected to positions of great responsibility should not be so irresponsible as to wilfully ignore the scientific advice at their disposal and base policy and their parliamentary votes on what the polls are saying. On taxation, on defence, on every issue of importance including climate change I want them to act responsibly - deliberately ignoring all the science that comes directly from ours (and the world's) scientific institutions in favour of selected sources that say the opposite is dangerously irresponsible. Doing so because an uninformed or misinformed voting public make the irresponsible a short term vote winner is not what I want from our politicians.
The author would see us still debating this well past the point where worst case consequences can be avoided. As the world's biggest coal exporter and highest per capita emitters we are not inconsequential on this issue. Posted by Ken Fabos, Monday, 26 October 2009 4:03:32 PM
| |
finally the fantasy of gw is being exposed from many different angles. There are a growing number of scientist demanding some evidence (even though the 'science is settled') Mr Rudd, Garrett and Ms Wong must have a very empty feeling inside knowing they are sucking up to the international community on the basis of lies. Barnaby, Steve Fielding and Wilson Tuckey have more credibility on this issue than the whole of the inept Labour party and perverse Greens put together. The number of 'true believers' is diminishing but unfortunately the number still holding to the blind faith continues as their funding and acceptability from the lying high priests depend on it. Inward corruption has bred this self righteous display of piety. Just look at the hypocrisy of the high priest burning up the carbon in their private jets. That way they even get to avoid the silly little option Qantas give you to pay extra. For Mr Rudd to sell out to these lies is despicable.
Posted by runner, Monday, 26 October 2009 4:14:05 PM
| |
For those who might want to see reputable evidence that the Earth has NOT been cooling since 1998 (contrary to Hasbeen and Dallas' claims), you can look at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/ Hasbeen - Keating, Costello, Howard and friends have been demolishing Australian industries and jobs, urban and rural, for decades, and for no better reason than ideology. We ought certainly to support those displaced, and better than they are supported under current arrangements. Posted by Geoff Davies, Monday, 26 October 2009 4:27:24 PM
| |
Hi Peter you can't have it both ways you must have arguing politition's to have debate. Better than shooting each other .One of the reasons that NSW has been badly served is the lack of good debates and exchanges between the members of parliment.
Posted by dibbles, Monday, 26 October 2009 5:16:36 PM
| |
Now that Obama is not going to Copenhagen, because the Democrat controlled Senate cannot agree on climate change action, and since China and India are revealing they intend to do as little as possible to reduce emissions (Both intend to increase emissions) what likely validity has any agreement from Copenhagen?
Oh that's right the Europeans, who ignore usually Kevvy or pat him on his head, will dominate the debate. I shudder at that consequence for Australia. Posted by keith, Monday, 26 October 2009 6:11:49 PM
|