That is a typo in the opening line, isn't it? "On December 8, 3009 56 newspapers in 45 countries...."

Is the focus of this editorial compiled by The Guardian newspaper a tacit admission by trans-national governments and bureaucracy to what can be loosely referred to as 'peak oil'?

It strikes me that focussing the world's attention upon climate is the perfect diversion for avoiding public focus upon the seeming lack there has been at governmental level for provisions for bringing on-stream alternative energy sources.

For if public attention was to be focussed upon alternative energy substitution, instead of upon (fast running out) fossil-fuel derived climatic effects, the realization by the public that if it has to effectively fund the changeover then perhaps it should also own outright the new industry, might get to be avoided. There are indications in Australia that only around 80% of the public have opposed the privatisation of the largely coal-fired domestic (electricity) energy supply industry. If the replacement non-fossil fuelled alternative was to be brought on-stream in public ownership, might that not mean that a higher degree of public accountability would be both expected and in due course be unavoidable? What interests would stand to be disadvantaged in such circumstances of public focus upon alternative energy source substitution?

I have more questions. Should it become apparent that there has either been a failure to effectively anticipate 'peak oil', or a covert plan to give the 'inside track' to certain established interests that have otherwise seemingly left their customers in the lurch, would not significant changeover in management at industry, bureaucratic, and governmental levels be indicated?

What is the ownership of The Guardian, and from where is its editorial policy directed?

What is the ownership of the other 55 newspapers in which this editorial appeared?

This year the Australian government committed $450 million of taxpayers money to fund hot dry rock geothermal electricity generation. Who have been the beneficiaries?

Maybe Mark Twain was wrong. Perhaps somebody is trying to do something about the weather, to the public detriment.

"An outrageous attempt to orchestrate media pressure. Go to hell.” said one US newspaper that defies the left's emasculation of the press.

So there goes journalistic integrity and objective reporting, and here comes finger wagging group think.

It's interesting they didn't run a similar line on the Mohamed cartoons, also linked to Copenhagen incidentally.

This article contains a number of widely held beliefs which are either contradicted or not well supported by evidence, examples:

"11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record" - Reliable satellite data only goes back 35 or so years, and when coupled with the long established fact that the earth's temperatures at any particular time are either going up or down there is nothing remarkable about that statistic except to say that the last 14 years represent an upward trend (which occurs about 50% of the time over any particular period). If we are talking about older, less precise measurements than satellite, then there is wide agreement in the scientific community that the Middle Ages were at least as warm as the modern world, without any assistance from the extra CO2 atom per 10,000, which Mankind has added.

"The science is complex but the facts are clear" - As clear as mud. The data for the last 9 or so years do not show the clear upward trend that the years before predicted, even though CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate. So the 'fact' that the planet is now warming isn't even clear, let alone the causes.

<continued>

"The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based" - A good chunk of the evidence on which the predictions are based has been greatly influenced by the work of the scientists at the heart of the Climate Gate scandal, including, for example, scientists who came up with the Hockey Stick graph used in "An Inconvenient Truth." Their very great influence on the IPCC's reports must significantly undermine any rational person's confidence in the IPCC.

"The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance - and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing." - We just plain do not know the answer to this question. Trashing our economies with emissions caps will drastically reduce our ability to adapt to the same changes that the doomsayers claim are already locked in, and could well make the impact on people much worse. Moreover, there are some benefits to a warmer CO2 rich world which just aren't being dealt with in all the doom and gloom scenarious being sold by the media.

In short, the media should report facts, not promote their own green belief systems

Listening to the daily summary of the Copenhagen Conference on ABC ‘News Radio’ yesterday evening, I heard a pro-warming scientist advise repeatedly that we were experiencing the third highest temperatures on record.

Not the HIGHEST temperatures on record; the THIRD highest.

This admission from a proponent of global warning that temperatures have been higher in the past than they are now (as dissenters have always said) casts further doubts on the motives of the eager beavers of the climate change industry.

Today’s news reports that “Australia has firmly committed itself to funding poor nations to tackle climate change. Australia co-wrote a discussion paper on how this funding should work.”

There were vague reports about a ‘leaked’ paper yesterday which was said to have Australia’s “fingerprints all over it”. The Danes at first denied the existence of the paper, and then denied only that they had anything to do with it.

Australia has no business firmly committing to anything. The ridiculous Rudd proposal to move our wealth to Third World countries with no effect on the climate has been thrown out by the Senate.

Added to the fact that Rudd’s ETS has been defeated, an article in ‘The Independent Australian’ for Spring 2009 suggests that the Australian Constitution precludes our Governments from making treaties with the United Nations unless they are of a commercial nature, without first being approved by referendum.

That claim warrants further investigation of course, but it is something to think about at a time when the incumbent government wants us to believe that transferring money to developing countries will have any effect on climate change.

The complexities of the Constitution make it far too easy for governments to pull swifties. It doesn’t matter whether the governments are Labor or Coalition. Turnbull wanted to help Rudd our; and he has vowed to cross the floor when the bill is next tabled.

Too many Australians are fooled by the word ‘democracy’ and believe that our politicians are honest.

The pumped up climate scam is about to be exposed. The conference delegates at Copenhagen will suffer a rapid and painful process of deflation. The excess gaseous mixture of hot air, carbonic oxides and other noxious substances will evacuate though the distal segments of their collective alimentary tract.

The Gruaniad is known as the “Gruaniad” because of their long history of incompetence in proof reading.

As Forest Gumpp correctly observed “On December 8, 3009 56 newspapers in 45 countries took the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial”

Doubtless “reality” will prevail to ensure

“If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.”

is likewise as rigorously tainted and error inclusive as the gruaniads proof reading.

I must admit, I love all this AGW hype…

I have even developed an “interest” in a particular “authority”, which is attempting to find a niche in the regulatory market….

Well I might as well have a bet each way when the trillions of dollars prize money, going begging; rather than leave it to be squandered by a bunch of "bodgey & bodgey" scientists, left-wing political shysters and self-righteous and over-opinionated environmentalists.

the strength of capitalism is lways to see the opportunity which, in this case, the lefties have made for us ....


we all know that whilst AGW / ETC has been set up as a very clumsy attempt at


"Socialism by Stealth"


It will all end up (what it was doomed to become)


"the Newest opportunity for the imaginative capitalist"


Now, where did I leave my "moral compass".....


ah here it is... tucked away, inside my "monopoly" game box...

I am now confused Col, is it Socialism or "imaginative Capitalism" that's going on here?

or are you saying that the Socialists, while stealthy, will fall prey to the imaginative capitalists?

So Leigh has been "listening"?

He *heard* "a pro-warming scientist advise repeatedly that we were experiencing the third highest temperatures on record."

The inimitable Leigh says "Not the HIGHEST temperatures on record; the THIRD highest." (his emphasis)

He confounds his *hearing* with this gem:

"This admission from a proponent of global warning that temperatures have been higher in the past than they are now (as dissenters have always said) casts further doubts on the motives of the eager beavers of the climate change industry."

Leigh of course is a graduate of the old school - you know, the dumb-nuts that think global warming means higher temperatures each year.

Well, according to *Leigh's Logic*, I am a dissenter too. Perhaps I can even be ordained by the Bishops and Abbotts in their church as a reward?

BRAVO Col!

I just love that post...

'"Socialism by Stealth"

It will all end up (what it was doomed to become)

"the Newest opportunity for the imaginative capitalist"

Now, where did I leave my "moral compass".....

ah here it is... tucked away, inside my "monopoly" game box...'

Time will tell. You WILL see.
And all your comments and opinions will be stored here for us to remember who it was that stopped action being taken.
Then maybe we should make those who delayed action be the ones to pay?
Just have a think about that for a second. I know where I want to be standing.
The backlash against the deniers will be fierce if they are wrong and our cities begin to drown.
Time will tell!

That's interesting mikk. So a few posters on OLO are responsible for no action being taken by anyone on climate change. I had no idea they were so powerful.

It seems pretty obvious your only conviction on the subject is motivated by a fear of people tut tutting you in the event of one of these disaster porn movies becoming the reality. Hardly admirable.

I'm sure the 5% cut in our 0.5% of the worlds emissions will save us. Don't you.

In return to "the guardian", Who is Inigo Owen Jones?

<<So a few posters on OLO are responsible for no action being taken by anyone on climate change. I had no idea they were so powerful.>>

Not powerful. LIABLE!
Every denier is helping (albeit in their own small way) to stop action being taken and putting their children (and ours) at risk. They must be reminded that their actions and words will not be forgotten and in the event that they are wrong they will be held accountable. All of them! Rest assured, I will be doing a lot more than tut tutting should you neanderthals be wrong and disaster befalls us

So mikk - you'll have no problem with skeptics hunting you do as well when it turns out all to be a fabulous folly? I expect you'll be right up front and volunteer yourself for public ridicule, and be happy to wear a sign around your neck, something like "I thought science was a religion, I was wrong" (this is my Friday sense of humor obviously)

Or is the liability only one way?

"I will be doing a lot more than tut tutting should you neanderthals be wrong and disaster befalls us" - really like what? Undoing the knot in your knickers? What would you do, besides braying like the bully you are, come on don't be bashfull, tell us what you'd do?

Jeez you get some whackers on these forums, anonymous violent threats now, if you don't join group think. It's a democracy mikk, we're allowed to have different thoughts and speak them, and it is actually protected in our constitution.

I know it's your own personal effort to silence dissent and debate, but other people are actually allowed to disagree with you, as weird as you find that concept.

Oh well, i'm sure you feel empowered making empty, hollow threats.

I'd suggest a good lie down, Bex if you've got em, and try to think peaceful thoughts, you're losing it.

What is it with the anger on the Internet? I'm all for anonymity, but sometimes I think some people should be hunted down and medicated for their own good.

mikk, you are probably a suitable case for treatment, like Morgan was.

Just my happy thought for the day ..

Bugsy has, obviously, never heard the term

“playing to the gallery”

And Houlle obviously has

HA HA

Mikk “And all your comments and opinions will be stored here for us to remember who it was that stopped action being taken.”

And what will happen then?

Will we all be sent off to some re-education gulag ?

Will we be forced to toil in the killing fields ?

Will our food supplies be diverted in the name of the socialist proletariat and we be left to starve to death?

Will our children be removed from our care and placed into state boarding schools to be brainwashed to best suit Bolshevism?

Because all the above are among the “tools” used by previous socialist / collectivist governments to ensure their citizens “conformed” with the collective view

and here you are warning us that our comments will be remembered for having stopped the great socialist fraud of the 21st century

and that we will be “LIABLE!”

Doubtless the Mikk equivalent of “the committee for public safety” (per the Robespierre model) will be prosecuting me

I recall during the time of the Frnch revolution the period known as “The Terror” was that time after the common citizenry had taken control and all were fearful of being denounced. Lenin and Stalin used similar devices and dear old Erich Honecker did a splendid job with his Staasi.

The point of “being” an individual is to develop and grow. We are not all “worker ants” grovelling to support the whole but all individuals who exercise choices.

In short.. the difference between living and existing is

The right of choice

So, regarding all the collectivist responsibility swills attempts at moral blackmail and notions of free individuals being “LIABLE”

Mikk - Go blow it out your “socialist cesspool” ear (or any other available orifice)

"Yes, Brian, we're all individuals"

Come on Col, is it Socialism or Capitalism at work here?

IF action is taken and we reduce human releases of greenhouse gasses and it turns out nothing changes then I will be the first to admit I was wrong and happily bow down to you luddites and take any sanctions you care to dish out.
Like I said Time will tell.

Sadly I have come to the conclusion that once again the forces of greed and oppression in the form of the wealthy, elite, far right wing powermongers will use their cash and their power to force their greed driven ideology of domination onto all of us and nothing will be done until it is too late and disaster is imminent or has already happened. All so they dont lose their exalted status both in their own minds and in their Swiss bank accounts. With their control of government and media they are bamboozling the public and clouding the issues in the best propaganda traditions of fascists everywhere.

I doubt it will come to re-eduction camps and I dont support violence, even against fools, but if you are wrong you will be ridiculed, shamed, ostracised and ignored because of your medieval ignorance and plain filthy greed

Bugsy, you know that it's Socialism by Stealth.

Mikk, you are an idiot. Don't you do any reading, before bursting into print?

A statement of support, by 500 companies, read at Copenhagen, included most of the oil majors, including Shell Oil, & British Petroleum.

It is these cashed up companies who stand to make the biggest profits, trading in carbon credits, & futures.

Guess where all this profit is going to come from? Your pocket mate, & mine.

If there is any truth in all the con, which seems more unlikely all the time, a carbon tax would be best for you & me. Trading is to suit the big boys.

Oh mikk, calling skeptics Luddites is completely off the mark.

After all, you're the ones who don't want or believe in change.

We all accept the climate changes, you all don't want it to. You want it to be something else, and can't accept that it is going to change regardless.

Your fantasy that mankind is causing it, thus can uncause it is the greatest folly of our existence - and the scientific community, amply armed with statistics, which we all know never lie (that's sarcasm, you need to state that on this site), are skewing results so as to meet their predictions.

The trouble is, the whole thing is coming apart, that's the whole point of the CRU data outing, they admit they don't know what causes climate in the emails, and it is obvious they are fudging it.

"forces of greed and oppression" are not the wealthy, it is the UN, and the 3rd world countries now as well as the eco fascists who all see an opportunity to get ahead not by working hard or investing wisely, but by politics and banging the begging bowl and relying on emotion.

The UN is upset as they can see all that money slipping away, another opportunity to dig into the wallets of developed countries to redistribute as THEY want to.

You really have it ass backwards, but it is amusing - like Hasbeen says, do some reading, clearly you have a theory but it needs updating and some current awareness thrown in.

Col your "right of choice" does not extend to the willful and avoidable destruction of the planet for your own greedy desires.
Your insane "reds under the beds" mentality and rabid hatred of anything possibly "socialist" is just illogical and dogmatic in the extreme. You argue, wrongly, that socialism is lack of freedom and choice and the authoritarianism of stalin or mao. I do not support any such thing so I musnt be a "socialist".
I support freedom of choice and individuality, indeed I value them, and diversity, as the most important traits of humanity. What I dont support is exploitation, domination, servitude, elitism, unfairness, inequity, injustice, corruption, ignorance, racism, nationalism, consumerism, pollution, extreme wealth, parasitism, freeloading, violence, war, exclusion, faith, capitalism and god. All things I increasingly see becoming more and more indicative of todays disfunctional and destructive society. So how does that make me a "socialist" like stalin or mao?
You argue as if you are in the fifth grade... in the 50s. The cold war is over mate. Now it is time to take down the greedy capitalists. This time before they destroy us all and make the whole world a siberian gulag cesspit of death and disaster.

mikk "when our cities begin to drown"...

Well if that's the consequence I'd best start using more carbon. Dont you see, if our cities drown, the human plague is eliminated and our carbon emission targets will be met (not to mention a lot of other things just get more sustainable too). Now, if we can just think up a ruse to get the Canberra population there too, we'll also be free of the idiots who are trying to hamstring our ability to deal with any POTENTIAL climate crisis.

The greens are calling for massive sacrifices to be made by all earth's citizens, and it is not surprising that there is massive resistance.

This should be the point where safe cheap nuclear power is rolled out over the world so that the impact on people's lives can be minimized.

If they cannot back away from selling the unpalatable, then Copenhagen will produce nothing, and the world will suffer. The choice is global warming or nuclear. The question is can the greens grow up enough to make the hard choices.