Damn it. Built two or three nuclear reactors in Western Sydney. Put the waste in open air dumps on Ashmore reef and other off-shore islands. That would solve energy issues, carbon issues any immigration issues all at the same time.

Phew why hasn't kevvy come up with that solution.

Keith for PM!

ODO,
I merely pointed to the fact that most of the posts showed thin skin political bias and to hell with the topic. Observation of the comments to that point.

FYI. I don't give gnats testicle which party is in power('government'). As for the running around in panic? Nonsense!

One might wonder why Spindoc manages to write on topic.

What I glean from your post is that it's okay for you to wax irrelevant axe grinding, but I'm not allowed to point out faulty, myopic reasoning or objectivity as it's > "sanctimonious whining smart ass(ing) <". It that your point?
__________________
SM

I commented to the politically laden title and opener, your intention were political propaganda, which is your want. i.e. say something often enough it becomes the truth.

I don't accept value in myopic party policy politicking as it neither adds to the truth nor the the country's benefit.

While I respect your intelligence, I don't your motives when attempting to disguise them as genuine interest in a subject.
You above most, know when You're loading prose.

I therefore responded to the subterfuge.

_____________________________
Apologies to the author I'm resonding to specific comments.

Spindoc, all.

Now that you point it out you have a point, although I suspect what you found was unintended by the author.

BTW the 'science' of AGW is a current topic.(not started by me)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3312

I don't wish to divert the topic at hand or lecture, merely to make the observation that a scientific analysis consists of base science principals, methodology, Data, statistical importance, analysis and then conclusions/interpretations. The problem is that most "deniers(?)" seem to be confused as to what constitutes a complicated scientifically based debate. They tend to gravitate towards simplistic rebuttals (opinions, not necessarily backed by the other elements) consequently their arguments are 'scientifically' invalid.

As I said elsewhere the science (defined above) is *beyond intuition, it needs a learned knowledge base*. Sources of this base knowledge is widely available. If people choose not to believe credible sources and the science (year 12- uni 1st year ) physics, chemistry etc then I fail to see what else can be done.
All the contra arguments ultimately rely on Conspiracy theories as motive for the 'fraud'. Do we discuss baseless conspiracy theories endlessly? A modicum of the above knowledge shows that the CRU scandal hardly discredits the synthesis of the multi discipline Science involved

I've read the dissenting arguments, argued and posted base science sites, beyond that I'm out of ideas. Do you have any?

I fear that the Nuke debate is likewise idealistically (dogma) based and will be decided on that basis rather that objectivity.

NB I am NOT claiming superiority just expressing a view based on wide scientific reading.

Nuclear power: the only energy sector with repeatedly proven direct and indirect links with WMD's - the use of around 0.3% of which poses a dire climate change risk in just hours.

Atman ("Jim Green (his real name?!)")
Yes it is.

Atman ("It seems that power generation and weapon generation are unrelated.")

In fact nuclear power stemmed *from* the weapons race, not the other way around. The two are intrinsically linked via:
i) expertise,
ii) infrastructure,
iii) covert research and
iv) the fuel itself

See:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=214632362&blogId=288871569

And any spruiking that this issue is an either/or coal/nuclear one seems to me the epitome of disingenuousness.

Taswegian ("If you think that wind and solar can make any real dent in coal burning then you are really voting for continued radioactivity not less.") I doubt that anyone with even a basic understanding of the issue is advocating a singular "solution".

Consider also that around 2/3 of GHG emissions globally don't even come from generating electricity.

Yet in terms of energy the solution is:
- energy conservation & efficiency measures as paramount (wrt elec, transport and industry)
- a *combination* of renewable, sustainable, safer alternatives, much of which can also be decentralised, drastically reducing transmission & distribution losses.