Q&A,
<<"No Spindoc, I am not in any pain (so I can't imagine what your feeling) - nor am I angry." You did not reply so I assumed you were ok with that.>>

First, never assume. Secondly, if you are not in pain you are, a) kidding yourself or b) you soon will be.

Q&A, AGW is over, finito, busted, rug pulled. You and so many others have been had.

I feel sorry for those who have/are studying any form of environmental science, which saw the market dry up overnight. What will our Uni’s teach now?

I don’t feel sorry for those who will lose their money on carbon credits but I do feel sorry for those who have or will lose their jobs.

Most of all I feel sorry for my grandkids that have systematically been frightened to death by the AGW bogymen. Child Alienation Syndrome is a domestic violence crime in Australia and if I could find some way of retribution against those who have given my grandkids nightmares I would pursue it to the full.

If there is ever a class action in Australia, I will join it.

spindoc: << AGW is over, finito, busted, rug pulled. You and so many others have been had. >>

Er, no spindoc. What's happened is what many of us predicted - human selfishness and tribal self-interest trumps collective action for the greater good of all. As a species we really aren't as evolved as we think we are.

Most of all I feel sorry for my and your grandkids who are going to have live with the mess that we've created, knowing full well that their grandparents' generation didn't act to reduce global warming when they had the opportunity to do so.

You're right spindoc, I should never assume. I once assumed you were an "AGW agnostic" sitting on the fence.

<< AGW is over, finito, busted, rug pulled. You and so many others have been had. >>

Yep, you "had" me alright. You agnostic? Nope, that was just a lie.

It was/is always going to be difficult to get 190+ countries with differing stages of development, economies, political and religious stance, to agree on how and when, how much, by who, etc.

But guess what, not one of those countries or their representatives think AGW is "over, finito, busted or rug pulled" - not even Saudi.

I think addressing the issues surrounding a warmer and wetter world is a very real conundrum - but we must.

Am I angry? No.
Am I optimistic? If your response is typical - no, I am not.

I don't feel sorry for your grand-kids spindoc, nor mine - I fear for them. Their grand-kids will be inheriting an impoverished world if it is left up to people like you.

Q&A
Amen.
________________

Spindoc.

Popularism doesn't = science.

As I have said before if they stop teaching environmental science do you include physics, chemistry, etc too? Well they are the basis of environmental science.

I also note you have said that there needs to be a debate on the science. I gave you a response and asked questions. You didn't respond.
Now you say the science is bogus, it's all over red rover.
Have I misinterpreted you?

Evidence suggest that you are a denier not an agnostic. To be an agnostic one must have reasoning and science to back that position.
Say what you will about me, but I always try to explain my position and why, now, where's the *science* that proves (A)GW is wrong.

Ultimately our nation negotiates to get an agreement that does the least we can get away with rather than the most we are capable of - on the basis that we shouldn't do more than the least anyone else does.

Our export coal and coal industries meanwhile are being expanded as far and as fast as possible. As the world's biggest coal exporter we are already a major player and when it comes to supplying those raw materials of climate change our true position, with it's green facade washed away, is to increase that supply.

I suppose as our agricultural exports are hurt by climate change we'll be even more dependent on the revenue from fossil fuel exports and our governments will fight harder to prevent international action that could impact them.

Make no mistake, the rest of the world can see Australia's hypocrisy clearly.

Well, nice try...…to get Nations together again after Geneva and the war to end all wars in 1918, then the U.N.after another war to end all wars in 1945 but history has clearly shown that there is no such thing as obtuse Nations doing anything together for the common good least of all in good faith. More so when rising populations with rising affluence become consumers of manufactured goods from polluting processes. The U.N. says another 2.9 billion by 2040, an increase of one third.....one third. Therein lies the problem of trying to create a new World Order.

If the causes of climate change, are indeed man made, then the answer is unclear and requires the sacrifice of vested interests on the altar of political theatre. Legislating an Emissions Trading Scheme is Australia’s tax on that assumption. But if it is the forever changing elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun then the answer is clear..adapt to it as all other life on Earth has adapted to climate change over past millenniums. The melting of the Ice Caps raising the sea levels before they begin to freeze again creates a problem for some of the Pacific Nations.This is the area to prepare for a different future on higher ground….. in rented space?. In the meantime it appears that Copenhagen is/was all about money and not intended to reach a scientific consensus for none of Australia's contingent of 114 delegates was a scientist. Europe and the U.S., one week later are in the grip of a great freeze and the Eurotunnel has broken down due to the cold. Global warming ? or a start of the next cooling?