dickie,

'Should people allow you to gag them, revert to "pretty neutral" or should they continue with debate even if their handy hints make you "angry?"'

None of the above. I don't mean to gag anyone. I just want to expose the real motives of this 'my carbon footprint is smaller than yours', morally superior set. I also want people to realise that their 'moral superiority is founded on their ability to afford more 'religious donations to mother earth' in the form of financial/lifestyle sacrifice than the next person.'

It's like making a big production of putting a $50 dollar note in the collection plate at church and telling all the people in your row 'if I can do it anyone can', and thinking you're a better Christian for example.

To be convinced by ' hard scientific evidence', one must have a high opinion of one's analytical skills and scientific aptitude, or have high faith in the scientists. I have explained in an earlier post why I find scientific evidence less than convincing

Steel,

'Making an unsubstantiated jdugement when you know NOTHING -ie, you are 100% ignorant, is absolutely priceless.
'
To be fair I do know some things, and wonder how you have come to the conclusion I am 100% ignorant? Surely that's impossible anyway. Also I have made no final judgement, so I don't have to substantiate anything, and I have not ' question the science without any basis', I have questioned whether the scientists themselves may come around to a definitive final judgement in the future that contradicts the current consensis. Surely this is what science is about, and why it is superior to religious dogma. Maybe that's why I find the treatment of the climate change debate so offensive, as it is anti-science not to question, and climate change is hence turning into a religion. All I have done is kept an open mind.

'dismiss the research of scientists. GOing so far as to call it narcissism. '

Just where have I dismissed any research of scientists. And where have I called it narcissism? If I were to call a tele-evangilist a narcissist, is that the same as calling the christian faith narcissistic?

usual suspect

I partly concur, as laymen we cannot be 100% sure how much global warming can be attributed to human activity. The science is pretty compelling, when the scientists cannot agree, that in itself suggests that we should take notice.

I don't think many scientists disagree that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and general ozone thinning is caused by overuse of ozone depleting substances (CFCs) which are now banned in most countries. In fact on the radio the other day a solution put forward was to propel some sort of sulphur compound into the stratosphere to reflect light. But then it was found that the substance itself would contribute to thinning. Scientists are not being idle on research in this area and while they are still battling it out it is not unwise I think to proceed with some caution.

'Reducing our carbon footprint' is just modern jargon for not polluting as much, not sending chemicals into our rivers and not overlogging our forests etc etc etc. Nothing really new here.

We have to ask ourselves do we believe that some of the environmental suggestions and ideas in response to global warming will make a positive difference to our planet or are we all just wasting our time?

Environmentalism is not like religion, there is science to back it up. I wonder if the letters to the paper you refer to are more about being positive and helpful rather than any genuine attempt at one-upmanship.

Yes there is some self-righteousness I grant you, last night on the TV some model was bleating about using low energy light bulbs (the mercury laden ones) as though she was the first one who thought of it (I am probably being a bit unkind). This is the cultural response to change I suppose - we are in the process of evolving and in the future talk of the environment won't be as prolific because many of the ideals will have been achieved and will be the accepted norm.

Until such time I guess there will be more harping :).

I will believe that environmentalists/Greens/the Left are serious about solving climate change - not simply using it as a scare tactic to push their ideologies - when they start questioning their own sacred cows, such as their blind opposition to GM crops.

Getting behind the research to develop drought tolerant/salinity tolerant/heat tolerant crops, and crops that yield more through resistance to pests and mould, would do far more to help feed the world and address the changing conditions than cutting showers by 2 minutes and self-righteously proclaiming it. Let's see some real sacrifice - being willing to rethink one of your pet crusades.

US “Notice how some of the posts have proved my point.”

I see it US. The source of the posts will not, they see their view as omnipotent and beyond challenge.

If it is of any reassurance, US, I am having fun with a detractor in the “New Taxation System” thread too.

Stand fast to your view.

As dearest Margaret said “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

The environmentalist and levelers here are exhausted of argument, ad hominines is all they have left.

I note little dickies post,

he/she who has still to find and justify the posting evidence of the claim he/she made that I was a supporter of cartels –

I will grow old waiting for dickie to prove that and all because I have the audacity of challenging the environmentalist view with common sense.

I am not stalking you dickie, just holding you to account for what you post.

I got up at 5:50 today to travel across the City for a 7:00 am breakfast organised by a financial services group and accounting body. We duly listened to a noted environmental speaker with credentials (Doctorates and PhDs from all over) and a CV including working for UN.

He talked on and criticized the inefficiencies of supply chain management, ignoring the obvious “economies of scale”, which drive the “counter-balance” of production efficiency to “supply chain length”.

Actually he is at least 60 years behind the times. Australian manufacturing has always balanced “local production” versus “economies of scale” in determining where to place manufacturing plants. It is a standard component of what I have been trained to evaluate.

He further, completely ignored the bleeding obvious, that human population numbers have a significant influence on all environmental issues, not mentioning global population once.

That might explain why he was not receiving a presenters fee, because, like most “environmental experts”, what he said was a bunch of crap.

The environmentalists are fine, playing in the sand pit but in the real world, where people need to work, earn a living, bring up families etc. they are out of their depth.

Leave them to build convoluted theories, computer and social engineering models.

And leave the real world to the real business folk who know how to run it.

Ah well, at least the venue and food was good and I entertained the table with a few enviro gags.

Like:

What to do with an environmentalist when he dies?

Bury him with his butt stuck out the ground and use him as a bicycle rack.