Australia we are told produces 1% of the worlds green house gases.
If we produced nil would it change anything?
If the world adopted our range 5 to 15% it would make a great difference, or would it?
Chances are at least half the world will adopt a rang not unlike ours.
But will India?, China, is the hysteria we are seeing from protesters going to achieve anything?
America, now about to be under the leadership of some one bound to real change will cut gases by more than our total outlets, just a start?

Belly,
Climate change is a natural occurrence and there 'aint nothin' we can do to alter it.

So the amount we reduce our emissions by is totally irrelevant.

More important things to spend money on. Utter waste of time, energy and money.

im failing to see how gearing up industry to build YET more cars etc will reduce carbon?
china is slowing down[us etc[thus less energy is burned, so a natural reduction of 5 percent right there globally ,just by doing nothing

then the grants of permits is an absurdity[the big poluters get a 'passcard'[as turn bull[into what] would say

if govt was serious it would stop the price of petrol from falling too low[think if people started driving again] high prices keeps them off the road[but were not paying real prices , as the powers that be bring russia/chaves and them arabs back into line by revealing just who controls the price of gas[and everything else]

kevin you need to have high petrol prices to reap in the fuel; excise levie[thats the way john did it]screw the peasants [how are we going to get them into the streets if gas keeps comming down, and you keep giving them more cash]

global warning became climate change
[now gore is saying the us deep freeze is a sign of global; warming [lol]

anyhow kev put his cards on the table [and his first opening bid is 5 percent [whats turncoat's[sorry bull] going to do [same as john , do the numbers then do what the masters tell him to do

we arnt meant to lead in this [one percent that we produce of the total is nearly nothing[the greens think to have the running [but what will the libs do ? ,the wisest way is a conscience vote[once its in they only need a midnight sitting to change the tax rate]

either way the greens cant vote against it

and the libs cant afford to be seen opposing it
so they got their new tax

[debate over]
kevi wins with a lay down misare

the dealing is done

Well I find my self in the middle of those two posts, I do not fully agree with both of them.
Rudd, no way because he leads my party, seems to me to have taken the only path he could.
Self interest is driveing some in this debate, and others protest for protest sake.
Can anyone see humans giving up the motor car?, or shuting down our air conditioners in hot summer weather?
I am a conservationist, truely, but some tree huggers have no links to reality and blacken the name.
Farmers via the all over the shop national party, the voice of the mining industry till just lately say tree growing will take farming land?
No wonder we get conservation mixed up with extremism.
Some coastal forest is a failure, trees that suport little life and are not even value as fire wood, could see usable forests grown, usable forest timbers, if we use such land we improve that country.
More trees we grow the better, why not on land we do not use now for anything.
Our national target can, if the world takes it up be first step, to ask us to contribute more given our over all output is one percent of the total is dumb.
As some sit for hours in stalled cars on the NSW Pacific highway in Holiday traffic look on the southern end at the dead country, produceing nothing, tell me lifting the lands value with sewage recycled and growing useable native trees is not worth while.

Belly and all.
Good observations,
As someone who does volunteer bush care for a council including collecting seed and growing native plants for regen in my back yard. (Almost a full time job.)
I share your views on zealots of any flavour. Contrary to common myth Zealots rarely achieve anything it takes a reasonable approach and real work.

Regardless of the truth of Global warming (sic) common sense tells us that we can't continue our profligate life style for ever without adverse consequences. I ask what will GW matter if we’ve polluted everything, destroyed our good soil etc. Expecting Science to solve all issues is a naive and selfish ask.

The hardest people to deal with are “good” (sic) citizens who don’t care about anything except their own immediate satisfaction made worse by lack of rational planing and ignorance.
Belly, I agree 5% of 1% is moot but it’s all the associated changes in wasteful living that WILL make the difference if we really sensitise to the environment.

BTW I’ve never seen a piece of bush that was a waste and not supporting real, important natural life. It may not be obvious but it’s there.

In my own degraded bush I have seen if quiet and still enough some amazing wild life e.g. when weeding the small robins/wrens etc watching with interest, move away and they swoop for a exposed meal.
One hot day I nodded off and awoke to find superb blue wren perched on my chest directing his family savaging around me.
While searching for groundcover seeds on hands and knees about the same time each day for about a week. I looked up for some reason and saw two white fluffy goshawk nestlings watching from a previously assumed abandoned nest. The Next day my Bush care supervisor brought a camera but the chicks refused to show. He left they popped up to watch me. They had been habituated to MY presence. I watched the normally secretive goshawks feeding and house cleaning etc.

Belly

^Can anyone see humans giving up the motor car?, or shutting down our air conditioners in hot summer weather?^

You are not thinking clearly.
Electric motor cars are not a problem.

Air conditioners are not needed at all.Each night is colder than is comfortable and each day is hotter than is comfortable.Variable controlled ventilation can make your building any temperature between the cold and hot with only the small energy consumption of an intelligently controlled air pump.The thermal mass of the building retains the temperature when the outside is too hot or too cold.

5% of nothing is nothing.

25% of nothing is nothing.

100% of nothing would do nothing.

We are a non-entity on the world stage when it comes to AGW. Dear Kevin should be tasked by the opposition to state what change in average world temperatures is expected to result from the 12 Billion dollar Extra Tax Slug.

Redistributing wealth once again.

Belly
Rudd is an astute politician - what do you think the conservative right will do in response?

Notwithstanding the politics, it is in everybody's interests to live in a more sustainable way. The problem is determining how we (collectively) do that.

Rudd is upsetting both the hard-line greens and the neo-con right (i.e. damned if he does and damned if he doesn't). This indicates to me he is genuine - we need good leaders to guide us through the difficult times ahead.

One thing is certain, nothing we do will be worth anything unless the big boys come on line. My guess is Obama will overhaul the recalcitrant Bush Administration's environment and climate change policies (leading up to Copenhagen) with China (then India) acting in lockstep - Europe is on its way.

Belly,
It is a mess. The value of the European credits has bottomed
so the incentive for Europeans to save on CO2 has disappeared.
From what I have read we are not going to have tradable credits
so the Russian oligharcs won't have the same interest in us as they
had in the Europeans. They made a killing on indulgences.
CO2 and its effect has been said to follow a logarithmic curve.
It is said by some, and supported by a couple of graphs I have seen
that at the current level of CO2 even doubling CO2 or quadrupling CO2
will have negligible effect on the earths temperature.
In effect it has saturated.
Water vapour and methane are real possible problems, not CO2.
I believe that before we go any further the government should
convene a commission of scientists, both skeptics and convinced,
lock them up in a room and thrash it all out.
There is just too much in the way of reports from quite credible
people to allow us to spend the amount of money we are facing without
having it sorted out once and for all.
The mantra that the science is settled is just plain nonsense. its not !

Did any of the readers here see the ECO program on Foxtel last
Saturday. I switched onto it to see Al Gore in clerical garb in a
church and he was followed by an American preacher here on a global
warming preaching tour.
Now you probably think I am joking or something but I am serious,
it is not a joke, it was true !
Does this mean global warming is now officially a religion ?

Jai "Redistributing wealth once again."

or as I have been describing it, over the past years or so

"Socialism by Stealth"

Regardless of the impact on the ability of Australia to compete, commercially with the rest of the world (who will operate without an artificial carbon tax inpost on everything) and Asutralian business to gainfully employ people -

KRudd, like a moral vampire, is hell bent to feed his sense of righteous arrogance and ego by inflicting these unwarranted tax imposts upon us.

More money for him to buy more votes with and to regulate and interfer in more aspects of our lives.

Don't blame me, I voted for the Coalition.

i wasnt going to re-enter this debate once govt made its decision, but thgought i would show this final link ,on how despoerite those seeking this new tax to rebuild industy really is

http://www.prisonplanet.com/desperate-double-speak-global-cooling-is-part-of-global-warming.html
but the post looks too little for such a huge fraud

so here we go [one last time]

GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD

• IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

• The world has never seen such freezing heat
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

• VIDEO: The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/UsTF3KX-The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

• Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-pushes-carbon-tax-proposal-that-would-inflict-new-great-depression.html

• Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year
http://www.prisonplanet.com/arctic-ice-grows-30-per-cent-in-a-year.html

• Get Ready For The Obama “Green Brigades”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/get-ready-for-the-obama-green-brigades.html

• British Kids Encouraged To Become "Climate Cops"
http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2008/280708climatecops.htm

• Record Low Temperatures Hit America
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-record-low-temperatures-hit-america.html

• Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1468&cp=6

• No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm

• Globalists Love Global Warming
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

• Sick And Tired Of Being Lectured By Global Warming Hypocrites
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/270407sickandtired.htm

• In the 1970's, "Global Cooling" Was The New Threat
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/241006_b_Cooling.htm

• The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm

so just pay your tax when your told

i wont explain;how on the sun the'sunspots'are a sign of the suns poleshift

how on a water planet these 'sun'spots became'wierd'weather [surges ,storms,etc] as the poles electrics loop and coil about on one and other]

you all dont need to be knowing the earth moves soon[nothing can stop it]but hey maybe our leaders will use some of that tax-cash to ensure the people survive this poleshifting 'judgment day'

While the hard-liners will be unhappy, Rudd didn't really have any choice but to tread softly softly with emissions targets.

With Australia contributing only 1% (or less) of total global emissions any cuts in emissions we make will be the proverbial drop in the ocean without cooperation from major polluters like China and India and the US. It has to be a global effort for there to be any real effect. Rudd should concentrate his efforts on global unity on this rather than any half-hearted but well intentioned attempts at home. Australia does not have the political or economic influence to just 'lead by example'.

Couple this with the immense pressure from business to move offshore I am not sure he could have done anything differently.

It would be hypocritical to implement a 25% carbon tax and then continue to sell coal offshore.

While we all sit around talking about carbon reduction many other environmental issues are being ignored. No matter what one thinks about climate change there is real evidence that pollution, water contamination, large scale clearing of forests affects the wellbeing of human and animal populations.

Living more sustainability is a worthy goal. Clever countries would look to renewable energies and technology to reduce the dependency on polluting industries.

We sadly lack strategic and innovative policy in the areas of the environment - ones that would include discussions about population, restricting the size of cities (decentralisation), protecting forests and ensuring biodiversity, reducing pollution, better non-polluting public transport options and effective water management. What has happened to the Murray Darling because of the influence of big business like cotton is just criminal.

Pelican

Australia could be developing new industries and job opportunities...

The following article about clean, sustainable and safe industries must be what Col means when he regularly parrots “Socialism by Stealth”

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=green-collar-jobs&sc=CAT_INNO_20081212

Green-Collar Jobs--The Future of the Global Workplace

Investing now in clean energy technology will create millions of jobs and lifelong careers.

By Jerome Ringo

I grew up in Lake Charles, LA., where we fished and hunted, living off the land. Like many others, I went to work for the petrochemical industry and stayed for years. That’s where the jobs were. But in 1994 my company offered a buyout. I left and started pushing the chemical industry to clean up its pollution and treat people fairly. I also tried to convince oil companies to explore alternative energy supplies.

Progress was difficult. Fossil fuels were cheap. The underlying principle of the American economy was this: the more fossil fuels we consumed, the richer we became.

The situation is strikingly different today. Spiraling oil and coal consumption drains the economy, depletes the environment, puts America at the mercy of oil-rich states that don’t like us, and weakens the middle class. Domestic jobs are being lost.

Some economists predict trouble, but others see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change how we propel the nation. High fuel prices? Scale up cellulosic ethanol plants. Soaring electricity rates? Retrofit older buildings and construct new ones that are more energy-efficient. Melting glaciers? Replace conventional coal-fired power plants with alternative technology.

This green economy is already unfolding. Production of renewable energy systems is the fastest-growing industrial sector in the world; revenues are rising 25 to 40 percent a year.

What’s more, the clean energy, conservation and efficiency sectors are employing hundreds of thousands of workers. Green-collar job creation is starting to replace the 4.1 million blue-collar jobs the nation has lost since 1998, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Green-collar jobs—installers, line workers, electricians, pipe fitters, and many others—pay wages capable of supporting families and producing careers.

Cont'd

Cont'd

The wind industry alone now employs nearly 20,000 Americans. Newton, Iowa, which lost 1,800 washing-machine manufacturing jobs in 2006, has replaced more than a third of them with two new plants that produce blades and towers for wind power companies. More than 25,000 people reportedly work in the U.S. photovoltaics industry. Sharp Electronics has converted a fading Memphis facility to solar panel production and employs nearly 230 union workers earning solid wages.
All of this sounds encouraging. But to make the transition from the old blue-collar economy to a new green-collar economy, the U.S. needs to scale up its capacity to design and build clean energy in ways that encourage suppliers and users. If the nation wants to supplant Germany, China, Spain, Japan and Denmark and really lead these robust new energy markets, federal and state governments must establish new investment policies that aid entrepreneurs, new tax and credit rules that provide financial incentives, new funds for research and development, and new thinking that quickly shifts our transportation policy away from cars to efficient rapid transit.

The consequences of such a move can be dramatic. In a well-regarded 2004 study, my organization, the Apollo Alliance, showed that a $300-billion investment in the country’s economic and energy future over 10 years would produce 3.3 million jobs. The new principle of American prosperity in the 21st century should be this: clean energy technology that curbs climate change, makes the world more secure, and produces vast new industries and business opportunities can provide the country with millions of good jobs.<<<

Australia could be in the lead with this technology - why aren't we?

Spot on Fractelle

We could be leading on these technologies if we just made the commitment to invest for the long term. It seems ironic that we are investing heavily in bailing out the car industry and heavy metals but failing to put the same weight behind renewables.

What evidence is there that more CO2 forces temperatures up further.
Could somebody please give me a truthful answer to this and not a fairy story as if there is no truthful answer then the emperor has beautiful new clothes that only the WISE cans see and finances and resources are being diverted away from things that matter.

Pelican I agree with much of your post except “What has happened to the Murray Darling because of the influence of big business like cotton is just criminal.”

Ask the question “who issued and were paid for the licences to extract that water?”
The answer

state governments

With all the Eastern states run by labor, you have the name to blame.

I happen to believe water is an exception to most rules. It is an essential for life, unlike power supplies, telecoms, banks, airlines and most other government enterprises past or present.

I believe water should be managed as a national resource however, I am concerned, we appear to have a federal government who, if the national economy is any example, are more intent on abusing our national resources than managing them for the benefit of Australians present and future and I do recall how the Victorian state government held oput against the national plans of the liberals – an exercise in political cynicism at its most contemptible..

Fractelle “The following article about clean, sustainable and safe industries must be what Col means when he regularly parrots “Socialism by Stealth””

Not at all, but when did you ever understand anything?

I have no problem with people developing “clean fuels”, “green processes”, more fuel efficient cars or finding better things to do with industrial and domestic waste.

Actually one of my software products directly targets process waste in a segment of the manufacturing and service industries and uses the benefits / value of those savings as a marketing incentive for prospective users to buy the software.

I have no problem with polluters being levied for their pollution.

I have an enthusiastic desire to see this world handed over to our children in a good and sustainable condition.

However, what I do have a huge issue with is an ego driven idiot:
A playing lady bountiful with the national budget
B dragging the Australian economy into paying interest on a budget deficit and inventing a system of additional carbon taxes, when he has just blown 10 billion on hand outs to buy votes and is planning on building roads to nowhere to employ the membership of his union masters.

And if you think there is any truth in that green-propaganda you are copy-pasting I might offer to come and audit the outcomes.

I remember when Melbourne water employed me to do that, audit the outcomes,… great fun walking around and telling people I wanted to chat to them about “outsourcing”, half of them nearly jumped out the window in blind panic.

So fractelle, I guess it is like this…

You are like so many we see who can “talk the talk” as if they had verbal dysentery but freeze when it comes to “walking the walk”.
And on the single point of the software I have developed, I might suggest I am contributing more to environmental improvements than you ever could, even with all your talk.

Ok Col, you voted for the Howard coalition.
Moving on ... what do you think Turnbull's coalition should do in response to Rudd's proposal?

Your rant about Rudd abusing national resources is a joke, right?

It appears you are accusing Rudd of the very same characteristics you display yourself. Dump on him all you like, but it smacks of hypocrisy and arrogance - I believe they have a name for this type of defense mechanism.

You may be a great accountant (you allude to your great deeds often enough - talk about ego) so, I would like to see your comments on this:

http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/GCA_Policy_Note02.pdf

discussed recently on OLO here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8307

Anyone?

examinator I know the bush, truly know it, while most areas do have worthwhile trees, plants and wildlife some is far too degraded to grow or support much.
That should be our first choice to grow trees, north of a village called Kew, south of port Mac Quarrie plantation hard wood grows in recycled sewage, two jobs in one.
The land on the old Pacific highway around Karuah could produce trees we could use in 50 years while replanting two for every one we take.
Rudd is a leader, he has got it right, Turnbull is nearly forced to vote with the government.
But unlikely to.
Conservatives like a broken record are stuck in a grove opposition for oppositions sake.
Radical conservationist get too much press, but little true support.
Consider these idiotic ideas, stop using coal now before finding an alternative?
Electric cars for all, even in the bush ? trips can be 500 klm long , even more a day.
Find alternatives, yes we must, but give up our lifestyle to stop one percent of the worlds total, and change nothing? stupid.
Col you do your case no justice with the anti left comments in every thread, as a firmly placed left of center lefty I fear those on the extreme right much more, forgive me if I am wrong but I place you there based on years of comments.
Extremes right or left will not impact on this debate and nor should they.

Fractelle, I for one hope we don't get too many of those green jobs you are raving about.

The leader in your green industries is Gremany. Currently it costs the German government $100,000 in subsidies, for every $50,000 green job created. That type of efficient industry, we just can't afford.

Then we have the Ethanol industry, another fast growing "green" industry. It does have a few problems though.

It has pushed the price of food so high that a recent UN studdy has shown there are now an extra 80 million people suffering hunger from food shortages.

Like our German industries, it requires huge subsidies to make the product competitive, & it has now become obvious that producing a litre of ethanol liberates more CO2, than does the litre of oil based fuel it replaces. That's what I call a real green sccess.

We all now know that an increase in CO2 will cause no problems to the earth, & infact will be beneficial to mankind, but of course that is of no interest to any greenie, is it?

Then the lovely wind power. For Denmark the leaders in this folly, latest figures are wind power represents 30% of their installed generating capacity, but produces only 6% of the power thay use. That is the wind power produces only 20% of it's clained capacity, & that at 2.5 times the cost of conventional generation. Sounds like another great win for the green industries to me.

May we in Oz be protected from such success.

I have no problems with the search for cleaner fuels.
Or attempts to cut green house gases.
I would like to see more effort to stop pollution.
We are just starting the search, we could make fuel, ethanol, from vegetation not existing food stocks, we may, will , find a way one day.
Or we may find a totally different clean fuel.
I do not denie green house gases, I do know if it is man made or not, we , humanity, do change the planet,some times we make it worse.
Green jobs need not be at such costs, my plantation theory planting trees on depleted ground and using them would make real jobs.
We long ago harvested too much and replaced too few trees, cut one plant two would be a start.
A thread such as this highlights the fact Green or even conservationist is used to insult in Australia.
The sooner true conservationists take back the center stage in this area the better.
We get headlines if the loonies chain themselves to a coal loader but few want to know about real progress in real conservation.
The current rabble rousing about Australia's green house gas target is mad.
If we can bring the world on board we will have achieved a great deal.

Belly wrote;
We are just starting the search, we could make fuel, ethanol, from vegetation not existing food stocks, we may, will , find a way one day.
Or we may find a totally different clean fuel.

As Hirsch said in his report to the US Energy Dept we need to start
the transition to a new energy system 20 years before the need arises.
If we leave it till 10 years before we will have major economic
problems.

It looks increasing like we will leave it till it bights us you know
where. Hirsch suggests we will have the mother of all crashes if we
wait till it happens.
While the politicians refuse to even acknowledge those two forbidden
words we are condemned to chaos at some point in the not too distant future.
The problem we face is that no one knows of a portable energy with
an energy density anywhere near that of oil.
There seems to be good chemical reasons that we will not find anything
that is as usable than oil. Any substitute will be a compromise.

I have gone from agnostic to skeptic. It is a great excuse for a tax and a gravy train for public servants who can take on the climate change jobs.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2428150.htm

Col
I agree in relation to your comments on leases that were allowed by state governments. That is what I meant by the influence of the cotton industry. You sometimes have to ask yourself why some of these decisions are made - is it just ignorance, bad planning and forethought or something else. Us humble folk will probably never know.

Belly “Col you do your case no justice with the anti left comments in every thread,”

I guess, speaking the truth and commenting on the observable facts and predicting based on reason, rather than hysterical hyperbole (aka AGW, the myth behind Krudd’s Carbon Emissions tax), would define me “to the right”.

especially when we consider: the goal of socialist political philosophy is a non-existent fantasy.

Ultimately, the lies of the socialists and the left will become like a yoke around your neck.

So just take my view to be

The truth will set you free

But like the Jack Nicholson line in A few Good Men :

“You cannot handle the truth”

Regarding “Extremes right or left will not impact on this debate and nor should they.”

Who appointed you to to make that call?

Maybe you can point out where I have ever suggested anything “extreme”.

when everyone of my posts has been in support of the rights of individuals to make their free and personal choice and for government to respond, first to the best interests of the electors who put them in office.


That’s called the democratic process


And criticism of the incumbent government is a precious democratic value, unless you are telling me it is otherwise, in which case we should start a new thread.

It was Lenin who said

While the state exists there can be no freedom, when there is freedom there can be no state”

I vote for “freedom”

Lenin also said

“The goal of socialism is communism”

I am happy to promote (expose) the views of the ‘left’.

Especially when there lies reveal the very short path from socialism to communism and that socialist fantasy becomes the hell on earth, with death the only relief, which Lenin and his successors inflicted upon 30 million Russians.

Both hasbeen and mjpb identify serious problems with government meddling.


The rules of the market are overturned and the meddlesome bureaucrats decide, through taxation and subsidy, what would otherwise be the free choice of the electorate

While ever we have The knowledge of Good and Evil as the paradyne for mans thoughts,to be filtered through,Bul St, mistrust and devision rule.
Education doesn't change the beast and knowledge doesn't change the beast. Only decisions change man. I found this web site looking for Truth in the climate change debate but all I see is opinions and egos,
no interest in truth what so ever. As a farmer drought affects me personaly. In 2000 big brother took over in the water planing department. Up until that time property owners had to share for the good of all. Since State control it has become survival of the fittest with the squeeky wheel getting the most and greed plays a very big part. At a farmers meeting in 2002 with everybody at everybodys throat over water sharing 2 speakers stood out as the most deprived. 1 was the biggest potatoe farmer in the district, the other was a potatoe and seed grower. The next day my wife and I went for a drive to see where all the water was being used and you guessed it, the potatoe grower and the potatoe and seed grower had green fields of large portions and All other farmers had stoped irrigating to conserve water for stock and domestic use. Leglaslation only caused devision and mistrust because greed and abuce of power became the norm. Religion is NOT the answer but PART of the problem. Man is incapible of solving the problem for he IS the problem. I thank God that I can now say with confidence God lives BIG in and through me.

Belly,

You said >"Consider these idiotic ideas, stop using coal now before finding an alternative? et al"<
The problem with this line of thought is that it doesn't take into consideration the power of vested industries and those who depend on them.
Consider this there was a car that ran on alternative fuel in the 1940's...what happened to the technology? There was a whole technology of alternative powered cars after an oil shock they were all recalled and crushed why?

The answer to both questions is that existing industries bought the patents then destroyed the potential competitor to their investment.

The only reason Aust is tipping so much money into the myth of clean coal and not solar technology is that Australia has too many vested industries (interest in coal). The reason Kalifornia supports solar power is that it has neither coal nor uranium in any quantity.

Tragically I feel we'll go down supporting old technology because we're so politically dominated by the extractive industries, which have and will discourage, smother other technologies that may reduce their profits.

Ethanol will distort grain prices and will have a direct impact on the very poor.
Conclusion : Vested interests won’t allow a significant change un less they can control the technology. The idea of a plethora of medium sized companies say solar or wind technology is an anathema to the BIG corporate powers. They will resist as long as possible then buy up the alternative to dominate/over exploit them.
One needs only look at the chemical companies that are now ‘life science” (sic) corporations

Examinator, your ideology, gets in the way of you seeing the facts.

Recent research suggests we may be able to supply all the liquid fuel required by Oz from algae. The suggestion is 150,000 acres of algae farms would do the job.

Do you really think that the big oil companies would care if they got their refinary feed stock by pumping it out of the ground, or by growing it in a big pond? I'm sure they would prefer to grow it in Oz, than have to deal with OPEC, & the arabs.

What makes you think the auto companies care what power moves their cars?
If they did, would Grneral motors have spent over a billion dollars, [yes billion] trying to develop better batteries, for electric cars, & a hydrogen fuel cell, also to power electric drive cars? I'll bet they wish they had that billion back right now.

The piston internal combustion engine is a dreadful thing. Many better engines have been designed, by many people. However, agricultural as it is, after 100+ years of development, it is now very efficient. None of the new contenders have been able to compete with it without many years & millions spent in their development.

I know you will find it hard to believe, but the industry expected to replace the smelly, noisy old things, over 20 years ago. They were not interested in spending money on any internal combustion engine development, just to throw it out in a few years.

I agree with you that clean coal is a pipe dream, but who cares. The CO2/Global warming furphy will be fully exposed for what it is, in not too long, then we can cocentrate on something worth doing, perhaps.

I do find it most amusing that our green/left are so captivated by a myth, originally started by their most loathed lady, in none other than Maggie Thatcher

Hasbeen,

Sadly, you misunderstand ME and my basis for writing. Perhaps it’s the tyranny of practicality, many people want short pithy, simple answers to complex issues. When in reality there are none.

I do however subscribe to the twin policies of discussing issues in “context” and letting the preponderance of facts lead. Under some circumstances some may see this as uncomplimentary comments to their sacred cows. That does NOT imply I support the opposite or that an ideological bias can be assumed. I simply don’t think in those terms. The post under question has no ideological component only founded facts.

I gave two (of many) examples of how dominant industries have and continue to pervert ‘the market’ for their own benefit. This is both contrary to capitalism’s base theory and not in the interest of the people by locking us into older more profitable technologies. This is referred to as the ‘cash cow’ stage of a market (in essence it means little capital input for maximum returns.)
In accounting returns this is referred to as increasing return on investment.

Following this I don’t believe that BIG oil/coal is going to readily dump 10’s(perhaps 100’s) of $billions investment in oil processing infrastructure (from wells, ports, ships processing plants, trucks and distribution networks) and take a loss to pick up a new system of power generation. My second point was that these corporations strive to control their industry with all that implies.

A good example of this was the US radial (including steel) tyres embargo In the late 60’s.The vested industries forced the govt to ban radial tyre imports because they had too much investment in the old cross ply technology, contrary of capitalist dictum and the public safety interest. The collapse of the Dino3 is another case in fact of the consequences of this perversion.

Bias is more easily recognized by shallow analysis and (pigeon holing) name calling and or attacking the individual rather than the substance.

dear has been>>What makes you think the auto companies care what power moves their cars?>>

brother[a bit of histry]when the'auto'was first invented there were MORE electric'auto'sthan petro chemical[petro.-chemical then brought up the auto/industry and made'their'cars run on'their'fuel

in time they needed to'sell'more cars[this was the age of the chemist so they were refining many chemical's that soon would replace'hemp'with'nylon'[see that near_everything[food'we buy is in plastic[the worse'type'of plastic[our plastic has female hormones in things like teats for children]but back to histry you need to sell'auto's'but everyone is using'tram'[cheap'ELECTRIC'trams]that run every 10 minutes or so

so what does the petro/auto/chemical industry do[buy up the tram ways,run them off scedual[not maintsain them,put in uncomfortable seats[then advertise/sell their'gas_powered'cars]

then lobby govt to shut down public/transport[buy up cheap land to suit the new auto freedoms,set up buisness to build moterways[paved with petro chemical tar,in short via petrol engines they reshape the world[they along with the world's/bankers bought up,media,politics,law,industry,medicine[now even child care and water utilities[petro refining uses lots of water,etc

..>>would Grneralmotors..develop better,batteries,>>

yet hp computers is the only one releasing an infinite-recharge one

you see most batteries only accept a few recharges[then we'BUY'a new one[consumerism[ford said let me sell the spare parts to you forever;and i will give you a free car[its about selling us stuff

>>electric cars,a hydrogen fuel cell,?>>

gm built the electic vehicle[but'we'couldnt'buy'it.,thus could only lease it[the plan was to gety a govt subsidy[50.000 on each humbug/hummvee?]just to get a govt_subsidy for a huge gass GUZZLER,then magiclly the few'hundreds'of'elec-tricK.'vehicles were crushed[many brand new

the hydrogen cell?[when the'joe_cell'makes free'hydrogen'gas[from stainless-steel hydrolisis for free[but the'petro'likes its RESALE
selling us daily gas[not a $100 bolt-on and no gas[ever again

they been suppressing teqnoligy bro[auto-INDUSTRY aint your friend
build algie farms[make your own fuel or build a joe cell

<<they wish they had that billion back.<<

wernt THEIR billions bro[govt grants[and our bying THEIR petro engines]reval their research

>>None of the new contenders have been able to compete with it.>>

EGSACTLY[let-em go bust and get'their'research for cents on the dollar]they been hiding it far TOO long]

Arguing against sustainable industry is like arguing against clean air. No-one who values freedom and democracy would tolerate any type of totalitarianism existing within groups from both the extreme right and extreme left. This is why I am so puzzled by people arguing against a shift towards renewable energy, clean industry and sustainable technology. These arguments negate freedom of opinion and stifle initiative.

“My way or the highway. You are either with me or against me.” Is apparently the mantra of such people and groups. It is an attitude which is anthropocentric. Humanity is not alone; we share the planet with other life forms and are the product of the same evolutionary process. For evolution to continue, a large gene pool, healthy ecosystems and a wide range of biodiversity are necessary.

With my background in applied science (specifically Bachelor in Landscape Architecture) I follow both science and environmental publications with innate interest and understanding.

For those who have both the aptitude and interest I recommend the following:

“NewScientist... is now making free all in-depth articles from the past 12 months. In case you missed them, here are the top 10 best features on environmental science."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16249-bog-barons-to-trash-mining-top-10-environment-articles.html

And for those whose only raison d'etre for their unmerited appearance on OLO is to launch personal attacks, take to time to realise that people tire easily of such pointless tirades and skip your posts entirely. As I do when even my patience reaches its limits.

I have added that link to my favorites thanks.
I think I am a conservationist I live like one.
But I see no reason to leave honesty behind in talking about the subject.
My view, those who think of me as a right wing sell out should note, is not an inch different than our governments.
We need change that change must be steady and well thought out.
1% of the worlds total that is our share of the problem, we do have a problem.
We will use coal, until we find a replacement.
One poster is unhappy I say we are at the very beginning of searching for new power and fuels yet we are just truly starting our search.
Yes only a fool would not expect big energy owners and even our governments to be other than unhappy with our search.
Finding a new fuel today would see crashes in share markets twice the current crisis, yet we must and will find new power sources.
I proudly stand on the other side of the road to radical environmental extremists, forever

Q&A “Rudd abusing national resources is a joke, right?”

Why would someone who cares “joke” about such a thing?

“I would like to see your comments on this:”

I refer to things I have done when in context to the thread and I refer to myself as who I am

Rather than being (almost) an “emeritus” professor (in other words you are not but would liked to be considered as)…. As I recall from one of your posts

and you talk about “arrogance”

“your comments on this: - As for discussed recently on OLO here:”

someone has since said it

Posted by dovif2, Thursday, 18 December 2008 11:06:46 AM

“They include Japanese scientist Dr Kiminori Itoh, who was an expert reviewer for last year's United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, who declared global warming the "worst scientific scandal in [history]". Former NASA atmospheric scientist Dr Joanne Simpson is quoted: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain sceptical."”

Pelican “You sometimes have to ask yourself why some of these decisions are made - is it just ignorance, bad planning and forethought or something else. Us humble folk will probably never know.”

Absolutely.

Personally I believe us humble folk do know best (although ‘water’ remains a conundrum) .

A recurring theme of my posts is that individuals do know best and we are best served when left to decide for ourselves, rather than be hamstrung and herded by a pig ignorant bureaucrat employed by government who has been got at by “lobbyists” from any and every special interest and either do-gooder or commercially motivated group.

Hence small government, with decentralized and limited authority will produce better outcomes than any attempt at centralized authority and “planning”.

Of course, some folk around here think that such a view is “extremist”.

The important thing is the values I support allow those who disagree to hold their view, the central-authoritarians have been seen in the past to be far less tolerant.

did anyone catch the environmenmtal report writer[garnot] on 7.30 report last night

so much for this dark night of environmental carbon tax[sic]

how important is the environment when he mindlessly excuses murder of a river in new guinie?

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2451559.htm

by their deeds will we know them?
by what they do [not what they say]

from
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2451559.htm

quote>>ALAN BREEN: I haven't received any reports of that sort of damage as a result of anything that we're doing. So, you know, more than happy to talk to Mr Nuri about that, but he hasn't come to us to complain.

STEVE MARSHALL: But Ketu Nuri says he did complain.

KETU NURI: I raised it several time at the CMC review meetings last year. (Inaudible). But the concern was not addressed.

STEVE MARSHALL: Mr Nuri even wrote to Dr Ross Garnaut,

the Australian Government's chief adviser on climate change and carbon emissions. Dr Garnaut has a long history in PNG, having helped establish the country's post-independence monetary and mining policies.

He now sits on the Ok Tedi board and is chairman of PNG Sustainable, the mine's majority owner.

Dr Garnaut, who recently visited Port Moresby for climate change talks, reluctantly spoke to the ABC about the issue.

But as the chairman of PNG Sustainable and a board member of Ok Tedi, is it OK to let that amount of waste to go down the river?

ROSS GARNAUT, CHAIRMAN, PNG SUSTAINABLE: You would not believe the amount of effort that's gone into carefully managing that including the investment of $400 million in a project to remove the toxic sulphur from the project, including the commissioning of first one dredge, then a second dredge to remove material from the river.

It's the most thorough and careful management of the environment that's ever been undertaken by a mining company. Thanks very much>>

'thanks'for the belief in his theory?[fish]?

Col (with apologies to Fractelle)

Evidently, Geoff Carmody’s article on implementing design principles for effective climate change policy has gone right through your bloated head. A shame really, particularly since you claim to care about natural resources and are dismissive of Rudd’s.

Col, you’re just a plain old misguided “I’ll blow your house down OLO huff-n-puffer”.

You think I’m arrogant? From my position I am approaching retirement. However, I will continue to contribute in a constructive way to the advancement of science, technology and policy formulation.

Your cut-n-paste job from dovif2 is doing the rounds of the denialosphere and the media shock-jock columns. You obviously don’t know how to check your sources – you’re a CPA? In your ignorance (or are you a deliberate miscreant) you contribute to the distortion and misrepresentation of science ... what else should we expect from a self confessed “fornicator”?

Even someone like you can be a so called IPCC “expert reviewer” – all you have to do is review the draft and undertake not to disclose or discuss the contents prior to its release. Bygees, if I can be an expert reviewer, why can’t you?

Now, let’s have a closer look at Dr Kiminori Itoh. In his own words:

“I would like to briefly introduce myself. I finished my PhD course (Industrial Chemistry) at The University of Tokyo in 1978. From 1978 to 1989, I worked for Professors Honda and Fujishima at The Unversity of Tokyo as Assistant Professor and also Lecturer. They are famous in the field of photoelectrochemistry, with which most climate scientists sare not familiar with. In this field, my greatest contribution is the development of optical waveguide spectroscopy for solid surfaces, for which I received awarded from relevant academic societies. From 1989 to now I have been working at Yokohama National University, mostly in the field of environmental metrology including optical biochemical sensing and theoretical as well as experimental biodiversity measurements. For instance, we have recently developed extremely highly sensitive gas sensing systems and two-dimensional DNA electrophoresis methods.”

Cont’d

Cont’d

Dr Itoh goes on;

“My interest in the global warming issue started when I had a lecture on environmental metrology in 1995 or so. I was rather surprised at that time to know how this issue was ambiguous unlike stories that conventional news or opinions tell us. For instance, I wondered why the effect of solar changes had been neglected by most climatologists, when I saw in Science a Letter article from the Danish Meteorological Institute in 1997. I also felt it was dangerous that the Japanese society was going to increase nuclear power plants to decrease carbon dioxide, and thought that I had to do something for this situation.

Since then, I have written (or participated in) four books (in Japanese, unfortunately) on this issue including the present one. I also took a patent on sunspot number anticipation, and did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewer. This is no doubt surprising for an environmental physical chemist like me. I am now even feeling that my original expertise, metrology, was all along close to meteorology; that is, “meteorology” is formed by putting “eo” inside “metrology.”

Col dear, this guy publishes things like;

“Computer simulations of seasonal outbreak and diurnal vertical migration of cyanobacteria” and;

“Mathematical modeling of colony formation in algal blooms: phenotypic plasticity in cyanobacteria.”

I’m sure even a practicing CPA can see the ‘disconnect’, but in your case – I have me doubts.

Oh, and you go on with your cut-n-paste ...

“Dr Joanne Simpson is quoted: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain sceptical”.

Well duh ... As a scientist I remain sceptical too, we are by nature and training.

I too am approaching retirement, in 2 years , with luck I may get more I love my job.
No way I want to ever side with those who say global warming is wrong/natural/a beat up.
I have seen our planet change in just my lifetime,
Yes we over use it, abuse it and pollute it.
We pump rubbish into the air the sea and our rivers.
QxA Be happy you are not Col, over confidence in ones own views and failure to consider others is a handy cap, not a virtue.
I find the extremes in the debate of no use.
I find answers from people Col insults, to not take information because it is not the answers you want is strange.

Q&A “Col, you’re just a plain old misguided”

Ah, attacked with some of Q&A caustic wit… full of his usual and worthless patronizing opinion

Yawn

“However, I will continue to contribute in a constructive way to the advancement of science, technology and policy formulation.”

Then why don’t you, instead of just “bitching” about me

“distortion and misrepresentation of . . . . . ”

Yes, that excuse was quite popular among the inquisitionists, when they were having a heretic BBQ.

“As a scientist I remain sceptical too, we are by nature and training.”

Yet you criticize my right to express “skepticism”

Which amounts to the Usual hypocrisy which we have come to expect from Q&A

Belly “I find answers from people Col insults, to not take information because it is not the answers you want is strange.”

sounds like you are talking about yourself there Belly.

Keep it coming, you bunch of old slappers,

Remember I am entitled to my view and as it stands at the present

When we think of Bernard Madoff, his scam falls into insignificance when we consider the rort which some so called “climate scientists” are endeavouring to pull over the eyes of the rest of the world.

With theoretical quasi science, based on incomplete research and models which lack the critical component of “parallel running” against real data, we are witnessing one of the biggest scams since the EU started managing the market price for European food produce.

The posts were very interesting with a wide range of views. The report I found of great value was the US Senate Minority report on climate which contains the contributions of 650 scientist, many with impeccable CV's which give the real facts. From what I have read in the past the IPPC report on climate was massaged by the political level.

This is not the only report i have downloaded on climate change but it is the most believable. GO TO TINY URL - http://tinyurl.com/3sjq5e

Gimmy

Col, you forgot to mention "Socialism by Stealth".

Hasbeen

You either have a very simple mind, or you are deliberately distorting what I’ve said.

If the former, let me make it simpler.

You said to David (VK3AUU) “have a look at the growing Arctic ice mate ...”

This is a typical response/excuse from the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade that usually follow it up by saying that global warming is a myth or a world-wide conspiracy. It seems people like you fail to appreciate that Arctic ice extent grows in ‘extent’ every winter or that last year’s ice extent was the lowest in recorded history – with Russia, Canada, US, Greenland, Denmark and others jockeying for passage and exploration rights.

You also fail to understand that the growth in ‘ice extent’ every winter is ‘new ice’ – it is thinner and it has not replaced the thicker ‘old ice’ – you know, the bit that has melted, gone.

These links may help others, if not you:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/heavy-snow-job/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/arctic-ice-update/

You also said to David; “have a look at the ... ice growth in the Antarctic”

You clearly did not understand my comment: “When you put energy into a defined system, it heats up, water evaporates and must condense out somewhere as rain or snow.”

Ice mass has been growing on the inner portion of Antarctica, it has been losing ice mass from the ice shelves.

Hasbeen, if you are deliberately distorting what I have said ... then, you are just a liar.
________

Belly ... Thanks!
_______

Gimmy

Gimme a break, many of my colleagues were on Inhoffe's original '400' list, without their authorisation and certainly contrary to the views they had about the reality of AGW

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php
_______

Col,
I respect your right to “scepticism” – but, you have no idea what “science” scepticism is.

Oh yeah ... Col says:

"With theoretical quasi science, based on incomplete research and models which lack the critical component of “parallel running” against real data, we are witnessing one of the biggest scams since ... "

Complete and utter crapola!

But Col dear, we are "parallel running" models against real data.

Col may be the ants pants accountant, but he hasn't a clue about science.

“(Hasbeen) You either have a very simple mind, or you are deliberately distorting what I’ve said.”

“Col may be the ants pants accountant, but he hasn't a clue about science.”

No one cares what you think of me or hasbeen, your voice is that of the malcontent, the spoilt brat who cannot front an argument.

Accountancy is part of the arts faculty. Not the science faculty.

I have observed, throughout my working life, the intransigence of engineers (and those of the physical studies, which includes scientists) and a complete inability to recognize or understand the nuances and changes due to subjective influences. They just don’t learn that stuff in engineering and science studies.

The arts are about subjective influences. Any accountant can be technically accurate and his business books perfect until he has to assess the need for a provision or a contingent liability.

At that moment, all accuracy goes out the window and we are left with a subjective judgment of result.

Most influences on human progress are subjective, what to eat, where to live, where to send the kids to school, how to balance work and home life etc.

These macro human decisions are not driven by any scientific or scientifically disposed law or doctrine, they are subjective and individual values.

What I believe, subjectively, as a professional accountant regarding of climate change is:

A lot of what is being spouted as scientific fact, as it pertains to global warming is politely called

Speculation

A lot of scientific people have a vested interest in gaining access to soft government research funds.

The opportunity for the mass defraudment through carbon taxes presents an irresistible goal for those who seek a soft and selfish life.

This is no different to the directors of Enron or those behind a thousand other schemes predicated on a gullible public and small minded government bureaucrats.

Given the mix of
Speculation
Soft funds
Selfish opportunism

The economic and social consequences of the "climate science" and carbon taxation fraud will be

A disaster on a scale which places the US subprime lending debacle into insignificance.

I keep my promises and do not bother with reading your vitriol anymore, however I cannot ignore the following lie.

COL:

You claim: "Accountancy is part of the arts faculty. Not the science faculty."

Not at any major University with which I am familiar and neither RMIT nor Melbourne Uni, where I studied included Accountancy in the ARTS Faculty ever. Accountancy ALWAYS was in the Faculty of Business along with related topics such as: Law, Business Management, Commerce, Finance and Marketing. And always will be.

Admittedly, many Bachelors and Masters degrees do cross over, for example I studied Contract Law and Fine Arts.

However, unless bean-counters required the Faculty of Arts in order to learn how to hold a green biro, this latest claim exceeds even the most outrageous furphy from your dear friend Pollycarp.

BTW

I agree that you are entitled to hold any opinion you wish to express, however, you fail apply the same courtesy to others when you disagree with your persistant argumentum ad personam, which erases whatever credibility you may have.

Col we all have opinions, and we are free to put them in print.
You do tend to use insults as tools to rebutte opinions you do not like.
It seems clear you rarely agree with me, for that I thank you.
I believe in climate change, and that we ,man ,contributes to it.
I see benefits not costs in trying to fix it.
New fuels may be cheaper or the reverse but we will get them.
Man has come from the caves because he can except challenges and change, not by hiding his head in that cave.
I and you can not live forever but in just ten years looking back at this debate we will see great progress.
You referrals to the crisis in the economy reminds me of change, 12 months ago predicting todays crisis would have seen our sanity questioned.

Fractelle” keep my promises and do not bother with reading your vitriol anymore, however I cannot ignore the following lie.. . . .
this latest claim exceeds even the most outrageous furphy from your dear friend Pollycarp.”

Oh horror of horrors…

I exercised a poor use of words and have offended the mighty fractelle

I should have been more careful, let me don sack-cloth and ashes and throw myself prostrate on the floor in a display of abject contrition,

I admit I should have said

”in general terms, most studies fall into one of two categories

‘The sciences’ or ‘the Arts’.”

Chemistry, physics, biology, engineering all being examples of things studied under the general heading “the sciences” and parochially defined as

hard truths which are subject to defined laws, rules and understanding

Fine arts, accountancy, law and business all being examples of things studied under the general heading “the arts” and generally defined as things which include a ‘subjective / interpretive content’ and thus,

CANNOT be defined as

hard truths which have defined laws and rules etc.

For someone who "claims" to ignore my posts, you seem to be intimately obsessed with finding any hint of error on which to rip into.

So, with that in mind, I feel fully entitled to observe
“I disagree with your persistant argumentum ad personam, which erases whatever credibility you may have.”

I must admit, these days I have this enduring image of fractelle

It wavers between a wizened crone of Shakespearian drama and the Grinch

Belly “Col we all have opinions, and we are free to put them in print.
You do tend to use insults as tools to rebutte opinions you do not like.”

Actually I simply respond in kind, based on how people choose to talk down or be rude to me, be it in response to what I may post or just because they are having a bad day.

I guess you must be having a few bad days recently.

Thanks Col I love to laugh, not a girlish giggle, or a silly snicker, a belly laugh is my style,
A ROF gut buster.
re read you last post.
See why I thank you
have a jolly Christmas mate.

Col, it's called 'denial' - a defence mechanism.

Typically, a person is faced with a few facts that are too uncomfortable for them to accept. Therefore, they reject these facts instead, insisting that they are not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

They may deny the reality of unpleasant facts altogether (simple denial), admit the facts but deny their seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the facts and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference).

Col, what is really worrying is that they often deny their denial.

This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify in themselves, and is a major barrier to changing their behaviour.

Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviours which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behaviour. This form of denial typically overlaps with all the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion.

And Col, I heard the other day that the 1st sign of Alzheimers is when you can't understand sarcasm. People in this early onset stage take sarcasm as real - like, if I said to you;

"Geez Col, why don't you write a book and title it;
Col's Guide to Climate Change"

and you retort with typical ad hominem and put downs, in kind not.

Anyway ... Merry Xmas, to you and yours - from me and mine.

______________

Belly,

A very special festive season to you with a safe and joyous 2009 to follow - you started it.

Q&A “But Col dear, we are "parallel running" models against real data.”

And the accuracy of those parallel runs is only reviewable over time even if they do ‘look good’.

Parallel running is not a design process but a validation process.

Parallel running does not assure a model is either accurate or appropriate,
Even with parallel running, it does not mean al circumstances / conditions / constraints are necessarily appropriately addresses

As for “Typically, a person is faced with a few facts that are too uncomfortable for them to accept. Therefore, they reject these facts instead, insisting that they are not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

They may deny the reality of unpleasant facts altogether (simple denial), admit the facts but deny their seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the facts and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference).”

You seem to put a lot of effort into denying the right of anyone to express a view contrary to your own….

I remain skeptical of any suggestion, upon which the balance of the world economy is being directed, to be free of corrupt and undue influences and you should too.

But your own sense of denial will probably limit such rational.

Actually I might start writing more, I have recently been asked by one niche periodical for some contributions…

Corporate Fraud has always intrigued me but the Enrons and Bernard Madoffs are small change compared to what is available for the winning “climate solutioins” be it real of scam.

Maybe

“Famous climate change frauds”

we could possibly collude, I am sure you have some insights you could share and

“collusion” seems to be almost an art form with climate scientists

But maybe I don’t need you, there is already a website
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/18/203/

maybe that is one which the Climate-Change-Champions, Krudd & Co will have blocked if they get their internet censorship system working.

(I further suggest you consider 'sarcasm' and the early signs of Alzheimer’s too).

Belly “A ROF gut buster.”

I did not think it was that funny but if it amuses you, so be it.

Col

You obviously don't know my views on internet filtering and censorship

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8200#128868

The whole thread you missed ... hmmmm?

Please, feel free to use my words wherever and whenever you like.

_____________

Am off to share family & friend's quality time - back in 2009

Best to everyone

(you too Col :-)

May every one, no exceptions who has anything to do with OLO have the very best ever festive season
New year too
no exceptions
enjoy Col truly enjoy!

Yeah, I'll add mine to that. Have a great holiday everyone, including my old mate Col.

At our place we'll be celebrating Saturnalia :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

Still enjoying my pagan festival, but some drop in visitors bought me back to this thread
I am told nothing less than stopping all green house gases will do now!
Gee no coal,now instantly, maybe few cars? cows what do we do about them belching gases?
Left right and center some really weird ideas are about on this subject

"No way I want to ever side with those who say global warming is wrong/natural/a beat up."

If the skeptical geologist that I linked to earlier has it right then similar evidence suggests evolution. Is it a fair bet that you don't have the same committment to 6 day creationalism that you do to global warming?

"I have seen our planet change in just my lifetime,Is that how we are supposed to know that it is a genuine phenomena Yes we over use it, abuse it and pollute it. We pump rubbish into the air the sea and our rivers."

So therefore what skeptical geologists identify to be a normal cycle must be due to that rubbish? Is that what you are saying? Can you explain that further?

"QxA Be happy you are not Col, over confidence in ones own views and failure to consider others is a handy cap, not a virtue."

What do you think of the views of "those who say global warming is wrong/natural/a beat up."? How confident are you that such views must be wrong?