This topic is raising its ugly head while we contemplate the direction of either one of our up-and-coming elected Glorious Leader's from either the Miners Party .... oops .... Labor Party, and the Christian Right ... oopsie again ... Mad Hatters Party.

You are - apparently - in either one of two camps. You believe that the climate is changing for the worse, or you don't ... apparently. This debate is a passionate debate, and it COMPLETELY blows my mind.

Regardless of whether there's a change in the global weather patterns or what is to blame for that, doesn't it just make sense that in the more developed countries where technology and common sense could push us through to function better as a species and blend us a little better with the environment?. At the moment, everything we do is in direct competition with the environment. We still have the belief that the Earth owes us and we have the right to strip it clean and fill the holes with our waste.

It's a FACT that we could, and should, function better as a species. The problem, as I see it, is that we have given all the power to the wrong people and too few of them. Every single person that is elected becomes a puppet for something larger that is looking for more profit. Anything we see from whichever leader will be a token gesture. Nothing will significantly happen for the better from our PM ... EVER.

StG,
Welcome to my world View.

In truth the argument hasn't been about Global warming and or the environment per se for a very long time.

It has gone through several stages ;
- first it was an argument over (fear of) change;
- then fear of personal loss i.e. money, jobs, percieved power (vested interest);
- and now political posturing and dogma

StG
"It's a FACT that we could, and should, function better as a species."

What would it look like, in your view, if we were functioning better as a species?

And what do you mean 'as a species'? Are you functioning now as a species? Have you ever done so? Has anyone? Has the species?

And how do you know it's a 'FACT' that we could and should function better that way?

America is having its hottest summer and hottest year ever.
AH why worry its not us,,,,,yet

Your post mirrors my sentiments quite nicely, StG, though I'll warn you that I have been slammed on this forum for making similar statements.

Although Peter Hume appears to be nitpicking rather than responding to the content of the thread, I'll assume that his questions were genuine rather than frivolous.

If we are to treat humans as a species and a part of an ecosystem (or a collection of ecosystems, more accurately), then our purpose within that ecosystem is to participate in a sustainable exchange and transfer of resources (nutrients, water, etc). Our purpose is not to overrun and destroy the ecosystems with which we are involved.

If we are to treat humans as 'above' the ecosystems that surround us, then our purpose must simply be to ensure the continuation of our own species. To do this, we must look after our ecosystems in a sustainable way.

If we are to dispense with the notion of a 'species' and assume that each person operates solely on the individual level, then our purpose must be to ensure our own longevity. To do this, we must look after our immediate surrounds to ensure a steady and sustainable supply of our basic necessities.

In any of these cases, to function better as a species, we need to engage more positively with our biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Failing to do so hinders the success of any of the 'missions' outlined above.

That we are not doing enough is evident in the volume of recyclable goods disposed of in landfill. It is evident in our wasteful use of energy, when less costly (in terms of energy) alternatives for our everyday activities are available.

All of this is, of course, simply my opinion. An informed discrediting of my ideas is more than welcome.

Peter Hume,

You response is semantic nonsense one might suggest deliberately obtuse/obfuscatious.
What ever it is it clearly fulfills political technique
#1 when in doubt answer the question you want to answer rather than the one posed.
#22 challenge the meaning of terms meaningless to distract attention.

And, in the process of reducing emissions to avert possible climate change we would be:

1. Reducing the rate at which we deplete fossil fuels and;
2. Minimising the more immediate health impact on the population of other air pollutants

I think that most people would have to agree that
this planet of ours has a finite amount of
resources and that it can tolerate only a
limited amount of pollution. If world
population continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialism spreads around the world,
and if pollution and resource depletion
continues at an increasing rate - and all
these things continue to happen, the question
that we need to ask is - where is
human society headed?

We are so used to exploiting natural resources and
dumping our waste products into the environment
that we frequently forget that resources are limited
and exhaustible and that pollution can disrupt the
ecological balance on which our survival depends.

Where is human society headed? The most optimistic
answer would be that, one way or another,
sweeping changes await us.

Belly,
You said "America is having the hottest summer and hottest year ever"

Yeah, and last year America had record snows and record cold and the recorded earliest snows ever. Here Sydney recorded the coldest day for 56 years a while back.

For those that do not understand it is called WEATHER.

Last year your esteemed leader Kevin Rudd tried to tell us that a few hot days in Adelaide was because of AGW. It was "the greatest moral challenge of our time" The urgency is now past and we saved our money. Whew! thats good.

Now the wheels have fallen off that little red wagon.

What makes people so important that they think that we can influence the climate of the world. Or volcanos, earthquakes or continental drift. What about the tides or the fact that the magnetic poles are changing. Can we change the currents of the oceans or the wind. We can't even make it rain when we want, although we have spent a lot trying. Maybe we can try to move earth a little bit further from the sun to cool it down.

Sure the climate is changing and always has. Some people have to accept that it is natural and there is nothing we can do about it

The upcoming alarmist bandwagon is ocean acidifacation. Better than the Y2k bug. Some people need something to occupy themselves.

That is true Banjo what have you got in mind?

“The problem, as I see it, is that we have given all the power to the wrong people and too few of them.”

Well thats what happens when you trust government or collective assemblies of government (UN) to fix anything... it is like an elephant mating...

It is only ever performed with a lot of noise and takes a hell of a long time before you get a result.

So if you want to solve any problem i suggest you rely on the one person you should be able to rely upoin, yourself.

The fellow who started clean up Australia was right on the money when he said

“Think Global, Act Local”

The only way you improve things it to recognise that we are individually responsible for what we do.

Pretending some UN committee is doing to do things is a joke and a “nanny” expectation.

Demanding other people do things and conform to our view, simply because we support an untested and dubious theory in is an exercise in hubris.

Better we lead a virtuous life and then lead by example, than expect to get away with press-ganging others, against their will.

Banjo is, of course absolutely right...

and to answer Belly's question

do one of two things

1 as I have written above

2 accept that other people are free to do as they choose too and resist those who would demand to limit that freedom of choice

Otokonoko,

Bravo. Exactly what I was getting at. Cheers. We're just a glorified ant colony. Maybe white ant's chainsaw toothed cousin?. ;o)

Stern,

I actually very much agree. Didn't really have the space to clarify. Possibly what I was trying to say that IMO we have given the power to the wrong sort of people with the wrong sort of agenda to benefit us as a species existing in a more respectful way with the planet. I've seen power sharing. It's horrific.

Peter Hume,

You said:

"And how do you know it's a 'FACT' that we could and should function better that way?"

Otokonoko very well echoed my thoughts on the rest of your comment so I won't bother responding to that, but, it's a fact that we could function better as a species by way of technological improvements like hydrogen engines, solar power, wind power etc etc. I'm not saying they are perfect and are the answer, but we have the brain power to figure out something better. So, we could. We should because we owe it to this planet to treat it with as much respect as we can. Do you dump your rubbish on the side of the road?. Bet you don't, but why not?. I bet part of it is an environmental conscience

StG, you say <<You are - apparently - in either one of two camps. You believe that the climate is changing for the worse, or you don't ... apparently. >>

Partly right, AGW supporters do “believe”. This is because they have “faith” that one side of science is correct. For those who see two sets of contradictory science there is no requirement whatsoever for “belief’. We just see the contradictions and would like both sides of science to get together and provide a balanced assessment we can accept.

Your fury and rejection of the current scientific impasse is palpable. You then go on to blame everyone. You blame politicians of all persuasions, you blame more developed countries, you blame our lack of common sense, you blame giving power to all the wrong people and you blame everyone for not being a better species.

You need to recognize that what you are going through is natural consequence of denying the cause of your angst, which is the scientific impasse. It’s called the Trauma Cycle. Just so you can see where you’re at, the progression and symptoms are as follows;

Shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution

examinator, you point out;

<<In truth the argument hasn't been about Global warming and or the environment per se for a very long time.>> Actually it never was, ever.

<<It has gone through several stages;
- first it was an argument over (fear of) change;
- then fear of personal loss i.e. money, jobs, perceived power (vested interest);
- and now political posturing and dogma>>

What you have described precisely is a public alarm phenomena, I refer you to your use of the word “fear”. This is 26th such instance since 1798. The good news is that none of the other predictions eventuated either.

spindoc,

I thought that THAT part of my initial comments was quite obviously 'tongue in cheek'...apparently. But thanks for the heads-up on what I'm REALLY feeling. Lotto numbers perhaps?.

Spindoc,

glad to see you read my humble utterances.

I think you are using the term fear in a different context than I did.
You are clearly inferring that the the whole topic is a fear campaign run by the 'alamists'i.e. those who support global warming action now.
Equating it with the y2000 bug scenario.

Conversely I was describing the human trait to fear what is not understood or convenient.(part of the fight or flight principal)
In previous posts here I attacked the notion that the issue is either one extreme (total belief action now or total scepticism no action now) or the other (your clear stance).

I argued that doing something now (precautionary principal) doesn't necessarily = full blown panic, destruction or premature reactionary behaviour.

I argued that the issue is one of probabilities (alternative views incl.) as is the answer. I postulated that that answer is more likely to be in the centre than the extremes.i.e. limited action now. Addressing issues of pollution and reliance on Oil/coal and the western profligate lifestyle come to mind. Obviously something must be done to alleviate the destructive survival desperation of the third world.

Finally your dismissal of the issue as the 26th fear campaign is avoidance not dealing with the inconvenient reality of probable threats.

StG:

This issue of Global Warming has been deliberately
selected as an ideal way for vested interests to
gain money and power from the gullible minions.

Global Warming is generally accepted as being an
ongoing occurrence, and I do not think that anyone
would logically dispute that fact, however, the actual
cause of this phenomenom is where all the source of
argument exists.

There are two basic schools of thought emanating from
the opinions espoused by the equally divided members of
the world`s scientific community. One group`s opinion
would have us believe that Global Warming is a result
of the man-made gradual destruction of the environment
by atmospheric pollution etc.

The second group`s opinion is that Global Warming is
simply another round of natural climatic warming events
that have occurred many times before during the history
of this planet and is a result of increased Solar Flare
activity, over which we have no control.

With both of these opinions in play, certain political
elements have seized upon the first group`s opinion as
the ideal opportunity to capitalize on the gullability of
the voting public, by creating a nation-wide "guilt
complex", promoting the implementation of a big new
Carbon Tax, conveniently providing a much needed boost
to the national coffers,....a move that will be seen
to be utterly futile in actually reducing Global
Warming.

The public of this country should NOT be bamboozled into
voting for or supporting this "evil new tax upon everything"
and I would encourage each individual to think for himself
or herself,...consider the truth of the scientific facts
presented and support commonsense!....Do NOT be conned again!

One of the most distinctive of all human
characteristics is that we are tool-using
animals. True, a few other animals have learned
to employ implements in a rudimentary way; for
example, sea otters sometimes use rocks to
smash mollusk shells, and chimpanzees occasionally
use twigs to extract termites from their nests.
But the tool use of other species has little if any
permanent effect on their social or natural
environments. People, in contrast, have used
increasingly sophisticated techniques to act on the
social and natural world for thousands of years -
and they have done so in ways that have transformed, and
continue to transform, the very conditions of life
on this planet.

You now see signs such as, "The water, fish, and soil
of this Lake are contaminated with cancer causing
chemicals."

Public faith in the latest technologies is sometimes
shaken by technological disasters, such as the
destruction of the "unsinkable" passenger liner
Titanic in 1912, the airship Hindenburg in 1937,
and the space shuttle Challenger in 1986.

Such disasters capture public attention because of
their dramatic nature, while more serious but less
visible disasters - such as the pollution of the
environment with pesticides and other noxious
chemicals - tends to be overlooked.

In preindustrial societies, human technology made
comparatively little demand on the resources of the
environment. Populations were relatively small, and
for the most part people's material needs were fairly
limited, and easily satisfied. Industrialisation, however,
has brought about rapid population increases - and also
an apparently endless expansion in people's material
desires.

If the same voracious pattern persists in the future,
in other industrialising societies,
an expanding demand will well exceed the planet's
finite resources.

We forget that we ultimately
are dependent on the environment for our survival as any
other species. If we continue to cause environmental damage
we run the risk of destroying the environment upon which
we depend for our survival.

The "Climate Debate" is ridiculous? Only to people
who believe that we have infinite resources, and that
we can keep on doing what we're currently doing with
no ill effects whatsoever.

Hi examinator, re-interpreting your use of the term “fear” does not change the dynamics or context of its application to a public alarm phenomena. As we have previously discussed, it is the Green/Armstrong research that draws the analogous match to AGW as the 26th public alarm phenomena. I just thought it interesting that you described it so well, intentionally or not.

I’m not sure about your reference to “total skeptic”, how can being skeptical about anything be absolute? unless it is intended to radicalize the tag.

When deciding on a “solution”, my first response will always be, tell me all I need to know about the “problem”. That doesn’t seem hard now does it?

So when I ask questions about AGW I’m told many things that describe the problem. Then I say OK, that’s fine but where is the other side of the story? Everyone knows there is always another side. Now I’m in trouble on multiple counts, for inferring that there IS another view, for looking for it, for researching it and for speaking about it.

No matter how hard I try to balance the two opposing scientific views in order to qualify the “problem” I am challenged and labeled as skeptical. Why is it that requiring all the information I need about the problem so wrong?

If I am willing to state that if both contrary scientific camps conduct a full review of both sets of research I will accept this, why is this not acceptable to AGW advocates?

When AGW advocates can step away from their “singular science” perspectives and promote inclusive reviews of the science, is when this whole contentious debate will be resolved.

All I’m asking is for advocates to say, yep! That makes perfect sense, put all the scientists together and let them review everything and sort out a conclusion. Without this any "solution" will be flawed.

Why examinator, is this so hard?

This mornings Sydney morning Herald has a story worth a look.
Last year was Australia's second hottest year, 2005 still holds the record for the hottest on record.
NSW had its hottest year on record last year.

Foxy - "The "Climate Debate" is ridiculous? Only to people
who believe that we have infinite resources, and that
we can keep on doing what we're currently doing with
no ill effects whatsoever."

Now tell me

So what on earth are you talking about

"Climate Change"

or

"Resource depletion"

Noting that the two are completely separate and independent of one another

As for doing what we are doing... well so long as you are free to do what you want and I am free to do as I want we have no problem

But the moment you think you are in any way entitled to dictate what I may do is when we will have a war.

Dear Stern,

I wasn't aware that I was dictating anything
to you or anyone else, merely pointing out
that we should be careful how we mistreat
our natural environment as we all too easily
forget that ultimately we are dependent on it
for our survival as any other species.

And you tell me that this is not connected to
a change in global climate?

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution,
is a change in the global climate. As a result of
the burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of
forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is steadily increasing. This gas creates
a "greenhouse effect" on the planet, for it allows
solar rays to reach the earth's surface but prevents
heat from radiating back into space. The consequence
will be a global warming, which will eventually
cause the melting of the polar ice caps, a rise in
sea levels, and changes in weather patterns.

This warming effect is already under way, and average
global temperature is expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2030. This seems like a small change, but
minor fluctuations in global temperature can have
drastic consequences: during the last ice age, when much
of North America was covered with sheets of ice more than
a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degrees
cooler than today.

You say that if I dictate to you what you can or can't do,
there will be a war?

I would not presume to dictate anything to you Sir.
Nature will take care of that.

By the end of the twenty-first century, global
temperature may have increased by as much as 9 degress.

But, nobody can tell you anything - I get it.
You're fine with not knowing what the ultimate
consequences would be for life on the planet and for
human society.

Purely in the interests of adding balance to Belly’s piece:

“Dozens of people are reported to have died from hypothermia as a cold snap sweeps across several countries in LATIN AMERICA.
In Argentina, 33 people died as temperatures dropped down to around -14 degrees Celsius in the centre of the country. Many homeless people are among the victims who died in the capital city Buenos Aires…1,000 cattle died in the freezing temperatures, mostly in the northern part of the country.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/21/2959907.htm

“Brace yourself for more winters like the last one, northern EUROPE . Freezing conditions could become more likely: winter temperatures may even plummet to depths last seen at the end of the 17th century, a time known as the Little Ice Age. That's the message from a new study that identifies a compelling link between solar activity and winter temperatures in northern Europe.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627564.800-quiet-sun-puts-europe-on-ice.html

“SYDNEY has shivered through its coldest June day in 27 years, with the mercury plummeting to 4.7 degrees in the city. Not since 1983 has a colder June temperature been recorded, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) said on Tuesday.It was also the coldest day of any month since 2007...And NSW is not the only state rugging up.Tuesday was MELBOURNE'S coldest day in almost two years...A day earlier, BRISBANE had its coldest morning of the year"
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-has-coldest-june-day-in-27-years-20100629-zija.html

( And, yes, I know AGWers see any change: cold ,hot ,wet ,dry, as "EVIDENCE" their creed is the one true faith --but the world has known similar changes many times before -- such being more in line with natural cycles than systems swinging wildly out of balance)

Dear Horus,

Atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable outcome
of industrial technology; it derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather
than bear the costs - probably including slower
economic - of limiting it. We do have some
antipollution laws, but these are clearly insufficient
to prevent potential grave damage to the atmosphere.
Further control of pollution is politically
difficult, however, for the economic interests behind
"smokestack" industries are a powerful political
lobby that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources
to the task.

Incidentally, modern technology is even polluting space
beyond the upper atmosphere. At present, according to
Ian Robertson, "Sociology," - " there are
over 15,000 detectable artificial objects orbiting
the earth, of which only about 235 are operational
satellites. The rest are space junk - nonfunctioning
satellites, spent rockets, exploded boosters, oxygen
cylinders, and the like. Additionally, there are
several million other objects that are too small to
track, most of them bits and pieces resulting from
collisions of space junk and from intentional
detonations by experimental "killer" satellites."

"Further collisions among these various objects create
a constant rain of new fragments. Because of its high
impact velocity, this orbiting garbage now represents a
serious threat to spacecraft and working satellites.
A piece of metal as small as a walnut travelling at six
miles a second has the explosive impact of a hand grenade,
and could easily penetrate a space shuttle, killing its
occupants. Some multimillion-dollar satellites are
already believed to have stopped functioning because of
such damage, and any future space station will have to
be protected against space-junk impacts."

"In fact, the possibility of collisions would be a
continuing threat to any space-based missile defense
system, for its components could be accidentally disabled
by chance encounters with space debris."

The point that I'm trying to make is that the use of any
resources can't be considered in isolation from its
potentially complex environmental impacts.

Spindoc,
26th catastrophe is an option you support because it suits your argument. Your reliance on a novel even softer 'science' is worrying in terms of the incisive judgement you make claim to possess.

Your rabbit hole (argument) is well trod but leads no where, ultimately because neither side believes the other's sources. There is no mutually trusted arbiter/authority.

The debate has now entered the political field in which case tactics, spoiler 'pseudo science', and emotional manipulation

Dear Examinator,

I really appreciate your recommending the book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability,"
by Tor Hundloe, some time ago.

He tells us in the chapter entitled,
"Vested Political and Economic Interests:
Be Aware,":

"In case we dismiss religious intervention in science
a thing of the past, be aware that on issues which
require radical solutions that are likely to harm
vested economic and political interests, censorship
exists today. In Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public
research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the
organisation's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on
behalf of the ogvernment. And Australia is one of the
standout countries in terms of human development status.
It is not corrupt. Its science is world class. None of
this matters. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse
to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol.
With the release of the Stern Report on climate change,
the Australian Government's position had changed -
yet the Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a
commitment to counter global warming. Little had changed
in near to 400 years when ignorance and vested interests
are confronted by scientific facts!"

It seems as Hundloe affirms, " New ideas, instead of
being welcome for the opportunities they opened up for
the improvement of the human lot, were threats to those who
had become comfortable in their ideologies (religious or
otherwise)."

"While Galileo's and other wonderful discoveries were
being made, not much had been learnt by the political elite
in 2000 years since Socrates' murder by the state."

Foxy,
I agree pollution needs to be minimised. And I’m all for developing alternate energy too.But the AGW platform has something deeply phoney about it. Which makes me suspect many who push it have other less worthy motives- quite apart from their general authoritarian attitude in debates.

If I had a gripe about noisy neighbours –their culpability would not be determined/mitigated by the number of persons in each household.
Surely it would be the volume of noise produced. Yet AGW advocates play per capita games ,and sell the message that those polluters with
burgeoning populations are less culpable (Then they wonder why Copenhagen failed!).

It is especially sinister when you realise that over-population is right up there with pollution as a survival threat ,see below:

“I asked them what they thought the population of China would ultimately peak out at, and they said about 1.6-billion, which of course contradicted what the Party line was, which was 1.2-billion… I then said, what in their opinion was the long-term carrying capacity of China? And they said they thought about 640-million people. So in the opinions of Chinese experts, China may end up with nearly three times as many people as the country can carry, in the long run. And that could spell trouble.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2959674.htm#transcript
Now run the same rule over Bangladesh, India, and a dozen other countries.
And the worst of it is the AGW platform has primed these entities with an easy excuse/out – for we all now know that anything that happens to impact on their carrying capacity will be labelled AGW related, and not their own bad planning.

Oh,almost forgot , talking of things being connected and falling from sky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozvjLE2bg7Q&feature=related

Dear Horus,

Thank you for your well reasoned and valid
response.

I fully appreciate your argument.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult
one to solve, for several reasons. First, some
people and governments see pollution as a
regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired
economic development - "Where there's smoke, there's
jobs."

Secondly, control of pollution requires international
coordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides
can end up in other countries' air or food. Thirdly,
the effects of pollution may not show up for many years,
so severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it's taking place. Lastly,
preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and sometimes - when the damage is
irreversible - impossible.

The additional problem, as you point out, is that
although most industrialised nations are now actively
trying to limit the effects of pollution, the populous
less developed societies are more concerned with
economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of
the price they have to pay for it.

In the end however, we'll all end up paying for it
eventually - unless something is done.

Thanks for the link - appreciated it!

Dear Foxy,

I posted this link on another thread - it's about the Canadian tar sands industry and Canada's attitude - you might find it interesting.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?263149

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for that link.

It's extremely frightening and depressing
that such a civilized country like Canda -
is not so civilized afterall.

Your link should help some people understand
what happened at Copenhagen a bit better.
:-)

Dear Foxy,

What can we do?

This article was brought to my notice by an acquaintance of mine. She used to be the Green's leader in Canada in the mid-nineties, but she went back to publishing and journalism because she thought she could do more. Perhaps she should have stuck it out politically, as it seems that things have gone downhill environmentally in Canada.

Dear Poirot,

Well there's an election just around the
corner.

At least we can weigh up the choices that
we're facing in who has the best policies
for sustainability. Or can we?

I must admit I had to laugh (otherwise
I'd cry) at Anson Cameron's article in, The Age,
Saturday, July 31st 2010, entitled, "Telly turf
war spells ad infinitum."

In it he states, "...When Julia comes on TV and
tells me Tony can't be trusted, I believe her.
She's got my vote. And when Tony comes on and
tells me Julia is a usurper without ethics, I
believe him. He's got my vote. And when Julia
comes on and tell me Tony's a climate turnip
who will burn us all, I believe her. She's got
my vote. Done deal. Again. And, then, when Tony
comes on and tells me Julia's a puppet of
wharfies-who-would-be-kings, I believe him.
Undone deal, Julia. Tony's got my vote again.
Gullibility means serving many masters in the
course of a day. Each evening between sitcoms
I'm pulling more political volte-faces than
Winston between wars..."

Foxy

There are 3 things I know of for sure about Julia Gillard:

1. She has never claimed that climate change is crap.
2. She never tried to ban an effective contraception for women.
3. She is not concerned whether a person is a virgin or not.

She may not be perfect, but she is never likely to enter Australia into war because god told her to.

Dear Foxy,

This has been my problem during this campaign - the campaign blather and the personalities on offer didn't serve the purpose of getting me motivated to listen and choose - it had the opposite effect - and for the first time, I just stopped listening. I've hardly watched any telly since it started so I've spared myself the ads....must admit, the possibility of a Liberal government led by Mr Abbott is mildly terrifying...wonder what Mr Costello is thinking.

Dear Severin,

I agree with two of your points about Julia
Gillard. The third, I'm a bit hesitant over
because although her decisions in the future
may not be based on what "God told her to do,"
can we say the same about the dictates of the
Labor Factions?

Dear Poirot,

Watching the adds on TV is very disheartening.
It's all about attack and condemnation.
Surely people should realise that voters are
not idiots, they want substance not spin.
And you're right, it's hard to remain positive,
but I'm going to keep on trying - because as
I've said previously on this Forum - Tony Abbott
and Co., scares me.

Foxy… still promoting the myth….

you are promoting the theory, note theory, not irrefutable fact that

“The most far-reaching effect of air pollution,
is a change in the global climate. As a result of
the burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of
forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is steadily increasing.”

Causes

“This warming effect is already under way, and average
global temperature is expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2030.”

You hypothesise: air pollution is the cause of accelerated warming.

is simply

Simplistic, science for simpletons

Whilst I would agree, pollution, be it air or terrestrial, is undesirable,

I would suggest you are relying on the ignorance of others if you think that for one minute there is any correlation between air pollution and global warming.

Especially, when the earth has a history of warm and cooling through cycles in history which, because of a lack of people, must have something to do with non-Anthropogenic sources, such as variations in earth orbit relative to the sun, shifts in the position of the earths axis, volcanic activity or any other influences which was never and will never be influenced by anthropogenic pollution.

So back to air pollution… you will find there is a direct correlation between city air quality and the activities and concentration of people in them.

That is a fact but I would further note, such pollution is concentrated in countries which use individual house fires to cook and not modern cities which rely on coal fired power stations or better still (from an air quality perspective, nuclear fueled power stations.

Re “temperature may have increased by as much as 9 degrees.”

And Malthus said the world would 150 collapse years ago and we are still waiting

Re “nobody can tell you anything”

If you mean "No leftie bulltish will go unchallenged"

You are right!

I listen all the time but when offered the simplistic bulltish as the basis to interfere in my liberty I challenge it

As I will always challenge the failed Bulltish pseudo-science of collectivism