Well...FINALLY.. the truth has come out!

Many of us have been banging on about 'Climate Change/Global Warming' is a 'socialist plot to redistribute wealth to 3rd world countries'

Of course we are written of as 'lunatic right wing morons'.... but we have stayed the course.. done our research and hung in when the mockery and rididule was like a tsunami.

NOW...we are VINDICATED! By who?

I could say 'Glenn Beck' here..and GB has done a wonderful job of exposing the profit making (for the wealthy socialist elite like Gore and Strong etc) wealth re-distribution (applicable to all others not in their 'club') of everyone ELSE's money..but hey.. GB is just another 'right wing hack'....right?

WHO then?

Why...it's ->Prof Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change.

What does he say? oooh..this is almost too juicy for words.

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

THIS line bears repeating:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." (Edenhofer)

Any comment?

sorry i stopped listening to their spin long ago
it was mainly economists...[one need only look as far as the wong penny...who now deals in finance..[or ruse garnoh..[ross garnesh'e]
or all gore

thatcher was in the focus group
that concieved it when it was called global cooling

its a tax by any other name
pay to polute...with the burden being not tax refundable..for the poor
but a business tax deduction..for the rich

it was raised because govt needed a cash income[when told about the upcomming banker collapse..by securities traiters..needing their next cash cow..enron..and many others love these govt cash cows

the face of green jobs...[to install the junk]
and the increase..of the cost of power/gas etc
to pay for others to get free power

and thousands of dollars of solar cells...[on their roofs]
and then a nice cash back..[we the other consumers are coping increases to pay..for..THEIR infastructure...lol

we have been royaly conned...decieved...and lied to by wong numbers
and its a grand..SCEME..that just keeps on giving[to the elite];in on the scam..as opposed to the sukkers paying for their ignorance..bah

if you get govt money
somehow it must go back to govt
loans..would have been better..

as it is now..they get their night time power...FROM the dirty coal stations...for free..via infastructure..we are paying for...

at least make them pay full price..
not suck on our infastructure for free

glad nsw dropped the 60 cents buyback
govt needs to stop serving special intrests
in qld..cheaper power was aLLWAYS a lie..but we bought the spin

time..those wholier than thou greenies...paid back..that their masters decieved..into getting..[the freelunch]look at spain..who now its spent its peoples cash...got no more greenjobs

As an AGW agnostic I reckon people in both camps just cherry pick the 'evidence' that suits their own worldview.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Only the ripest cherries get picked.

It's a logical fallacy to say global warming is akin to a communist plot, as the author of this thread implies.
S/he seems to conflate and confuse ‘politics’ and ‘science’.

Of course different countries have different ideological agendas. This is the reason the UNFCCC has ALWAYS debated the policies – WHO should act, HOW they should act, and WHEN they should act.

The ‘environment’ doesn’t care about politics, and only some politicians (really) care about the environment. The UNFCCC meeting in Mexico will demonstrate this again, sadly.

Dear Pelly... I tend to agree...that the 'truth' does indeed lie somewhere in between. But I suggest that given the blatant and clear ideological/economic/political/left wing bias in anything U.N. the position inbetween is in fact much closer to the 'Nothing to worry about here' end of the spectrum.

The astute observer of history, will know that this scam has been tried before, and by the same ideological interests.

Bonmot... do you agree

a) The quote is accurate/reliable (from Edenhofer)

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."

that:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

He is openly admitting that the real deal here is about what his words actually 'say' ?

If not..how would you explain his words?

Once again you are taking sound-bites out of their original context, Boaz.

Ottmar Edenhofer says:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

You ask:

>>He is openly admitting that the real deal here is about what his words actually 'say'? If not..how would you explain his words?<<

My view is that he was simply being pragmatic.

As in, hey, folks, please do not get the idea that this will be a free lunch. Rich countries will make greater sacrifices than poor ones. So, de facto, we are inevitably in the business of wealth redistribution.

He is after all, a very down-to-earth German economist, not a pioneering flag-waver for the New World Order. He just calls it as he sees it.

IF we have an emission reduction plan, THEN we will have distribution of wealth from rich to poor.

You have interpreted this as a policy statement, where Edenhofer has declared this to be the IPCC's underlying motivation.

But he is describing the effect, not the cause.

i thought i would try to find out the real numbers
and the real number is 5 million hits

see the google term i used was
'how many economists climate change'

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=how+many+economists+climate+change&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

and reading across the first page..its clearly an economic issue
PUSHED BY THOSE HOLDING THE PURSE STRINGS
the moneyed ELITE..[e_CON-o/mist}..ers

hiding behind a thin veil of deceptive and trickey science MODELING
for greater PURPOSE..to with economics

[its cheaper to do it NOW]...lol

[ITS the RIGHT thing to be doing..[for economists]..

for carbon traders...for securities traders..for the moneyed elites
for those wanting the next big bubble..[solar subsidised INFASTRUCTURE..paid for by CON-sumers]

cash back grants to an elitist mob of industrialists...needing to sell a product

[only made value via govt SUBSIDY]
con the people they are paying for infastructure

when they are really paying for SOME..to get free solar cells on their roofs..[or in their paddocks...

as well as BYING..any solar power..at a prenium price..
SUBSIDISED BY THE BASIC ignorant consumer..

[thinking its..*really for infastructure...
when its for a freelunch allround..to those knowing the economics of govt cashcows...and eCONnomic..THEORY

ps i still dont KNOW how many ECONOMISTS are selling the scam
but i think more than half ARE ECONOMIC..with the truth of their trade

they should have stuck with bottom of the harbour scemes
or defrauding..the taxman...not cashing in on lies and scare camPAINS

Pericles:

Your interpretation of Ottmar Edenhofer's remarks seems to be spot on. It's a pity that a few more quotes weren't given to put things into their correct perspective. I find it a bit disturbing that here in Australia there are still some people who find it necessary to re-run the strategy of denial (perfected by Dick Cheney in the Bush administration a decade ago). Mr Cheney's response a decade ago repudiated years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and created an alternative reality in which climate change became a hoax or a conspiracy.

This is one way of avoiding debate about solutions to climate change by denying its existence or at least diminishing its importance. Global warming is a complex matter and of course many people share different points of view on this issue (mysel included) but being heavy-handed certainly doesn't help.

I posted the following comment in the comments re the Tuvalu item last Friday. As a metallurgist I am satisfied that fossil fuels are too valuable to future generations to be wasted over just two or three generations. I we conserve them for use over a much longer period the planet will accommodate the problems excessive combustion causes.
AlGoreisRich
You drew attention to a site address. I have read it and the main point of the article was, in my view, as shown below. The last sentence (after Why?) is the important comment.
Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

"""
This is one way of avoiding debate about solutions to climate change by denying its existence
"""

Who in the world denies the climate changes? It's been changing for 4 1/2 billion years. It's the criminal/hypocritical taxing of life giving carbon dioxide that's the issue!

If carbon dioxide pollution (which by the way, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant) was such a great, imminent threat, why are we still digging up coal? Why are we shutting down our power plants while giving money to other countries to build more of them?

Al is right to recognise it's nothing but wealth distribution from the poor to the rich and a means of removing more freedoms and rights from the people by governments all over the world.

It's time green latte sipping fools STFU about all these lies. This game is over, time for you to find a new playing field.

It would seem Victorians have spoken, Al. The greens(reds) and labour are on the run and good riddance to the the lot of them.

To use the views of a certifiable lunatic like Glenn Beck as the basis for any logical argument is nothing more than self-promotion and denial for the sake of some sort of idealogical stance.

It's interesting too that the same people who accept the existence of a hole in the ozone layer don't see it as some sort of international conspiracy when it uses the same science and is just as inconclusive in its remedy.

AGIR:
Yes, and I agree with him. If it makes it easier to understand, you have to first de-couple “climate policy” and “environmental policy”.

For example, the former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull, are ‘environmentalists’. They are also both ‘right wing’ politicians, and both have had very good ‘environmental’ policies.

However, in terms of ‘international climate policy’, both were hamstrung by their country’s non-ratification of the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol. The USA is now the only other country (out of 190+) that hasn’t. At the time, both Turnbull and the ‘Guv’ pressured their national leaders/parties to ratify, both failed.

In terms of “international climate policy”, Edenhofer just confirms that political, economic and socio-cultural ideology will decide how the world adapts to, and makes provisions for, a changing climate – whether you (or anyone else) believe in AGW or not. In other words, the world (well, except for a few intransigents) has moved on from the science (WG1) and are focusing more on adaptation and mitigation (WG2 and WG3), see

http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/WoSES

Sure, the UNFCCC conferences are ‘highfalutin’ gabfests - made up of government and business representatives, lobbyists of all sorts, ngo’s, environment organisations, religious groups of all sorts, etc. To my mind, Edenhofer is just stating the bleeding obvious - all member states accept global warming is real and that ‘Man’ has played a significant role. What they don’t accept (hence the ‘beef-ups’ and virtual ‘free-for-all’) is;

1. What should be done (e.g. adaptation, mitigation, both)

2. Who should do it (e.g. us/them, developing/developed, everyone)

3. When to do it (e.g. now, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, whenever)

Moreover, it doesn’t take the sharpest pencil in the pack to realise that the bean-counters tagging along to these ‘fun-in-the-suns’ want to know how is ‘it’ going to be paid (e.g. carbon tax, cap-n-trade, ETS, etc).

Summary? I think it strange that some people find Edenhofer’s statements so off the planet – he is an economist after all. Check him out here:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh

AL,
Yes we have heard all these arguments from you before and yes the whole AL Gore thing has a bad smell. But come on, it does not take a climate scientist to see we are killing the planet with our stupidity.
I do agree that mostly government are barking up the wrong tree, but the real solutions are not acceptable to modern society.
We want profit at any cost and a rising standard of living no matter who we must hurt to do it.
You are clearly an intelligent person, so instead of destructive and negative comment give us some positive directions to head to help the planet.

AGiR, The real test of the impact of this “news” will be to see if it appears on the ABC?

Has anyone seen anything about it in our media at all?

Maurice Newman of the ABC this week criticized the media for “group think” and that the “science is not settled”. Not much evidence of the lightning strike on the road to Damascus.

I just love the way the warmers are dealing with their pain, they respond with anger, rejection, deconstruction and reinterpretation.

Armstrong/Green in their paper on “Public Alarm Phenomena” described perfectly the decline of these phenomena and the horrendous cost legacy they leave our economies.

What is it they say about reality? It bites

Wish I could devote a complete post to each of you... sadly.. I, like Labor and the Greens..am on the 'run' with work :(

Pericles.. your analysis would possibly hold IF... not for this:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." (Edenhofer)

Wobbles.. re Beck I said "I COULD"...but didn't. didya notice that ?
In any case..I never quote 'Becks' opinion..but I'll happily quote sources he refers to.(after checking them)

Do we need to put the brakes on exploitation of the limited earthly resources? of course..but we can do that withOUT a socialist conspiracy to use such issues for world domination. (scary face look)

To all.. it is without doubt that this particular 'round' of using Climate change as an ideological stealth bomber to destroy our freedom, (just like the last time) is nothing more than a progressive/socialist PLOT! there..I said it..now you can call me a whacko :)

The PLOT is for implementation of the Marcusian/progressive/Socialist agenda of:

-Destroying the Nuclear family.
-Redistributing wealth by force from the haves to the have not's.

Unforunately the "have-not's" are seldom asked IF they want the types of changes (like the feminist agenda in traditional societies) that progressives think they need.

The Labor/Green/Watermelon brand will become increasingly TOXIC as I and others continue to expose their machievellian/marcusian/Marxist red underbelly. (hi 5 arjay :) kidding.

Spindoc
I tried to find where Maurice Newman (ABC) said that THIS WEEK. I know he said it last March - but this week? Can you provide the link please?

As to "the real test of the impact of this “news” will be to see if it appears on the ABC?"

Not much impact at all really, imo.

Ok, both you and AGIR think Edenhofer’s statements are "news" - others say he is only stating the obvious.

For what it's worth, I think the real news will be focused on Cancun, Mexico - as we speak.

AGIR
It is disturbing that you still keep banging on about "climate change ... is nothing more than a progressive/socialist PLOT". You obviously have nothing to say in response to:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4137#10334

I should not be surprised - now, am off to work again.

bonmot, << I tried to find where Maurice Newman (ABC) said that THIS WEEK.>>

See two articles in The Weekend Australian last weekend and the transcript is current on the ABC radio website. (Why on there??) When are we going to see this covered on ABC News, the 7:30 Report or ABC 24hr News?

You also say <<Ok, both you and AGIR think Edenhofer’s statements are "news" - others say he is only stating the obvious.>>

This is an interesting comment and raises some serious issues about your thinking. The AGW debate has been soured by those who insist on excluding, trivializing or attacking anything from any source that is contrary to their belief. The compliant media censors contrary (damaging) news on the topic and the warmers seek to dismiss contrary information.

You tell us that this item may be news to “others” but it has not much impact at all really and is just stating the obvious.

“Obvious” to you perhaps, but to “others” it may be a significant item of news upon which they may chose to form their own opinions, if that’s OK with you and the ABC of course?

I would like to continue sourcing my news from all available outlets, with the broadest possible opinion base, to assign my own judgment on balance and value, to research my own data from wherever I chose and, heaven forbid, to actually form my own opinion.

Some might suggest that when they need a puffed up ideological toady to do all this for them, they’ll give one a call.

That is also consistent with my point, Boaz.

>>Pericles.. your analysis would possibly hold IF... not for this:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." (Edenhofer)<<

Again, the realist/economist view. If you are off to an international gabfest about carbon, you want to make it crystal clear that you are not there to talk about whether China is worse than the US (in emission terms), or whether Australia may be regarded as a special case. You are there to redistribute money from the rich to the poor.

The point I was making is this: the redistribution is the result of carbon policy, not the cause of it.

Your fiction is that there is a global conspiracy that was set in motion all those years ago by George Bernard Shaw (who was Irish, by the way, not English) to use global warming as the basis of a neo-communist world agenda, or whatever.

I'm just saying the you are putting the cart before the horse, and in doing so fail to notice the horse manure trailing behind you.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Pericles... this is a little chicken and eggish don't you think ?

Is climate policy a product of a rather close knit club of people such as Strong, Gore and others, who see in it an opportunity to

a) Enrich themselves
b) Advance a socialist agenda (while remaining rich themselves)
c) Noble altruism? *cough* I doubt it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih1UPeEK9Ig

Given that Strong was the orchestrator of the Rio Earth Summit, and a major string puller/facilitator of Copenhagen, and knowing more about his background than I hazard a guess you do (at this point at least), it seems the Capitalist Wolves of Strong, Gore and a bunch of Euro progressives (in socialist sheepskin) are the Chicken which produced the 'Global Warming/Climate change' EGG....

There is a very clear and easily identifable network of interconnected people who seem to share these objectives. It's not like a hidden thing.

I know it's emotionally preferable to see it all as 'a perspective' but given this world order is a product of numerous conspiracies...

and there are many layers of those.. it all seems rather obvious to me.

Layer 1 = Political parties
Layer 2 = Factions within them.
Layer 3 = Identifiable ideological groupings in the party.

In the case of Labor... there is the Party-left&right factions-Fabians.

The fabians are probably within the Left side, though Gillard, a Fabian is at least 'outwardly' a contradiction.

Dear Al,

I'm intrigued by your apparent fixation and fear of a plot to redistribute wealth from the "rich" to the "poor".
Why are you so frightened of a more equitable spread of universal wealth and opportunity? Seems to me that Jesus would have been in favour of such a scheme.

Spindoc

I know what Maurice Newman said last March. It was well circulated in mainstream media and all around the blogtraps. Bejeebus, even ABC’s radio, TV and on-line reported it, widely – despite claims to the contrary.

However, I could not find Newman’s remarks in any of the two articles told me to look at in the last Weekend Australian. Sure, his name was mentioned, but:

1st Article, page 1:

Something about John Coombs, long retired as national secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, finding himself in the "same camp as ABC chairman and former ASX chair MAURICE NEWMAN. Both own property at Crookwell on the NSW southern tablelands ... and both have serious doubts about the wisdom of a planned explosion of wind-power developments in the area ..."

It turns out both Coombs and Newman are concerned about the costs, efficiencies and health effects of the new-generation wind turbines planned for their shared region of abode.

2nd ‘article’, page 32:

Start: "More than 400 people turned up for Taronga Foundation’s annual Zoofari charity dinner held in a tented pavilion in Taronga Zoo overlooking the harbour. The evening raised $430,000 for the conservation of the endangered Sumatran tiger. ABC and Taronga Foundation chair MAURICE NEWMAN met with “Tigerman” and mingled with QBE boss Frank O’Halloran, Taronga conservation board member Steve Crane, jeweller Nic Cerrone and MP Frank Sartor. Skye Leckie and Women’s Weekly editor in chief Deborah Thomas also attended." Finish.

spindoc: how is anybody (me included) supposed to have dialogue or engage with you when it appears you deliberately 'doctor' your source material and then 'spin' it as fact? Either that, or you can’t be bothered to do some basic fact checking before you post your comments.

AGIR (Boaz and so forth)
Don’t bother, I understand now – had a look at some of your OLO history.

Poirot
Just read your comment - very good point!

Methinks Al that you are staring to see Communist/Socialist conspiracy theories in the most inocuous of events particularly in environmental causes.

How can you diminish the importance of the environment, something which effects all living forms on earth including man.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/30/3080628.htm?section=justin

The above link shows just what man is doing to his environment and, while I know this thread focuses on the climate change debate,it is disappointing that you continually equate all aspects of environmentalism with radical socialism rather than a humanitarian and compassionate endeavour.

Your hatred of the Greens is will documented but they are thus far the only party that will put environmental protection ahead of other interests. For in the long term if we don't protect what we rely on, that which we have an intimate relationship - the environment, we will risk greater loss of life and possible extinction (worst case of course).

What is your agenda I wonder?

Dear_Poirot

You_ask:
a) "Why are you so frightened of a more equitable spread of universal wealth and opportunity? b) Seems to me that Jesus would have been in favour of such a scheme."

Here is the most fundamental problem mate..... the DIFFerence between Jesus approach and that of the socialist 'hoardes' is FORCE. Jesus did not "force" or make laws. He didn't even advocate redistribution of wealth in a political sense.

An important question.

If you are an entrepreneur, a business man who has sacrificed all your limited resources ..super.. long service leave... savings..EVerything...for the sake of an idea... a vision a dream..and you provide employment for a number of people....THEN..some scumbag tells you "Well.. we've decide to make the top marginal tax rate 80% and distribute your wealth to a little country down in south America.

WOULD.....you still have the incentive, desire, passion, drive to make your business grow ? (that's the question by the way)

Let's now loop back a bit. WEALTH" is a commodity (money) generated by....your vision/sacrifice/dream.....but wait....the government just DESTROYED that vision/dream/passion...and the 'commodity' (wealth) just dries up and *voila* there is NOTHING to 'redistribute'.

"Redistribution of wealth" works fine when there IS wealth to redistribute...but nothing KILLS 'wealth' like taking it away from 'you' (who earned,and worked for it) and giving it to some dill in a far off country or his corrupt dictator, or his corrupt local political commissar or funding some kind of ideologically driven 'entitlement' scheme which itself was driven by pure GREED.

EXAMPLE. SEIU union (the Infamous Andy stern... u know.. "If they won't listen to the power of persuasion, they will listen to the persuasion of POWER") was vitally involved with the shaping of Obamacare etc. They have JUST declared they are reducing benefits from their Union health care fund for children, because of 'unexpected costs' OHhhhhhhhh YEAH! "They" designed the system..now they can't afford it...so..(and this is the good bit) WHAT do they do?

"Wealth redistribution" as follows:

They call out to "The State of New York" to fund their Union health care plan! ! !

Dear Al,

What if the little country down in South America (or Africa or Asia or Anywhere) had been instrumental in you gaining your materials or cheaply manufactured components because its people had been exploited?
What if the little country (Wherever) had been saddled with a corrupt dictator because of the lessons learned from "Colonialism" or had one thrust upon them by the powers that be?

What is "wealth" anyway, Al, if it's not epitomised by the well-being and social cohesion of the majority in any given society?

Did you complain as vehemently at government handouts when the American government bailed out the rich guys and their banks with money from ordinary taxpayers?

pelican:>> Your hatred of the Greens is will documented but they are thus far the only party that will put environmental protection ahead of other interests.<<

Pelican you wondered what Al's agenda is but you do not have a clue as to the agenda behind those that you support.

Control on this earth comes from money and political power, and amazingly one begets the other, no matter which came first. The Lefts embrace of environmental issues and the whole environmental movement was hijacked by the "money". I had identified the rot and manipulation of the environmental movement twenty years ago and the conclusions that I came to have been encapsulated in plain speak in the link below, watch it, it is factual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI

Re the environment I am pro, so toxic and material pollution is an issue for me and us. But the focus has been moved from the polluters by the polluters to the consumer and the BIG threat moved from the obvious pollution issues to Global Warming. The only comment I will make on Global Warming and the Carbon hoax is that in the past six months rainfall Australia wide state by state has broken records. Right now in Europe record cold and snow are breaking records, and winter has just started for them.

P do not be fooled by rhetoric, we are being conned by the "money". As I said in the Carbon tax thread, pissy little New Zealand will pay one and a half billion in just over three years to offset Carbon production to multinational corporations who had the foresight to buy existing forests in New Zealand. The money goes straight overseas and is then invested in Carbon producing industries. How stupid are we?, extremely by the look of it.

sonofgloin,

Your highlighting of of evidence of extreme "winter" does not negate the impact of global warming. The effects of such warming are more likely to be seen in unstable, unpredictable and unusual weather events.
You've already pointed out record breaking rainfall in some Australian states. Checkout WA's rainfall this winter....hardly any. Instead we had day after day of blue sunny skies - very cold but no rain.
Europe had a particularly severe winter last year and its shaping up early this year to be even worse.

Poirot, I have no issue with the validity of "climate change" after all it is the weather, but Carbon and the rhetoric and taxes that the instigators of the myth wish to put in place does not serve the environment, it serves them.

Poirot, sonofgloin thinks 'it' all a hoax, a myth.

You can't shed light on those that live in the dark without damaging hurting their eyes.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs22.pdf

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs21a.pdf

Hope the links help.
Blair

Poirot re the WA rainfall, in 2009 total rainfall in the catchment area that supplies Perth was 607mm thus far in 2010 it is 486mm so you are correct about more sunny skies this year.

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/R/rainfall.cfm

But there is this from the Cwlth bureau of Met:

"The chances of receiving above median rainfall during December to February are over 60% in southeast Queensland, the eastern half of NSW, northern NT and most of WA. The odds increase to over 80% in the western part of WA (see map)."

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml

Poirot just how many times do the purveyor of the global warming/climate disruption, [what ever the latter means], have to change their story line, before you recognize it is just that, a story.

10 years ago these same "scientists" predicted that snow would no longer fall on the UK.

Now they can't get to work for the snow drifts, they change the name of their scam to climate disruption, & people like you still believe. What has to happen to open your eyes?

How much do they have to get wrong, before the whole thing is seen as what it is. Hockey anyone?

I can understand people who just catch a couple of seconds propaganda on the ABC news still do not seen the facts, but you obviously think about this stuff. I am at a loss that anyone who has sorted through the facts, & thought about them could still believe, unless they are a fellow traveler of course.

bonmot,

This thread is about significant news items related to AGW from overseas, many of which don’t seem to get debated in OZ. The quote from Newman was simply to make the point that even within our own media; group think has been identified and is a potential cause of suppression.

Your detailed analysis of who, where, when and how don’t go anywhere near the issues of censorship, suppression, denigration and trivialization of contrary AGW views.

Let me offer you something you can get your teeth into. In the interests of open and honest debate, I will post a contrary scientific opinion to the AGW orthodoxy, one of perhaps 1,500 that have not had air time in OZ. I will initially retain the name of the author, that way you don’t get to play silly burgers with shooting the messenger. You get to the address the issues in the paper and we all get to see how you go.

If your orthodoxy is so robust you will easily be able to challenge one of these papers.

OK?

bonmot:>> Poirot, sonofgloin thinks 'it' all a hoax, a myth.
You can't shed light on those that live in the dark without damaging hurting their eyes.<<

Bonmot let me offer you a gem of wisdom "the truth is rarely found by following, questioning brings revelation"

>> Hope the links help.
Blair<<

No they did not, they say we have been in drought for ages and now we are getting and will get record rainfall this summer.

Bonmot have you ever heard of Dorothea Mackellars poem, My Country:

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains

Does that suggest anything to you about the cycle of weather here in Oz? So why show me figures about droughts and driving rains and suggest it points to climate change, and you reckon I am a simple soul.

Dear narrowly focused Poirot :) you ask:

"What if the little country down in South America (or Africa or Asia or Anywhere) had been instrumental in you gaining your materials or cheaply manufactured components because its people had been exploited?"

Now...*think* for a moment about human history. It seems to me that contained in your question is a very dodgy assumption that only the Colonial powers or.. "Western Capitalism" has ever exploited said "small country". Remember those wonderful people in South America who in just one day, comitted murder on a scale seldom rivalled in human history by slicing and dicing human hearts from conquered sacrificial victims.

You see...the other problem with your point is that IF you feel one example of historical exploitation should be addressed by us.. hmmm how about ALLLLL such examples be addressed and fixed? That would include my own ancestors in the highland clearances. You see..it IS within our power... but it's simply impractical.

The other problem is this... those advocating 'reparations' for slavery or capitalist exploitation, do not have 'justice' in their mind as much as "POWER".

Surely you've been around the traps long enough to recognize basic Socialist agitation 101 ?....Here is a refresher course.

1/ Pick an issue.. even a small one..where *someone* is unhappy with the government.
2/ AMPLIFY it as much as you can... demonstrate...protest... wave your flags.. condemn the 'capitalist pigs' etc...
3/ Capitalize on the turmoil and sieze power.

(been a-watching Greece/france/Ireland/England lately ? :)

PS that Corbett report (youtube) is AMAZING.. I've not used it before but it's spot on. "Environmental issues have been hijacked by MONEY" and "I" (Gore) am at the forefront of this with my buddy Maurice Strong.

If ONLY we can succeed in getting cap and TRADE laws.. we stand to make trillions.. (really!) The thing is.. we must 'POSTURE' ourselves toward the 'left' to get support for our political assault.
(Demobrats/Labour)

Here is the voice of a special interest :) "mine"

http://repoweramerica.org/take-action/

Stand up for clean energy.
Share your voice on the Repower America Wall.
A majority of Americans support clean energy. But powerful SPECIAL interests are blocking OUR path, spending millions to protect the status quo. Join thousands of Americans who have already shared their stories and help make sure our leaders see and hear our collective call.

*COUGH choke.....*

And of course AL is not a special interest promoting this stuff so HE can make megabucks through carbon trading etc ? (Generation Investments LLC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/14/al-gore-climate-change

QUOTE
Gore is in the capital, as he is every few months, to spend a couple of days meeting with his partners at Generation Investment Management, the "sustainability-driven" asset management firm he set up in 2004 with David Blood, who, as the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, once managed investments worth $325bn

As chairman, Gore, 61, says he spends about "one day a week" working for Generation, but his press handlers won't expand on what investments he holds or remuneration he receives,
UNQUOTE

*Falls back laughing*

Dear AL,
You wrote;
"Here is the most fundamental problem mate..... the DIFFerence between Jesus approach and that of the socialist 'hoardes' is FORCE. Jesus did not "force" or make laws. He didn't even advocate redistribution of wealth in a political sense."

Christ's message on wealth is so totally unambiguous that for you to paint it in any other fashion is basically blasphemy.

His instruction that the wealthy man needed to divest himself of all his worldly goods to truely follow him was very clear. His teaching was that the rich had a 'Buckleys to none' chance of reaching heaven.

In denying this and other fundamental teaching of Christ can you explain why you shouldn't be regarded by others as a 'Christ denier' rather than a believer?

Ok spindoc, you think the “significant news items” are about “censorship, suppression, denigration and trivialization of contrary AGW views” ... and you want to use Online Opinion to “post (sic) an anonymous (if that matters a hoot) contrary scientific opinion to the AGW orthodoxy, one of perhaps 1,500 that have not had air time in OZ.”

The more I read your post, the sillier it sounds, and becomes.
Sorry, I won't help you. Try some ‘post-normal scientists’, they seem to be rampant here.

Sonofgloin
You’ve shown your capacity to link to BoM, you haven’t shown your capacity to understand any of it. I'll try again:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/aus_cvac.shtml

My guess? You won’t understand any of that either.

Csteele
Hmmm, “Christ denier”? Howbout hypocrite?

Dear Bonmot,

I have given it some thought and will respect I don't think hypocrite quite does it. It presupposes that ALG has comprehended Christ's teachings on wealth and peace then consciously decided to speak and act in a manner which contradicted them. I'm not sure he has ever gotten that far. The fundamentalism he has been exposed to is high on scripture but low on indept exploration of the meanings of much of Christ's teachings. Those that are ambiguous or are straight forward but don't fit into an American thinking are denied or twisted into impotency.

Therefore I feel 'Christ denier' is more appropriate but thank you for your suggestion.

Gee, so the destruction of the Nuclear Family is an evil Socialist plot now is it?

Who was it that funded and promoted the rise of women in the workplace so they could access a cheaper source of labour and simultaneously displace foreign workers?

Who was it that resisted the 40 hour working week for so long?

Who is it that campaigns against penalty rates to keep workers on the job for longer periods for the same pay?

Who has promoted totally flexible trading hours that have shattered the idea of traditional weekends?

One guess - and it wasn't the Socialists.