According to Newspoll “78 per cent of voters believe in climate change and most attribute it to human activity”.

See: Tackling the other deficit: carbon policy credibility

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tackling-the-other-deficit-carbon-policy-credibility/story-e6frg71x-1226050061717

The article goes on to state that only 30% of voters support a carbon tax.

Number me among those who thinks the preponderance of evidence supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) but who opposes a carbon tax. In fact I think the carbon tax is the second dumbest way of reducing emission yet devised.

I also strongly question the wisdom of a small country like Australia trying to take the lead on this issue.

But leaving policy responses aside it does seem that the majority of the Australian electorate accepts the reality of AGW.

In most of the world at least a plurality profess to believe that human activity is responsible for climate change or plays a role in climate change.

See: Gallup survey: Worldwide, blame for climate change falls on humans

http://earthsky.org/earth/gallup-survey-worldwide-blame-for-climate-change-falls-on-humans

In the survey, worldwide, 36% were not aware of global warming. Of the 64% who were aware of the issue three quarters thought that global warming was either a result of human activity (35%) or was responsible for global warming in conjunction with nature (13%).

So Australia is not unique. It does appear as if AGW is being accepted as fact by most of the world.

So far as I can tell the first political leader of any note to express concern about AGW was Maggie Thatcher.

See: Thatcher saw climate threat

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/thatcher-saw-climate-threat/story-e6frg7ax-1111119033099

>>"The danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations," she [Thatcher] said.>>

Has the effort to convince humanity of the reality of AGW been largely won?

Has the debate mostly shifted to policy responses rather than the reality of AGW.

Are fossil fuel companies now in the same position as tobacco companies in the 1960s and 1970s?

Nohwwwwwww!

Everyone is bored shitless with the whole thing now. The window of opportunity has well past. Even recent natural disasters aren't piquing an interest.

Surveys are largely worthless.

I always liked the Sir Humphrey explanation...

Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

'It's the people's will. I am their leader. I must follow them.'
James Hacker

I'd support anything in a survey, unless it actually may cost me some money!

I too believe, I how ever think Gillard has made a pigs ear out of it.
An ETS was once achievable tax never will be.
Look back at the very brief time two conservatives had intentions to vote for one,greens had the power, BUT wanted more.
We will not get a carbon tax, the issue will unseat Gillard ,and she has only herself to blame.
I think we should have set the minimum costs package, conservatives once did too.
We then could have led not Cringed away in a corner.
We have handled this shamefully and England's bush fires in the hottest recorded April in history, how often are we hearing such? is food for laughter while Rome burns.

No Steven.We are well overdue for an ice age.AGW is not a scientific reality.Our Sun will reach another solar maximum in 2012,after which Sun spot activity will decline and we will experience a long cooling period.

We had better hope that an ice age is not too near.It will be far worse than any so called AGW.

I’m in the same boat as stevenlmeyer.

I accept AWG but don’t want a carbon tax as I don’t believe it will make any measurable difference and I don’t trust the intentions of governments enough here to want to reduce my quality of living.

“Sceptics” (I’ll be putting that word in brackets from here on in as people who automatically and instinctively reject all evidence for AWG, while simply parroting any old argument that some conservative blogger makes, for the sake of upholding the idea of a vast Marxist conspiracy, does not constitute scepticism) don’t seem to realise that one can reject the rushed and poorly-thought-through government responses without rejecting science.

I was once quite indifferent to - even bored of - this whole debate, since it had become so political and I really had no strong opinion either way. But after reading debate-after-debate on OLO about it, the curiosity got the better of me and I just had to look into the whole issue to see once and for all what the actual arguments from both sides were and which arguments were actually supported by the evidence.

My suspicions were that the climatologists were right and that the rightwing think-tanks and conservative bloggers (along with the frequently cited long lists of sceptical scientists from scientific disciplines that render their opinions irrelevant anyway) were wrong, but I was willing to be surprised.

So, lo and behold, after looking into it, it turns out that the climate “sceptics” are just another form of creationist in the sense that they simply repeat repetitively debunked arguments in a big game of internet “He said she said” and thus the suggestion that AWG is the new “religion” is extraordinarily hypocritical.

Furthermore, climatologists are like the new evolutionary biologists in the sense that most simply get on with their jobs and allow the scientific process to take its course while they filter out and ignore a noisy minority screeching in the background.

Continued...

...Continued

I might get into one of these debates on OLO about AWG one day but for now, I’m having fun sitting here in the back seat chuckling smugly to myself at the continual repeating of debunked claims from so-called “sceptics”.

Some of my favourites include:

- The Earth hasn’t warmed since 1998;
- The climate is always changing;
- We can’t even predict the weather accurately a week from now;

But I particularly like this one:

- In the 70’s, scientists predicted an ice age. Remember that?

To which I would reply: “No and neither do you.”

This is another classic example of internet “He said she said”. Sometime in the 70’s a few scientists noticed a cooling trend (an ice age may have even been mentioned in passing but it was by no means a consensus). Time magazine ran with it and released an issue of their magazine with an alarmist headline about an impending ice age. Some scientifically illiterate right-wing idiot discovered this in recent times and ran with it, allowing it to evolve into the “Remember when scientists predicted and ice age in the 70’s?” argument.

But my all-time favourite piece of “scepticism“ is...

[Drum roll please]

Climategate!

To this day, those who desperately need to transfer their hatred of the dead and gone Red Russia onto anything remotely “green” bring this up as though it were a trump card. Yet all it amounted to was a few lines (out of thousands of emails mind you - hardly the evidence of a vast conspiracy) misquoted and taken completely out-of-context (in true creationist quote-mining form funnily enough).

A classic example was Mike’s nature “trick [of the trade]” being blended in with the “hide the decline [in tree ring growth, not temperature]” to make it look like something that has been discussed openly since 1995 was being kept secret.

And don’t even get me started on the blatant manipulation of data and dishonesty of Monckton!

Yes, if anything is the "new religion", it's the so-called climate "scepticism".

Please do contribute Mr Phillips, that was good stuff.
I want more.
It amazes me that the biggest failure in climate change debate comes not just from Australia's politicians.
But the worlds.
It however is unlikely to be talked of with any degree of understanding ,in our country because of a lost lady who has been on both sides of the argument then back again.
May I again, inform the ALP my hope and dreams are under threat, unless some one finds that knife used on Rudd soon.

AJ as a staunch evolutionsits is use to having a faith in unproven theory. It is hysterical to listen to 'scientist'argueing about what the climate was like 20 million years ago. Climate skeptics as AJ puts are like creationist in that they demand evidence. The chance of big bang being the beginnings is absolutely laughable. Believers in this fairytale are truely gullible. They belong to the 'science is settled brigade' Just like the textbooks for evolution are being continually rewritten as one fraud after another is covered up so the IPCC report shows a similar pattern.

In fairness to the “sceptics”, one thing I should point out is that there is a small minority on the Left (not that ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ have much meaning nowadays) who have hijacked the science for their own political causes and this certainly fans the “sceptic” zealotry we witness on OLO. A lot of the pro-AWG articles on OLO don’t help much either with how unnecessarily alarmist they can sound.

But to think that one can then assume that the entire science is completely fraudulent and only back it up with some arguments that have been discredited ad nauseam is fallacious. Not to mention a non sequitur.

Belly,

Thanks! I’m considering getting in on the action but I’m finding myself short on time lately and climate science isn’t as cut and dry or easy to debate as my favourite topic - religion - which only requires a bit of sound logic to win a debate with.

runner,

Thanks for demonstrating my point. Your comments, as always, are invaluable.

Mr. Abbott is not promoting, or at least at this time that climate change is not occurring.

What he is promoting, that he, along with no one else in the world, knows the best way to deal with it.

The problem is that many of the anti price on carbon are claiming that climate change does not exist or is not man made.

The word tax appears to be a problem for some. The shame is that what is being introduced appears to be a tax, which will be imposed on a small number of heavy producers of carbon pollution. This tax or levy will over the period of three to five years in an ETS.

The scheme is being developed to protect people on low and middle incomes.

It has been calculated that Mr. Rudd's scheme impact would be much lower than what the introduction of the GST without any protection being given. There is no evidence that the country is going to collapsed. Most will not noticed the effects. In the longer run we will have a cleaner environment.

Runner! you bring a laughter in every post.
Do you understand you are part of a very small minority in the western world?
Christianity vs evolution and you are but a grain off sand on a very big beach.
thread has nothing to do with your fallacy's.
Gillard is doing Job, on herself!
As sure as NSW ALP drove its followers away she is intent on only her position .
Not my party/governments.
Come my fellow travelers, Flo you too, we must put country/party first.
Even am unsure what our policy's are.
But certain, not lefty stuff, man is having an affect on our climate.
And that it may already be too late to do anything about it.

dear belly
have you ever heard of the sukker punch?

you know that sneaky left hook
well thats global warming[ie a new tax
worth 12 BILLION..govt is going to ...LOL
suck only from 1000 others..[big busines]

WHO MUST PASS IT ON TO YOU

it does nothing except take from 1000[lol]
to give to 2 million

its a scam

all them former smokers
now got extra cash..from quitting

now govt wants it...!
12 billion mate...to give to 'others'
govt is making it look like..only..1000

but mate were all going to be [paying 'it'

making the bankers rich
[they are on the panel]

WE ARNT
even the union has been tricked
[to busy playing games...now their patsy partyy is..'in'
while the bankers send us broke..

[here is a tax..going to money changers..
to trade with..

a new commodity,..that is going to cost us the earth

Well said AJ.

There's no point in having a "debate" about this with anybody who claims to be absolutely convinced either way.

Which group is it that continues to roll out debunked or invalid aguments and half-truths and makes increasingly hysteric exaggerated claims?

Which group is entirely funded by those very deep-pocketed industries who have the most to lose from any regulation? (I see that Gina Reinhart is paying Monkton to come out for an encore tour, complete with his discredited arguments. She also has that other clown Plimer on her payroll too. I wonder if Barnaby Joyce will parade him around his electorate to speak to voters again while at the same time taking the "AGW is a fact" line on TV).

The radio shock-jocks are implying that this was all invented by Al Gore a few years ago, but the reality is that it's been studied for decades.

If it's easier to reject all evidence as some kind of deliberate fraud and believe that the whole thing is some sort of elaborate coordinated global conspiracy created just to extract taxes from a gullible public then there's really no point arguing about it. That's a crazier notion than they claim AGW itself to be.

In my case I won't be around long enough to feel any real consequences of inaction so I don't care - but I can see a "creationist- style cult in the making" when I see one and a bunch of paranoid denialists when I hear them.

If Al Whore had not been involved in the whole AGW scam,then perhaps some of us would give this theory some serious consideration.The scientists have got into bed with the Wall St ponzy,pyramid scammers.

Who will listen to them now even if they speak the truth?

AJ, ho hum, you are only proving yet again that the entire warmist argument consists of assuming what is in issue, seeking data to confirm rather than to disprove the theory - the intellectual method of religion - deferring to authority, conforming with groupthink, mistaking statistical history for theory, and of course, the perpetual fall-back of the warmist camp, personal argument. It is you exemplifying the new religion - but no doubt a bit more personal snivelling will satisfy your intellectual standards.

AJ, what makes you think anyone cares whether you believe in global warming or not? The only reason anyone would care is if you could prove that it's happening. But any request to be shown the proof, is always met with argument exactly like yours, expecting the skeptics to take on faith what you in turn have taken on faith, followed by disparagement of anyone who dares to ask for evidence! And you've got the gall to accuse the skeptics of religiosity!

Thank you Peter Hume and Jefferson for addressing me and not the points I raised, in your ad hominem responses.

Like runner, you two are also helping to convey the point I was making.

Peter Hume,

<<...you are only proving ... seeking data to confirm rather than to disprove the theory>>

Ah, but I already made it clear that I was indifferent to the whole argument and that my investigations began with nothing more than a curiosity about the whole issue along with a suspicion as to who was right. I don’t have a barrow to push and I even made it clear from the beginning that I don’t want any government action that may cost me my living standards when I don’t believe that any government action would make any difference.

But you ignored that in your emotional response and accused me of only searching for information in places that would confirm a bias that didn’t even exist.

I have consistently said on OLO that I care about the truth of my beliefs (hence the reason I ditched my religious convictions despite how much that hurt). But perhaps you’re partially right, though. Perhaps I only found information for the side of the argument that I had no reason to cling to.

So as a person who cares about the truth of their beliefs, maybe you could point me to some credible rebuttals to the arguments for AWG? I’m genuinely interested and I’m all for surprises.

In my search, the majority of what I found in objection to AWG consisted of debunked arguments that came from conservative bloggers and journalists; all of whom held irrelevant degrees in biology, engineering, etc. In fact, the only sceptics I could find who had the relevant qualifications and were still actively publishing material on climate change were John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Roy Spencer.

Yes, all four of them and the only four remaining from the ever dwindling numbers of relevant sceptical scientists over the last few decades.

But none of their arguments held unfortunately.

Now, I’m aware that the onus is on the believer/accepter of an idea to provide the evidence, but despite Jefferson’s emotional objection, I was simply sharing my experience (albeit in a smug way) and surely that’s in the spirit of OLO?

I am hungry for learning and understanding.
It is a shame that I was not so at school.
However maybe not, the school prefect was very smart, toped the school in every test, poor fella drowned in his first job,Telegram delivery boy.
Peter Hume would have us believe he is head and shoulders above us.
That we who see year after year talk of the hottest/coldest/wettest/dry est month on record want to know why.
We, aware it took the full time span man walked on this earth to bring the first billion of us .
And after the industrial revolution we did that in very little time.
How long has it taken for the last billion to come.
How long before the next, and the next?
How much coal and fossil fuels did we in total burn while we waited for that first billion to come.
How much from 1750 till now.
How many rivers now run filthy water and waste.
Has Nuclear explosions from 1945 till now done anything to our planets atmosphere.
No God is waiting broom and mop in hand, if Global warming is man made or not who will fix it?
Are food prices to double then double again as is our population?
How many will die.
If Mr big oil talking to Mr big coal,while Mr big fossil fuel said we know we are bringing it about would they tell us?
Maybe, they would start, as Tobacco and drugs have a conspiracy theory to cover up self interest.
If they did they can rely on innocents to grab with both hands and spread the man made conspiracy's they bought about to hide the truth.
Under the guise of superior mental ability.
My hunger to learn continues.
Closed minds do not learn or progress.
If so many of us have not impacted on this planet it would need explaining why.

The facts are there are thousands of scientists who don't believe in AGW but the corporate media want the ETS and to carbon taxes to steal from us again.Climate is very complex.The IPCC did not include the influence of the Sun in it's studies.It is the salient influence on our climate.Even NASA now admits that past warmings were due to the influence of the Sun.Does the Sun now magically not have such an influence?

Scientists say that earthquakes are too complex to predict.We have a shifting magnetic pole at 40 km per yr,the moon on very close orbits.All these and more effect earthquakes.
Now the earth's magnetic field has weakened by 10% due to this polar shift.Our magnetic field reflects radiation from the Sun.Here is another influence on climate not considered by the IPCC.

A good analogy is Bin Laded.Oh yes we got him.They first posted fake photos that had been circulating the net,withdraw them,supposedly kill Bin Laden and bury the evidence.No DNA,no photos and no body.

AGW;no proof,evidence ignored,scientists ignored,evidnece faked.They should have buried AGW along with the fake Bin Laden.

Belly

you are more likely to die from not affording electricity prices than the unlikely scenarious that you imagine in your mind. Without those 'dirty'polluters I doubt whether you would be alive today. You along with others would be waiting for enough wind to turn on the computer. Come back to reality mate.

Close but I remain unsure.
Is it arjay or runner who are the further away from reality.
I am however sure fruit trees that should not ripen till next month have ripe fruit ready to pick or rot.
British Isles burn in dry [record dry] and well, no use really both have closed minds and self satisfaction that will not let truth in.
Is it you arjay? or has some one replaced you, have my doubts.

A point of order folks.

I did NOT ask whether YOU believed in AGW.

AGW is always an interesting discussion but it's NOT what I intended as the topic of this thread.

My question was:

Do most people in the world today who are aware of the issue accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

If various polls are to be believed the answer appears to be a luke-warm "yes."

The attitude of most people reminds me of the attitude of cigarette smokers in the 1960s and 1970s. On an intellectual level they accepted that smoking harmed them but they weren't yet prepared to quit. Support for vigorous government action to curtail smoking was low to non-existent.

Similarly today most people, on an intellectual level, seem to accept the reality of AGW but are not prepared to bear the cost of curbing emissions.

stevenlmeyer

you assume people accept things on an 'íntellectual'level. For the left 'intellectual level'is just believe what we tell you. They expect people to throw out their brains. In the 70's the intellectual level believed and taught we were in for an ice age, then the ozone hole was going to fry us all. Their is no íntellectual'level when you are dealing with flawed computer models, failed predictions and much money gained by those pushing the dogma. History does not go well for the íntellectual'level of thinking. Most people really don't know so are not prepared to ruin the standard of living the 'dirty'polluters have brought us and the catatrophic results if these 'dirty'polluters were shut down. China, India, USA have no intention of following our foolish Government.

With reference to runner's last post, I want to clear up another point.

I am NOT asking what governments may or may not so.

Nor am I asking what they SHOULD do.

My question is concerned solely with what PEOPLE BELIEVE.

Runner wrote:

>>China, India, USA have no intention of following our foolish Government.>>

The poll I quoted shows the following for "developing Asia" which incudes China and India:

49% are not aware of the issue.

Of the 51% that are, 27%, a small majority, believe that human activity is causing global warming. Another 12% believe that a combibation of human activity and natural causes is causing the planet to heat up.

slm/quote..""My question was:

Do most people..in the world today
who are aware of the issue..accept the reality..of
..anthropogenic global warming?"""

think why we need it to be..
""anthropogenic global warming""

i thought it was changed to cli-MATE/change?

wtf...an-thropo-genetic[4567893..deleted}
SPIN OR BUZZ WROD USE TO MUDDY THE WATERS

NEW QUESTIONJ
IS GLOBAL WARMING..a reality
no its cooling[again].

see why they changed it
to climate....[lol]change
gotta not get confused with your own spin

mr meyer

""If various polls are to be believed""'
yes polls..good old scientific polls
in lue of science..and non spinj words

""the answer appears to be"""
whatever the people who issued the survey..hoped it to be
[destraction..in lue of science fact...


""The attitude of most people
reminds me of the attitude of cigarette smokers""

yeah..still swallowing the same spin/lobby
wanting to hate others..smokers..with lies and spin
same advertisers xcleaning up from, lies too

3 out of 4 people cant get emoking
meaning the one quater[25%]..smokers
actually are under the cancer rate..[due to the cancer susseptable genes giving it up]...lol

funy how they can tell us blackm lies
dressed upo as white hat truths..not just...."in the 1960s and 1970s.""

""On an intellectual level they accepted
that smoking harmed them..""

aint that typical push poling
i didnt stop smoking,..

CAUSE I SAW LIES
my mates werrnt sick..[the smokers]
but the non smokers..get sick at the drop of a hat

[ thought our spit swapping
gave our immume system a kick start

""Similarly today most people,
on an intellectual level, seem to accept the reality of AGW""

no there too i see the lies and use of spin
what means...anthowoppertomorphic...lol
a great buzz word...lol

but in the end i can agree

""but are not prepared to bear the cost
of curbing emissions."""

because the buzzwords there are
greenhouse GASSES...[ie..*but only tax carbon]

not methane...from coal mining/gas well digging
and composting in com[post bins/wormfarms...cows bummmms
please..*note..100 times worse than co2

IGNORE..nitropuse oxide from farming
130 times worse than co2

they are in smaler quantity
but higher damage rate..per part

plus its cooling
just like climate changes from the time before adam

AJ
Your post assumes what is in issue from the outset. You say, correct me if I'm wrong, to the effect that you didn't initially care, then looked into it, and found the skeptics to be obstinately and wilfully in the wrong, while the warmists were just work-a-day scientists (who were right).

But you didn't say how you reached that conclusion. The whole post just proceeds on the basis that AGW is a reality, and those who don't agree are intellectual ratbags, and are the devotees of a new religion - i.e. a direct backbite against skeptic accusations that the warmists represent a new catastrophic religion.

Then when it's pointed out that the standard technique of the warmists is to assume what's in issue, and go from there to ad hominem argument, which is exactly what you had just done, you said I addressed you but not your argument.

But that was your argument. You didn't give any reason why you had concluded that AGW is real, or if it is, why you believe that policy is capable of making the problem better than worse. You assumed what's in issue, and then personalised the arguments to those who don't accept that assumption and that intellectual technique.

Then you ask me for credible rebuttals. This is to reverse the onus of proof, thus confirming the suspicion of a back-to-front intellectual approach.

Okay, let's cut to the chase.

Can you give credible reason and evidence that we face catastrophic AGW that policy can improve? It's got to be catastrophic, because that's what it's been sold as, not merely moderate. And you've got to be able to say what reason there is to think policy can improve the situation, and how the relevant values are identified and worked out.

I don't think you can, but please go ahead and let's see what you've got.

I don't think it's any coincidence that this belief system - with so many uncanny similarities to traditional Christian chiliasm - arose in the West so soon after the widespread decline of traditional Christianity.

ok Steven having read your response to the direction the thread has taken.
And not agreeing such threads, mine included, are private property
I will leave the contributions to others.
PualL enjoy your self.

I'm also opposed to a carbon tax, because it's a means by which to maintain the direct cause of AGW. We should be shrinking our economies; greenhouse gases would then shrink accordingly. A carbon tax defeats the purpose.

If a packet of smokes costs $50 (ostensibly made up of tax) maybe quite a few would give up.

After all, taxes (to start with) have been shown to curb behaviours.

wait till they tax a stubbie
50 dollar stubies
maybe them we will get the drunks back in their box

tax dont fix nothing
except to those getting it back
so 1000 pay..to bailout industry with just over half of it

i..pay your rent
i pay for your new solar cells
i pay for a new gas pipeline to gladstone
or rail lines into the outback

so you can sell your gas/coal food....to china

we have criminal price rises in smokes
as well as power water petrol/food
yet a new tax will fix that[no]

it willl compensate
for future carbon taxes
but its hidden
[hiding any..'true facts']

first remove the mote
from thyne own eyes

sad how you see
the clear media lies..in other lands
but miss it..in our own backyard

to much spin
bbc reports...today hard press release
that the bin liner..was running his empire
from his safe house..[without phone/internet]

so likely by cammel..and on pap-irus notes...
run to the frontlines..via runners and rumours

ya gotta love how poor the spin is

here is a fat high cheekbones old person
most certainly not..the frail/old sick bin liner

note the nhand holding..the 're-mote'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110507/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden

ie cia says bin liner ..LEFT HANDED
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

even the oppisite line
to con-firm...bin liner as ever being real
now further proof of life....lol
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/hes%20alive.jpg

mate hes been dead since 2001...!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/04/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/

still faking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384420/When-U-S-bombing-started-took-children-moved-cave-Startling-insight-life-Bin-Ladens-young-wife-gave-terror-chief.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384420/When-U-S-bombing-started-took-children-moved-cave-Startling-insight-life-Bin-Ladens-young-wife-gave-terror-chief.html

look at her fingers
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/06/article-0-0BE8183200000578-439_634x542.jpg
PHOTOSHOP[over./lay]

all spin
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

conclusion
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osama_dead.php
its a beat up
TO BRING IN
neo/HITLER YOUTH'ss...
to terrorise the people..in usa
into giving up life/property and freedoms

like with the natzies/jews
and chrystal naght

like
israel/palistein
http://theintelhub.com/2011/05/06/osama-bin-laden-staged-media-spectacle-to-be-used-to-ramp-up-full-scale-police-state/

lets not turn blind [moted]eyes
upon israelies..love of terror's..special powers*

like immediate dna tersting
no need to wait 48 hours..to do all them NEEDED steps..!
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/blog/2011/05/guest-blog-cnn-promotes-sanjay-gupta-as-certified-medical-examiner-in-bin-laden-story.html

bah its spin

so those who serve the same old war systems
need as an excuse to kill the lot of us..

if we dare protest in the streets

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/05/02/2011-05-02_final_bin_laden_doomsday_tape_may_be_released_by_al_qaeda_disciples_us_officials.html#community

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/05/israel.iran.bin.laden/?hpt=T2
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/the-heavy-weight-of-zionism-felt-daily-in-palestine/

"We should be shrinking our economies..."

Shrinking our economies by means you haven't figure out yet, but trusting that a coalition of powerful governments can do it by means yet unspecified?

There's no question they can do it - by killing large numbers of people. That's governments usual way of shrinking our economies.

But how to do it consistent with the value of human life and freedom? That is the question.

peter/quote...""Shrinking our economies
by means you haven't figure out yet,

but trusting that a coalition of powerful governments
can do it..by means yet unspecified?""

peter dont you know the real economy is shrinking?

only govt money is building the bubble...
that looks like 'growth'

but its only reshuffling the same debt..
from those who did the collusions/crime owing too much to too many

and those coping the austerity burdens
are paying for capitalistic payday
eco armogeddon for the middle classes

""There's no question they can do it
by killing large numbers of people.""

yes a ww3 in iran...would help the death cults running things now
but not for long

their number is very few
take us al back to mud huts
and reaping in the crops...and breeding or consuming upon demand

""That's governments usual way of shrinking our economies.""'

its not the govts
they are being advised by those who done the lie
to trans[pgere their debt..into our govt
so extra taxes..pay off their debt

new carbon taxes
..will prop them up for a year

by then the spending done needlessly/foolishly/expensivly
on the public purse,,,will begin to fail their faulse promises

""But how to do it
consistent with the value of human life and freedom?

That is the question.""

that is indeed the question
thats why i invented the means to
re-capitalise those plunderd by the capitalists

add an extroa '0'..to all coin
one cent becomes 10 cents
2 cent becomes 20 cent
10 cent becomes = to a dollar

basiclly the govt pays its bebts..by issuing money
credit..or in case of bailouts...a govt bond

[to underwrite true values]
[and basic cost/benifits..of its productive capacity

to retain communal assets/functions/
benifits/protections and quality performance
productivity standards..to best advantage to all..ozzies

instead of allowing their plunder[theft]
by the RE_CAPITALISED..bwankers
what caused all this bubble theft
causing inflation..

while income deflates

sell us their new tax
and the elite get more commodities
to speculate their [price] up to..;the sky/greed is their only limit

AND YOU PAY
WHATEVER TODAYS CARBON PRICE
...HAS BEEN BID UP TO...or govt does
and taxes your other hand

Methinks Steven started this so he could use a big word like "anthopogenic". That way we'll all think he's highly intelligent and knows exactly what he's talking about.

By the way Steve, it's anthropogenic.

Nhoj

LOL

I know. I've been feeling red-faced about that stupid typo for days.

I was hoping no one would notice.

Yup, there's not much you can do when you post with a typo on OLO....we've all been there.

I feel so good I could sleep for a week. <<Does the world now believe in the reality anthropogenic global warming?>>

I am now relieved of any duties related to arguing, debating, challenging or questioning the “warmertariat”.

You have all done a great job, so much so that it almost got up. Sadly you were all so full of other peoples’ opinions and web links you missed the main game. I can now state with a high degree of confidence that polar bears are dying, sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting and so are the polar ice caps. The crumbling of all things CAGW has left you all with the sad fact that you have been had and I can at last agree with you all. We can all now sympathize with you, Yes, Oh, how bad is that, really, terrible isn’t it?

Your persistent howling brings great joy to skeptics as we watch you squirm in the mire of your own making. As the world lurches ever further from your fabricated “nether world”, your pain and disillusionment is palpable.

When “global alarmism phenomena” number 28 is invented, perhaps you will think twice before buying in to it. If you don’t actually “think” as many suspect, then tough, get over it and move on.

Finally spindoc, you are prefixing AGW with 'C' as in 'catastrophic'. You know very well that the vast majority of scientists who study the stuff don't concur with 'catastrophic' at all.

However, they do say is the effects and impacts of AGW by (say) 2100 will be (seriously) bad enough - something you always fail to appreciate or indeed understand.

It seems to me you're the one squirming spindoc, not surprising though ... that's what spindoctors are good at.

The carbon tax just doesn't stand up to any systematic check. Major problem with any system for driving climate action that is a defacto tax is that the associated price increases have to take account of the tax as well as any higher cost of the clean alternative. The difference is particularly high at the start of the clean-up process. When the cleanup starts, 100% of the resulting price increase will due to the cost of the tax. For example, a carbon tax of $30/tonne CO2 tax will add about 3 cents/kWh to the price of power as soon as the tax is introduced. At the point where 10% cleanup has been reached the price increase per tonne CO2 abatement will be $300 per tonne CO2 abatement even though the carbon tax is only $30/tonne.
By contrast, price increases for alternatives that are not defacto taxes don't have to carry the cost of this tax. Under the MRET emission trading scheme (which, unlike CPRS is not a defacto tax) we are currently using to drive investment in renewables the average price of electricity only ramps up slowly to finally reach the carbon tax price increase when 100% clean has been reached. For the the above case the price increase per tonne CO23 abatement will remain at $30/tonne throughout the cleanup process.

Bonmot is trying to have a bet each way.

No it’s not catastrophic. It’s only going to make civilisation as we know it non-viable, going to make the planet uninhabitable for our grandchildren, justify the direst prognostications of drought, flooding of nations, famine, and require the total and unprecedented transformation of the human economy if we are to survive.

But it’s not catastrophic, naaah.

What a joke.

bonmot just because you and your co-religionists don't notice the facile dishonesty of your intellectual methods, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't!

"We urgently need more government! How do I know? The governments of the world say so! Anyone who disagrees *knows* they're wrong! What is my evidence?"

Notice that AJ fell silent when challenged to deal in evidence and reason, rather than circularity, appeal to absent authority, and ad hominem? That's warmism for you.

all this gruff about poles melting
and polar bears drown-ding

well the polar ice at the northpole has doubled this year
show me where you say its thinnner

polar bears...hunt when the ice melts
they are the best mammel swimmers that arnt like fish
[they dont drown..infact like to hide on iceflows to catch their meat]

we have the absurdity of greenhouse gasses...
yet only tax one...not the others far BY FAR WORSE

methane...from homecompost bins...mining
and lost when we collect coal seam gas..]
poisening the waters with mutation causing chemical fracting fluid

[gogle composition of fracting fluid]

another 'cure'/remedy/subsised BUSINESS
built upon a fear/lie of global warming
when its really global cooling
[as we move further from the sun]

meaning without bringing on true warming soon
we all freeze to death..as we enter the next ice age

and all this waste for what?
so those in the know can get generouse subsidy
selling 'solar/power'
we bought for them...

that has maximum outputs..
as well as minimum outputs
but feeds off the off peak tarrif power
when there aint no sun..[leeches]

add in their life span....is 25.30 YEARS MAX
so before the reral problems start
they will need to built ALL OVER AGAIN

every quater centuray

for a problem that cant come for 50 years

and if we changed now..cant chanmge anything for 1000 YEARS

and wind is no better...[recently in uk
uk had to buy power from france's/nukes'

they dont work well in the cold
saying it can light up a small city
when it dont got enough power to light a light bulb abouve ya head

well no wind..no power
but heaps of money[subsidy] stil goes to big petrol
12 billion gift to poluters...lol

and now we get to pay
the 12 billion forgone..to poluters

as a carbon tax
that goes back to poluters
via a fuel subsidy
or

*EXTRA FUEL..SUBSIDIES?
these on the other polutions

learn to think
we need greenhouse gas
and were trying as hard as we can
to get rid of it

we are made from carbon
how is burniong the bush...[green sceme]
not putting c02 into the air..if its so bad why burn anything

re-new/able
the rules are re-use
before you recycle

renewable means the cost of renewing it
[every 25 years or so]
no i dont believe Agw is real
but soon..we might need it to be

what then?

AJ fell silent because AJ was very busy over the weekend and AJ is not enthusiastic about continuing as AJ was responsible for de-railing stevenlmeyer's thread, but will post one last response soon.

Hume

Just because you and your cohorts don't notice the facile dishonesty of your intellectual methods, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't!

There, fixed.

bonmot, like I said, I can only agree with everything you say. I’m terrified; we are indeed heading for destruction by every means you have described, and as supported by all the scientists you have listed and upon all the opinions you have provided.

Don’t know what we are going to do, what about my grandchildren? My goodness we must do something, help us bonmot, help us.

I just can’t understand why no one is listening to you and your friends, you are so, how can I put it? Ah yes, plausible.

Why are governments ignoring your advice? Why have they not legislated against poisonous carbon dioxide? Why don’t they price CO2 out of the market? Why can’t we just put in renewable energy to give us lots of cheap energy and provide lots of green jobs?

I’m with you bonmot, we should get the UN to form a body to force this on the world; we could call them say, the IPCC?

OK, they would be political not scientific but hey, surely some one would believe them? Even if there are question marks over some of their stuff hey, we can get some high profile dudes to keep telling us that we are idiots not to believe them.

bonmot, I’m sure this would work. Please save us. Give us a plan, the last one has been in use for years and we need something new. Why can't we just trump all these skeptics and smack them down with some empirical evidence, let's face it the overworked "computer predictions" are gettin really embarrassing, do something

bonmot
the facile dishonesty constituted by asking you to provide reason and evidence for your belief that the end is nigh?

Spindoc

You don't have to believe anything I say ... you are a 'post normal scientist' after all.

.

Hume

You say I "believe the end is nigh".

Wrong again but ... spin, misrepresentation, distortion and lie ain't going to change the science.

bonmot
Well why don't you tell us what you think the problem is, and how you know, and what you think the solution is, and what account you have taken of the downside of the supposed solution, and what reason there is to think that it's going to make the problem better than worse considering the downsides both ways?

Peter Hume,

Sorry about the delay in reply, but aside from being busy, I have spent a lot of time considering how I should word a response in such a way that would prevent a knee jerk “Rubbish!” or “Fraud!” reaction from you, but after careful consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that that’s probably not possible, so here goes nothing.

Your first paragraph is close enough. But I didn’t go into how I reached my conclusion several reasons. Firstly, because we have word and post limits and if I were to try to recall the entire journey, I would need to spend the next few days maxing-out my post limits for this thread, only to have any reference I linked to accused of bias and secondly, because that could create a toing and froing lasting for weeks that I really don’t have the motivation to get involved in at the moment.

<<Then when it's pointed out that the standard technique of the warmists is to assume what's in issue, and go from there…>>

While it would be fair to say there’s a certain level of assumption in your everyday unqualified armchair “warmist”, I don’t think the technique you mention would have been the case for scientists when it was first hypothesised that our emissions would one day be a problem, decades ago. That would be a pretty big breach of the scientific method.

But it’s hard to tell if you’re including relevantly qualified scientists when you refer to “warmists”, or just the armchair variety.

<<But that was your argument.>>

I wasn’t trying to present arguments so much as I was sharing my experience. Although I’ll admit I was goading for a response along the lines of, “No serious sceptic uses those arguments”, on the side. Instead I got emotional responses similar to what Christians often give after being presented with some basic logic showing why their god is highly improbable, if not impossible.

<<You didn't give any reason why … [if AWG is real] you believe that policy is capable of making the problem better than worse.>>

Continued…

…Continued

I don’t necessarily think I can, especially with a rapidly growing and unsustainable population. But surely nuclear power would be a big step in the right direction where emissions are concerned.

<<Then you ask me for credible rebuttals. This is to reverse the onus of proof, thus confirming the suspicion of a back-to-front intellectual approach.>>

I already acknowledged the whole onus of proof bit, but you’ve taken a passing request of mine and blown it out to make it appear as though that’s the way I approached the entire issue when my request was not necessarily indicative of that at all - particularly since I had already listed a few debunked claims that, surely, one would feel compelled to clear-up or bury with some credible rebuttals.

<<Can you give credible reason and evidence that we face catastrophic AGW that policy can improve?>>

Whoa, whoa! Catastrophic? I haven’t gotten that far. I am yet to decide for myself whether or not I think it looks like it will be catastrophic and I’m not sure I ever will form a strong opinion there. There are so many factors to consider.

It’s as though you’re trying drag me a little further into a more alarmist realm to make what I say easier to attack.

I was intrigued as to why you keep mentioning policy too, particularly here when it wasn’t necessary to your question, then I read the rest of your paragraph…

<<It's got to be catastrophic, because that's what it's been sold as, not merely moderate. And you've got to be able to say what reason there is to think policy can improve the situation, and how the relevant values are identified and worked out.>>

This question reminds me of a debate a once saw between a creationist and an atheist, where the creationist asked the atheist how they thought the universe came about, then quickly added, “But you can’t say you don’t know”, to which the atheist then replied with exactly the same question I’ll ask you now…

Why?

Is this just an attempt at bait-and-switch?

Continued…

…Continued

Or would you accept the science if nobody was saying it was going to be catastrophic? That would be some pretty fallacious reasoning if it were the case. Even worse than the “back-to-front intellectual approach” you mentioned.

Has my pointing-out of the repetitively debunked arguments without the hysteria and the hasty solutions made you uncomfortable?

Do you think it makes it okay to repeat debunked arguments, or that the score is somehow evened, if some of those with opposing views become hysterical about AGW and presume to know what the entire world should do about the problem?

<<I don't think you can, but please go ahead and let's see what you've got.>>

I don’t think I can either. Certainly not in a few hundred words and I think you’re well aware of that.

This sounds similar to the creationist tactic of putting impossible expectations on one’s opponent, such as requesting an example of a monkey giving birth to a human.

The ‘onus of proof’ is one thing, but to expect someone to repeat (even just an adequate portion of) hundreds of peer reviewed papers on an online forum is not only ‘cheeky’ (to say the very least), but lazy considering you’re capable of investigating it in your own spare time.

Instead, you request what you know is not possible in order to create the illusion that those who have the burden of proof aren’t able to provide it and thus relieving yourself of any need to think about what the credible rebuttals may actually be.

Now sure, I could simply “point” you to some information (as was all I requested of you), but as I said earlier, I suspect that even if I was to do that, you’d probably just claim that the figures were fudged without checking the sources to see if they actually were or not and let’s face it, it’s not like you haven’t been debating this on OLO long enough to already know where you can go to get it.

Continued…

…Continued

I suspect, at this point, you’d be tempted to say, “Well, I don’t find any of that evidence compelling”, to which I would then respond, “Why?”

So you see, it’s not just a simple case of burden-of-proof-switching, particularly when it’s unclear as to whether or not you want me to inform you of some existing peer reviewed material that you’re not yet aware of, or if you are under the impression that you already know it all and want me to come up with something that scientists are yet to come up with, because if it’s the latter, then the burden of proof can switch.

<<I don't think it's any coincidence that this belief system - with so many uncanny similarities to traditional Christian chiliasm - arose in the West so soon after the widespread decline of traditional Christianity.>>

Neither acceptance nor denial of AGW are religions or belief systems - although I do see striking similarities between “scepticism” and creationism - this is simply emotive language that does nothing for your cause. (I suggest you look-up the definitions of ‘religion’ and ‘belief system’ too: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Areligion&btnG=Search&meta=, http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Abelief+system&btnG=Search&meta=). Emotive language like “warmertariat”, “end is nigh” and “co-religionists” (And that’s just in the last few posts!) from “sceptics” don’t help their cause either.

I guess, at the of the day, I’m just not conspiracy-minded enough to believe that hundreds of scientists are dishonest enough and willing to ditch all that they stood for while studying, to work every day with the intention of seeing how they can further fudge the figures for a political agenda and to feather their nests. People in general are not that bad.

Surely someone - anyone - would have either let the secret slip or blown the whistle after all these years. Believe it nor not, there people out there who actually value honesty enough to let the truth out regardless of what the rewards would otherwise be and to suggest that not one of the scientists who actively publishes material on climate change is good enough to do that sounds incomprehensibly improbable.

Continued…

…Continued

I’m sorry, Peter, but the more I read the comments of OLO’s “sceptics” now, the more they start to look like this guy… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8UzWclbkA&feature=player_detailpage#t=117s.

P.S. I apologise for the sheer length of my reply, but I’ve tried cover all my bases as I am not enthusiastic about a drawn-out debate after inadvertently de-railing the thread to begin with.

AJ
I don’t know how else to compendiously refer to those who believe we face a grave problem of man-made global warming justifying policy action, other than as warmists, but if you prefer some other term, let me know and I’ll use that.

You have only confirmed once again that, when we ask a warmist to give a cogent summary of his concerns without indulging circular and personal argument, it turns out that he has got NOTHING BUT circular and personal argument.

You started out arguing that that skeptics are intellectually indistinguishable from deniers - i.e. they ‘automatically and instinctively reject’ the alleged “science” of AWG; their intellectual method is similar to creationists i.e. irrational.

(The difference between creationists and skeptics is of course that the evolutionists can demonstrate their case to a very high standard; whereas you haven’t made a case to answer – appeal to absent authority doesn’t cut it I’m afraid.)

I pointed out that you yourself hadn’t shown how you had concluded that the evidence supported AGW, and your argument had adopted the characteristic (irrational) method of the entire warmist belief system namely:
a) assuming what is in issue, and
b) meeting any challenge with personal argument.

You responded by suggesting that I had addressed “you and not the points I raised” when the situation was precisely the reverse – your argument had been personal not substantive, and mine had pointed this out.

I then pointed out that that response was false, and asked you to provide “credible reason and evidence” for the belief that AGW is real.

Now your response is:
• you can’t say that the problem is catastrophic
• you can’t say that policy will make matters better rather than worse
• your reasoning in the final analysis is that a whole lot of climate scientists are saying it, so it must be true

But hang on. Your original post said that you “looked into it” to see “which arguments were actually supported by the evidence”.

But it turns out your intellectual method is NOT based on evidence at all.

You said:
“I guess, at the of the day, I’m just not conspiracy-minded enough to believe that hundreds of scientists are dishonest enough and willing to ditch all that they stood for while studying, to work every day with the intention of seeing how they can further fudge the figures for a political agenda and to feather their nests. People in general are not that bad.”

All that is necessary to account for the entire belief system is to understand that those climate scientists are people too and *might be using the same intellectual technique that you are*!

Your response confirms exactly what I accused you of in my first post: “you are only proving yet again that the entire warmist argument consists of assuming what is in issue… and of course, the perpetual fall-back of the warmist camp, personal argument.”

You alleged in your first post, while insulting the skeptics with irrationality, that you had satisfied yourself that the *science* was right. But on investigation, it turns out *you just did exactly what they do* – you assumed it must be right because everyone else was saying so!

But that’s not science. It’s groupthink. That’s not evidence, it’s authority. It’s not critical thinking, it’s credulity – the OPPOSITE of science.

I know a guy who is a very highly educated scientist who told me that he believes AGW because a very highly educated friend of his had assured him about it, and had referred to a scientific paper that purported to show that the water level of Fremantle harbour was rising, with which he challenged me. When I pointed out it would have to rise everywhere else to confirm the theory, he had nothing to say. In other words, his technique was *seeking to prove* rather than to disprove it – the religious, not the scientific method.

On the one hand, my allegation of the religiosity of warmist method is well-founded, for the following reasons.

Firstly all your critique of skepticism ASSUMES that the warmists have made their case but you yourself can’t represent it when challenged to, except to ASSUME that their wodges of papers must prove it.

Secondly, you regard the vested interests of an entire industry and empire of government funded climate scientists, and the prospect of an enormous expansion in their budgets, as ENTIRELY UNPROBLEMATIC relative to the knowledge in issue.

(There is no need to assert a “conspiracy theory” to explain AGW: merely doing what you have done - assuming what is in issue, reposing faith in authority, and seeking to prove rather than disprove it, will explain the result. And as for those scientists who have come out and said it’s baseless, they are many –categorized as “denialists” by the warmist orthodoxy – a completely circular argument again!)

Discussion of AGW is not as a mere speculation on climatology, divorced from any question of policy or government funding. The very nature of the discussion is that AGW presents us with the need for urgent political action, else the question would raise no more political issue than do the proceedings of the entomological society.

Thirdly science does not supply value judgments, while policy requires them. So even if the positive science proved AGW, it is a *complete non sequitur*, and therefore unscientific, to reason therefore that *any policy action whatsoever* is indicated.

Fourthly, no-one ever rationally justifies the process of reasoning by which we go from the alleged physical problem, to government being ASSUMED to have the knowledge, the capacity and the selflessness to make things better than worse.

“If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual’s actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being.”
Ludwig von Mises

Thus there *is* religiosity riddled throughout the AGW belief system:
• its belief in a coming catastrophe (judgment day/ tipping point) threatening the continuance of human life on earth
• its belief that the problem is due to human moral fault (sin/”consumerism”)

• a belief in a final stasis (Paradise/sustainability) in which the economic problems of naturally scarcity are permanently and morally solved
• virtuousness of repudiating material desires for sake of salvation
• a belief in a greater moral good over and above mere selfish and unworthy mundane interests
• those who critique it are “denialists” (heretics) as if the issue were one of faith rather than reason
• a belief in a sacerdotal class privileged to read the mysterious signs (climate models) foretelling doom inscrutable to the common herd
• there’s the time-frame (not near enough to be disproved, but near enough to be worried about)
• the irrational intellectual method of assuming the problem and then trying to prove, rather than to disprove it
• the belief in a superhuman being, and the reverencing of a corporation, as all-knowing, omnipotent and morally superior, charged with rectifying man’s error and showing the path to salvation
• the rituals of righteousness – now using dim lights is holy, sacrificing people’s lives for native vegetation and biofuels is holy.

On the other hand, there is NOT religiosity in the skepticism of those who ask for evidence and reason that does not consist of the appeal to absent authority, affirmation of groupthink, assuming what is in issue, and faith in vested interests that you have given in reply!

As to the physical science, I challenge you to provide a single peer-reviewed paper showing real-world incontrovertible evidence of temperature measurements (not surrogate measurements) proving the existence of a supposed tropospheric hot spot, on which the entire hoo-haa depends.

Whereas my allegations of religiosity are well-founded, yours are a mere back-bite; an unjust projection back onto skeptics of the criticisms they have justly made of warmists.

You have been COMPLETELY UNABLE to defend your own argument, and have only proved every point of my original post.

And this moral and intellectual mendacity is what we find EVERY SINGLE TIME the arrogant warmist assertions are chased down to evidence or reason.

im with what peter said
we have been sold a new end time delusion..[religeon]
based on origonal sin..and inherant guilt...that govt accepts
so as to moove in with a big new tax..before the mug punters[tax payers]..got a change to wake up

i knew it would only be a matter of time
till capitalists/money changers..expolited religios guilt
..upon the gullible

but here..in aj's own words
first quoting ]eter

""<<It's got to be catastrophic,
because that's..what it's been sold as,
not merely moderate.""

no reply
""And you've got to be able to say
...*what reason there is to think policy..can improve the situation""

none provided

""and how the relevant values are identified and worked out.>>""..

aj's reply
a clever trick re rememberd
in lue of fact...!

""This question reminds me of a debate
i once saw between a creationist and an atheist,""

where the creationist asked the atheist
how they thought the universe came about,..then quickly added,
“But you can’t say you don’t know”,""'

to wit...FACT
but he didnt understand...*science
thus gave a non science replIE

""the atheist then replied
with exactly the same question..I’ll ask you now…""

i not a reply
[spin]

""Why?""

i will say
why is not even..attempting a reply

revealing he has a belief system
[athiestic anti belief system of beliefs]
but no facts...[no bible]..to quote as their basis of believing

wonder who said
""Is this just an attempt at bait-and-switch?""

because i think...[*OPINION}..
aj's reply is both

ahhhh-men
the high/priests of gloabal destruction
..now got names..

instead we got interferance running
from the likes as al'gore..little timmy...an aj