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.