Posted by MickC; interesting thoughts. I suspect population is going to be a much bigger worry in 2050 than the climate.

Kate Blanchet this morning reiterated her support for the Carbon Tax claiming she wants to insure a future for her children. Give us a break Kate, the world is not going to disappear. And you are in a finacial position to ensure your children will be some of the least effected by whatever develops.

Humans have been very good at adjusting, evolving and inventing ways to keep up with the whatever unfolds. We cannot imagine what the world will be in 50 - 100 years but whatever it is there will be survivors, some properous and some doing it hard. Its been that way for 5000 years and there's no reason to expect it will ever change.

MickC “ITS ALL OF US....so the real issue is , how many of us should we have on this planet? The best way to reduce the possibility of increased carbon or any other dangerous or earth destroying event is to look at the human race....how commited are you , what level of existance are you willing to survive at?”

we are each an individual and I would suggest we can only answer as individuals

the dangers start when someone decides they will answer for someone else.

you later suggest we are all hypocrites

again something which you can only declare for yourself because

whilst I own several homes and live in the biggest of them, I do not consider myself a hypocrite for doing what I am freely entitled to do

your notion of “,whats the time payback for producing the equipment 20,30,40 years pollution before you can say that your green!.....”

is nonsense because I do not share your obsession with a zero-carbon footprint or any of the other Malthusian political rubbish promoted by the greens and other watermelon

imho the so called “skeptics” and “deniers” of Global warming are like that sane minority of lemmings who decided not to leap off the top of a cliff – and thus to the benefit of the species, became the gene pool from which future generations will be bred.

Send me your email and I will send you direction the cliff top… from where you can appease your sense of hypocrisy

sbr108 “We cannot imagine what the world will be in 50 - 100 years but whatever it is there will be survivors, some properous and some doing it hard. Its been that way for 5000 years and there's no reason to expect it will ever change”

indeed, hopefully it will never change… people work best when free to accept opportunities to improve their circumstances and the kept awake by the loss of rewards resulting from their indolence.

"Can someone please explain how the pro-carbon carbon tax suppoters are justified in using deceitful visual images, e.g. steam, as evidence man is sending billowing clouds of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Is this not propaganda? If there is a need to lie in order to get people to believe something is wrong with the message."

This was seriously your most important point? I deliberately skipped it because it was so trivial.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I doubt it's important. To me it sounds like a conventional TV (or even Youtube) practice of using a picture to illustrate every minor point. Steam or smoke is a visible analogy of any gaseous emission. I trust this is the end of this particular red herring.

I do however thank sbr108 for impliedly admitting that there are no better arguments against a carbon tax.

"Has it dawned on the supporters how convenient the Climate Commisions report, which was paid for by the Labour Gov't, aligned so perfectly with Labour's need for proof? These kind of white wash reports get produced all the time by governments trying to sell particular ideas."

Que? Are you proposing that Labor has a cunning plan to introduce a carbon tax solely it enjoys being evil in a crypto-socialist way? How do you then explain John Howard's ETS scheme?

Pastel Blue

That's the best you can come up with after two days of pondering?

Why don't you watch the Bob Carter video I suggested and tell us what's wrong with the scientific evidence against man-made global warming.

"Have a look at Bob Carter's excellent interpretation of the scientific climate statistics for the past several thousand years? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI"

Interesting, but not "excellent". The best bit was his intro, which really got my hopes up, but his rhetoric made it clear that he really did have an axe to grind. Some *geologist* from a minor, provincial university has a view on climatology. Good on him, I think that's great. However, I'm betting on the vast majority of *climatologists* being right. Also, even I could see what appears to be a rookie error in his reasoning.

I can also see the rookie error in *your* reasoning: That we should judge the science for ourselves. The majority of the population are simply not in a position to do so. To try to overwhelm the average citizen with a specious piece of scientific argument like that is unreasonable and, frankly, dishonest.

What John Q. Citizen has to do is weigh up the authority of the various experts. Just as he cannot judge whether smoking causes cancer, he can however judge for himself that:

1. It is perfectly plausible that smoking causes cancer - it just doesn't seem good for you;

2. The vast weight of medical opinion is that smoking does cause cancer, especially amongst oncologists, but even down to his local GP;

3. The existence of a few cranks - even among the ranks of the experts - does not diminish this consensus of experts. (I personally know a professor of *psychology* (*not* oncology) who is a heavy smoker and, totally coincidentally I'm sure, is trying to prove smoking doesn't cause cancer - you'd recommend his "excellent" video, would you?); and, most importantly

4. Quitting smoking may be unnecessary (if the minority is right and smoking doesn't cause cancer), but it surely can't hurt.

We are in exactly the same position with climate change.

This is what ordinary citizens really need to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=relmfu

"Poorer families get compensated for rise in the prices caused by Carbon Tax _ Why? So they can purchase products produced in polluting countries."

Nice piece of rhetoric, Philo, but unsound reasoning. Purchasing products produced in polluting places is only one of the many things they might do with that money.