Dear SOG,

I can't understand how anybody can ignore what's
happening on our own door-step. Heatwaves and
bushfires are the most obvious manifestations.
These weather events are getting more dangerous
(and costly) because more and more people are in
harm's way.

There's been a steep ramp in insurance payouts due to
extreme weather events in this country since the 1960s.
Our cities have sprawled out into rural areas and up
and down our coastlines. More and more people and
properties have been put at risk.

Severe droughts affect our agricultural centres and
as the link I gave you earlier states,
"SE Australia is getting hotter, drier, and more
fire prone. South West Western Australia is drying out.
The Northern Tropics may well get wetter..."
And the list goes on.

When the "climate really is changing for the worst in
most parts of Australia..." to suggest that "she'll be
right mate," does not appear to be an intelligent
option.

Poirot>> I'll reprise this link - as it says it all quite bluntly...<<

Poirot, those are the guys I want to pay for the pollution, I am not partisan to any, except to the common good.

What I do note is that even with a Democrat government in the chair; Obama does not push for legislation to have the polluters invest in expensive emission control technology. Everything we manufacture can be cleaned up and broken down into harmless components of the previous amalgam, excepting nuclear waste. But it costs.

I would be happy to share some of that cost, but the 10% that own 80% of the globes assets have to come to the table. If just 10% of that 80% of amassed wealth were spent on emission control and clean up we would have no issues. But the assets of the 10% have steadily grown since the 1980’s as has the push by the Green Industry to make the consumer responsible and pay the UN oligarchs.

Instead Obama compliantly helps move the blame and the cost to the consumer, leaving the Corporations to pollute and plunder while the Green oligarchs take money from us before it hits our pockets.

Poirot, I have talked about the modern environmental movement at length in past posts. I have talked about how the “Silent Spring” movement was hijacked from focusing on the polluter to focusing on the consumer. Not one reply at any point about the history and politics that hijacked the direction of the environmental movement that greens here will stick pins in themselves over.

Do yopu know who directs the movement? Do you know how a 180 degree change in focus came about. Well it started with a “Club of Rome” meeting in the 1970’s. Poirot my emerald, do you know who you support?

It aint the environment

Lexi>> There's been a steep ramp in insurance payouts due to
extreme weather events in this country since the 1960s.
Our cities have sprawled out into rural areas and up
and down our coastlines. More and more people and
properties have been put at risk.<<

Lexi, the more dwelling adjacent to the bush, the more dwellings lost. The hottest day “on record “in Sydney was reached on Friday; it was 0.44 of a degree hotter than the previous set in the 1930’s. The next day it was 26 degrees, today it is 22 degrees.

Don’t over focus on GW, we don’t control it, the sun does, and it controls the winds. The earth has sustained life during extended periods of global volcanic emissions. It has been hotter than it is now and it has been cooler, there has been more CO2 and there has been less.

We need to focus on manmade pollution and the reasons that “best practice” is not the most effective technologies we have to capture and neutralize emissions. But that takes money, and those that have it won’t spend on it….simple as that

There is ample room for middle ground on this issue. I doubt if there are many on the “skeptics” side of the house who would argue against the merits of reducing pollution, or developing alternative sources of energy. They might argue about the merits of a particular policy, like the “Carbon tax” via-à-vis another approach, but they are generally in favor of a cleaner world.

What we have been seeing –both here and elsewhere -- is a very dishonest campaign by the more extreme (leftist) elements. Who are seeking to exploit concern over climate change to further their harebrained agendas—well illustrated in Poirot's latest link –and in fact, most things Poirot links to.

We are meant to believe that unless we go along holus bolus with what the extreme left is selling we are part of a giant capitalist conspiracy. That absolutely nothing is being done, or has been done up till now, to control pollution or waste. And, if we signed up to a mega-Kyoto tomorrow (and sign away our wealth --and rights) the climate would magically enter a Goldilocks phase.

Well, none of it is true.Even if we stopped CO2 emissions tomorrow these extremists would still not be sated because their real purpose goes way,way beyond climate amelioration.

Say no to drugs.
Say no to violence again women(and men).
And most important of all, say no to climate extremists.

I say your summarization is all wrong. Why does climate change got to be political. Left, right doesn't make sense.
It is a matter of believing real science, or skeptic science.
Personally i believe skeptic science is driven by vested interests. Otherwise why would you bother. You can just say i don't believe the straight science.
Nasa is not deterred by skeptics, and rightly so, if they can not come up with the same conclusions as the skeptics, that makes the science dangerous.
Nasa is an exacting science, and for good reason peoples lives are dependent on it.
So i do not see why politics has to be involved.
The carbon tax paid by the top polluters, is a very good start in creating change, in line with real science. If we leave it till all sides agree, it may be to late to back out the problem, if one exists.
If you back the skeptics, so be it, the rest of us will ere on the side of caution.

Dear SOG,

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution is a
change in the global climate. As a result of the
burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of
forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is steadily increasing. Any high school
student knows that. This gas creates a "greenhouse
effect" on the planet, for it allows solar rays to
reach the earth's surface but prevents heat from
radiating back into space. The consequence is global
warming. This warming effect is already under way,
polar ice-caps are melting and the average global
temperature is expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2030. This seems like a small change,
but minor fluctuations in global temperature can have
drastic consequences. During the last ice age, when
much of North America was covered with sheets of ice more
than a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.

After decades of carelessly dumping noxious gases and
particulates into the atmosphere, most of the industrialised
societies are now enforcing clean air standards.

This and other atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable
outcome of industrial technology. It derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather than bear
the costs.

Further control of pollution is politically difficult,
however, for the economic interests behind "smokestack"
industries are a powerful political lobby that is
reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the
task.

We need the right leadership and long-term planning to
counter this situation.