It took the medical profession from the 1960s
to the present era to get the public and the
government we elect to act on the toxic,
life-taking effects of tobacco. Eventually
sanity prevailed although it took over 40 years.

What are the reasons for the apparent short-
sightedness? There are both psychological reasons
why humans favour the present and economic reasons
why humans favour the present rather than the future.
Risk aversion is understandable. People might not be
around to benefit from a good time in the future -
so let's have it now regardless of the long-term
consequences.

The threat of human-induced climate change, accepted
as a genuine and very serious consequence of the
Stern Report releaased in October 2006 (close to
19 years to the day since the release of the
Brandtland Report) changed attitudes worldwide, and
made it easier for our conservative (in the sense of
being hesitant to change) economists to act according
to the laws and understanding of their science.

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, as I've stated previously because the
economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are
a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the task.

Yet nobody denies that the planet has a finite amount
of resources or that it can tolerate only a limited
amount of pollution. If world population continues
to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads around the
world, and if pollution and resource depletion continues
at an increasing rate - and all these things are happening -
where is human society headed?

The most optimistic answer to these questions
would be that, one way or another, sweeping changes await
us.

Poirot,

your argument lose a little of its 'punch' when you try to make a point that, "their greatest champions are bloggers who are not qualified in any of the disciplines - like Anthony Watts, the weatherman et al.....) and you then post a reference to a man trained as a psychologist and cognitive scientist with less academic training than even me! But at least I have a B.Sc. in environmental physiology.

Try and answer my other question: Why are you hell-bent on trying to form a new world gov't?

Why are you willing to throw away our freedom and allow the UN the highest court in the world?

If you can answer these two questions we might have a real debate on why the socialist left demonises CO2. You have not given one scientific answer to the CO2 debate and csteele put up a non-attributed plagiarised graph that DID NOT show cause and effect.

Please strengthen your argument with scientific evidence, as I do.

Geoffrey Kelley (between swims) Metung

Yes, Geoffrey - how remiss of me to link to a piece by John Cook.

His blog on the "actual" science is one of the best around - because it relies on peer-reviewed material and climate scientists for its information.

http://skepticalscience.com/

It may have escaped your notice that denialism, in all of it's embroided forms, comprises psychological devices - something which a cognitive scientist and psychologist may be able to shed some light upon....it's actually the aspect that interests me the most in the present "climate".

"Why are you hell-bent on trying to form a new world gov't?"

(Chortle)

Dear Geoffrey,

My dear fellow. I supplied you with exactly what you asked me for, simply a graph showing a rise CO2 preceding Temperature. It was adequate but certainly not one I would have chosen if I were to prosecute the case for AGW, but it admirably filled your requirements, and I am a little uncomfortable there were no words of appreciation.

Perhaps instead you really meant you wanted me to find you a graph that you might, after examining it, be more informed and possibly sway your position on this issue. We both know such a graph does not exist.

So this was just the first one I saw and had no intention of it performing any function other than fulfilling you request.

As to your position on Gough and Pine Gap I am rather confused. Gough wanted a better appreciation of what a foreign power was doing on our sovereign soil in the heart of this great land. You say he was wrong. Why? Was it because the Americans became very upset with him and some say had a direct hand in ousting him?

Or are your references to the Privy Council and Australian independence just a sham?

Are you just a sham Geoffrey? Do these supposed strong convictions of your really stand up to scrutiny? Some might conclude they are mere opinions delivered with vigour, nothing more and that any real substance appears decidedly lacking.

I invite you to convince them otherwise.

Dear csteele,

You said, csteele, Thursday, 24 January 2013 8:53:15 PM, “I supplied you with exactly what you asked me for, simply a graph showing a rise CO2 preceding Temperature.” That is not quite true, is it? Your graph was an unattributed and plagiarised piece of work that showed that a rise in atmospheric CO2 did NOT preceded a rise in average global temp, and I suspect that you know your way around a library well enough to know that your post is a sham.

I thought that this discussion was supposed to be about CO2 and its effect on the climate. My accusation is that the socialist left, lead here by Rudd and Gillard, are using shonky science to excuse their real aim of forming a new world government to redistribute wealth. I have given you the references proving my contention is absolutely correct. Your continued ignoring of the truth firms my suspicion that you know what I am talking about and are to embarrassed to respond. You dare not give the game away.
(continued)

(continued)
As for Gough and the Pine Gap, we allowed the US access to Pine Gap as a part of our obligations under the ANZAS Treaty. I am sure you are aware of that as well.

Why wouldn’t the US Gov’t refuse to disclose highly sensitive information with the Labor Govt. when they were not required to? Because the US knew they could not trust the ALP. And I think you also know why the US could not trust the ALP, but in case you have forgotten I will offer you a clue. Katherine Susannah Pritchard and her little gang of treasonous socialist released top-secret documents to the Russians (during WW II) barely twenty-five years earlier. Dr Herbert Vere Evatt’s personal private secretary obtained top-secret information (left around the office by her boss) and passed it on to the Russians. This resulted in a complete breakdown of communications between the OSS and MI6 during WW II, and ultimately the post WW II establishment of ASIO.

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Metung