I'd just like to add the "WMD's in Iraq" line was merely the convenient spiel adopted by those other right-wing fruitloops, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, so they could launch their grab for control and influence over Iraq's main resource (this was all before tar sands and fracking became the new catch-phrase in the US of A)

In fact the UN found there were no WMD's in Iraq - and Bush & Co invaded anyway.

spindoc,

The only people trying to keep research secret are various right-wing governments who aren't real happy with it interfering with their plans:

Reprise....
http://desmog.ca/2013/02/14/us-scientist-caught-canadian-muzzle?utm

qanda>> For sonofgloin: You should familiarise yourself with GRACE (for example) before you make more foolish remarks<<

A foolish remark is it sport, or sportette!

I started a thread last year based on the Fort Dennison tide measurements over the past decade. THE HIGH TIDES WERE DOWN ON AVERAGE FOR MOST OF THOSE YEARS, sorry to yell but I want you to hear.

You keep listening to the "scientists" quanda, the ones who bullsheisered the numbers so their hockey stick could stand up by itself. I will make my own mind up rather than regurgitate something I know nothing about fed to me via vested interest scientists I have never met.
Just in parting I mentioned in that thread that I have several old rels who are fishing crazy, they have lived in the same places for fifty years and they have not noticed a difference. Jetty’s are the same, high tide marks are the same….but we are being flooded if we listen to you regurgitate something you don’t know from someone you don’t know.

I bet you would be the last to shout: “The king has no clothes”, followers never open their mouths first, and that’s why they are followers.

Tell me why did Professor Tim Flannery buy a waterside property a few years back, shouldn’t this gravy train engineer know what’s coming, or was it a short term investment?

Belly>> interesting SOG is unaware tides have far different heights and impacts not just in the northern hemisphere but even here, see tides in Darwin vs Sydney<<

God you are a dill… Belly my china.
I did not say there was no differential in tidal flows, but as I said above the last decade was marked by lower than average tides at Fort Dennison…or are they fudging the figures just for Sydney Harbour. Sea level rises are spread around the globe and the tides would reflect that here, there, and everywhere tiger.

sonofgloin,

"You keep listening to the "scientists" qanda...."

Well it's kinda hard to avoid for the likes of qanda because he appears to be a scientist.

"...I will make up my own mind rather than regurgitate something I know nothing about fed to me via vested interest scientists I have never met."

How does that go?

"...something I know nothing about...."

And if you refuse to listen to "the scientists" regarding "the science", then you're left with regurgitating (ad nauseam) your own ignorance.

Ah! Yummy qanda/Poirot.

So Kyoto has not lapsed? Really? Now I thought it expired on December 31, 1012. So if as you say it has not lapsed, who might we ask are the signed up member States?

"Why have the international emissions trading markets collapsed?" Your answer, “The question should be directed to politicians, policy makers or economists”. Roughly translated this means, well yes they have but you don’t know why. I don’t need to ask the politicians, I asked if you knew. I already know why and so do they.

"Why has the renewable energy market collapsed internationally?"
It matters not if I’m, as you say “chasing tails”. We can all read the RENNIX stock index. I suppose you are going to tell us this is wrong?

"Why are all the key global “scientific” advisers to government’s trying so hard to keep their science secret from the public?"

You say they are not. Curious? Which of those listed are not defending secrecy? The court cases are published from the various courts around the world, I guess the courts are just wrong eh?
Alternatively, since you are not a denier perhaps you could ask them to release their data?

"If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the international infrastructure that was created to support it in the first place?"

Your answer. “Getting 193 member states and governments of all political persuasions to agree on anything is a big task, Barry – it is not easy”.

But you forget, they did at one stage agree, now they don’t and have refused to sign any more binding agreements. That is because they can no longer be persuaded by either the science or the economics.

I find it really interesting that when you take away your science you fall into a gibbering heap and saying the facts as presented aren’t true. Your problem is you cannot refute them because they are all from published industrial data upon which investors make decisions.

I think you’re stumped but that doesn’t surprise anyone. But you are both very funny.

Poirot>> Yup, mhaze - this article on the World Bank's report on biofuels and the food crisis, backs qanda's assertion that it was the Bush Administration<<

Poirot, I know the baking cartels and the 5% that own 85% of everything (an amazing figure) run the bloody lot. So every scurrilous big business deceit that you example I agree is criminal.

Where you have it wrong is that the international socialist movement is doing the bidding of the 5%.

Why are we plebs fighting about a carbon tax? Because the agenda of holding the polluters accountable has morphed into holding the consumer accountable. Leaving the 5% free to pollute.

The Green movement and your governing lefty snout in trough internationalists are chasing the money not the polluters.

How much emission control technology could you invest in if you owned 85% of the globes assets?

Terry McCrann The Australian August 20, 2011
>> Australia will be sending $57 billion a year overseas just for the right to keep our lights on, as a direct consequence of Julia Gillard's carbon dioxide tax and consequent emissions trading scheme.

We won't be getting anything tangible back for that $57bn.It doesn't buy us windmills or solar panels made in China. It doesn't buy us technology or licensing rights. It's not even a (carbon dioxide) tax, that would at least generate revenue for the government.

It just sends money to foreigners for "permission" to keep a few of our coal-fired power stations operating.
This extraordinary "fact" is in detailed Treasury modeling of the proposed carbon dioxide tax.<<

Poirot you have not got a clue as to what happens to the Carbon Tax, because if you did you would want it spent here in Australia to clean up the environment.

These burgeoning second and third world money pits have a governing class, where do think the billions are going to go after the U.N bureaucrats have had their share P…into the Bank of Rwanda? It’s going to go back into the system via the afore mentioned banking cartels. You have not got a clue my dear.

In this thread alone the term "the science" has been used 18 times, mostly by qanda and Poirot. Its the silliest of notions and a complete misreading of the real world to think that there is such a thing as "the science" on climate change or anything else for that matter.
the fact is there are many many scientists who disagree with the so-called consensus view. There are many many scientists who are currently working on theories about how the climate works which are entirely at odds with the simplistic notion that mankind increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% can change the climate. Are these people part of "the science" or are they excommunicated for their heresy?

Is Freeman Dyson part of "the science"?
Is nobel laureate Ivar Giaever expelled from "the science" because he doesn't buy the one 'true' version of the story?
Is Will Happer part of "the science"?
Is Henrik Svensmark no longer part of "the science" because he is working on an entirely different theory as to how climate change works?

I'm sorry fellas but this notion that there is one science, "the science" and everything else is right-wing spin just reveals a hopeless lack of understanding as to the current level of research.

There is no consensus. Its a political term, not a scientific one. And there is no "the science". there are many many different sciences.