Hi MR OPINION,
yeah, I was a part of the peak oil movement years ago. We had a team that briefed the NSW Upper House (cross-benchers) and at the time I thought Fred Nile was scary because he suddenly burst out that we needed more nuclear power plants. At the time, I just thought "We'll, nuclear accidents scare me, the waste is a real problem, and I can't stick it in my car!" How wrong I was on all 3 counts. I can't stick a nuclear power plant directly in my car of course, but the breeder reactors have energy profits 2000 and above... that's just... an unimaginable energy profit! I wish I could go back and tell that younger me not to panic about peak oil so much, and look after a family emergency we had at the time.

Yeah, we even had Richard Heinberg out to a packed Town Hall gig in 2005. Crazy times. I remember someone asked him about nuclear power, and he just replied "It requires a really complex society to run it!" At the time I wondered what kind of answer that was. Look outside? There's a very complex society. Unless we hit WW3, it's not going anywhere, and even after such a calamity it might not be that long before we built ourselves up again. But in the final analysis, whether oil or tar sands or fracking fuels, they're all going into a refinery and now mean the USA is a large oil producer again. The peak oil movement took a credibility hit with their dire predictions, and even though it's still a scientific fact that oil will one day peak, the actual date of that seems to be pushed further and further back by new extractive technologies.

And the irony? I wasn't that freaked out about climate change back then, but am more so now and hardly think about peak oil. There's too much OIL to burn from a climate point of view, let alone if we started burning Coal-To-Liquids and other dirty fuels.

-_
(O_ò)

Really? Ok. Sure.

Belly, this topic was started by you, so your invested in it at least that much, and Max Green, you apparently have been part of some climate studies so your good name rides on this as well. That's the best I can reason for both of you being defensive over what I've said. (And being defensive is the best I can reason for your replies as well). So I'll give an account for what I've said.

First to you Billy. The topic has gone for 470+ posts. Many which are not about the link of the report or the 11,000 scientists that signed the report. Several of the first posts did concentrate on the the report, the qualifications of the scientists, or the number as a whole. A larger number of the conversation I'd categorize entirely as bickering between those who believe in the climate scare, and those that don't. Don't pretend that is also off topic when both sides try to laugh at the other side for being so dumb. (No apologies for summing all of the not-so-clever remarks into that small petty phrase). As for my part of the conversation, I think it's been spot on consistent throughout my posts. Climate change narratives are not reliable. They have a track record of not being reliable, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

The most off topic I've said was comment on Salt reactor technology. And that was because I think it's time to stop focusing on climate change theatrics and instead look at real solutions. Heck I even tied that part into if it is successful how it can help with the fire season with more water to fight the fires, or even to use as a farming tool and make the land less dry. Even the focused look at climate change rhetoric as compared to a dictator rhetoric (if it's taken seriously) is on the point I've maintained that none of it should be taken seriously. We should fight pollution without climate scare lies as the main means of focus.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Yet here is your concern still. If climate change is a lie, who made the lie? Trying to make it sound ridiculous as if a conspiracy to start fires, melt ice caps, and what-not else was done by the conspiracy of climate change fiends. The truth is regardless if it is a lie, or a giant lack of sense; either way the unreliability speaks for itself. Who cares who's put to blame. Most of the world at one time or another has probably been fooled by climate scares throughout the years before some of them started noticing that it's not adding up. Either way it's time to move on. Let's actually look to take care of the world, without trying to manhandle other countries to toe the line, or scare the younger generation to think the end is near. So for the record here's the answer to your question of who's to blame. "Who cares, let's move on and correct the issue."

(Continued)

(Continued)

To Max Green. For your part I now get that this has been your field of study and your more invested in it then just the scared public that have been prodded into this scare. Your name rides on this more then most everyone else here who just believe in it or are observant enough to not take it seriously. For your part I gave a few links to show my points. One of which showed several news articles throughout the last 120 years. The reliability factor for climate change is at a 0 count of being reliable compared to actual observations outside of the computer models. The reliability whether it comes from a climate scientist or from a reporter parroting off what the climate scientists say, shows the same result by looking at the news articles throughout that timeline.

Don't take this any more personally then it needs to be. This is not aimed at you. But there is no reliability when it comes to climate sciences and global warming scares. I'm not saying this out of a conspiracy of greed towards polluting the planet. But out of being observant, and out of watching the intensifying rhetoric that is coming out of climate change narratives. I shouldn't be the only one who sees a red flag to stop the presses when one of the big concerns making a spotlight in global warming scares is that we need population control. Stop the presses on it. Shut them down. Do you even hear the growing sentiment and how dangerous it actually is? Defend your own name on the matter if you want, and seek solutions for energy and the environment; but do not join the chorus of climate change. There is something very wrong going on in there, regardless of the merged science and the politics red flag. Regardless of the inconsistencies and unreliability. Get out while you still can.

NNS your waterfall of words needs a relook, do you understand like mine like every ones they are just words? in fact your opinion?
Can you see my thoughts are mine but shared by many?
Who please! tell me, is behind my being a victim of fraudulent man made climate change explain who conned me and why
Tell me why it has been in every paper this morning the last month has broken all time records for dryness, why it is fifth overall for hottest November on record
Are you views the measure of my worth/understanding?
Right now yet another climate meeting is taking place, it has warnings for us all, are those attending just misinformed fools?

Max Green,

I have never owned a car or even held a driver's license, a decision I made when I was a teenager. That was my contribution towards preventing AGW. That was back in the late 1960s. A cry in the wilderness.

Anyway, AGW may not be the worst of our problems. I assume you are aware that the closing of the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica is being reversed because China is manufacturing CFCs as if there's no tomorrow. Welcome to our extinction event. And you'll have the Chinese to thank for it!