Mr O,

You really are a racist troll.

Because I call you out on your blatant anti chinese racism you accuse me of selling out the country. Lie #1

Because I call out the more extreme and contradictory positions of the climate activists you accuse me of supporting the climate deniers. Lie #2.

As for Franking credits, Having super with big organisation, I would guess that I have the same as you.

With a worthless degree you wouldn't understand climate science if it bit you on the arse.

Misopinionated,

So you're nudging seventy ? Ergo, you would claim that you studied environmental sociology in the late sixties and/or early seventies ? I wasn't aware that there was such a degree anywhere like that back then: environmental studies was barely getting off the ground and sociology would have been focussed on Talcott Parsons, all a bit of a far cry from your woolly post-modernism. People were still getting their heads around Rachel Carson's wonderful work (look it up on Wikipedia). So when did you get this miraculous degree ?

Mind you, it comes as no surprise that you've never held a driver's licence. I assume that your mum is still driving you around.

Back to topic: watching Q&A last night, with sea-level rise of two inches over the last century, I'm a bit sceptical (sympathetic but still sceptical) to the Pacific Islands' claims about climate crisis: Fiji rises to more than 1300 metres, but yes, there are hundreds of small islands, thousands across the pacific, mostly low-lying atolls, which are barely a metre above sea-level at high tide.

But coral atolls, according to Darwin, keep rising, building, as the sea-level rises. Maybe one of the major problems is the extraction of ground water (and hence subsidence) for growing populations and expanding purposes. Is it possible to build solar-powered water extraction systems for many of the smaller atolls ?

Just wondering. An idiot can ask questions too :)

Joe

NNS let me tell you this, no great research has formed my opinion, well not research by me
I believe the science
Know even if we wish it was not true, things can and do have impact on the rings around our planet
Layers to me [ham radio nuts use that term] Atmosphere to others
Ionisation, of some layers, as a result of sunspots, brings great joy the us, mention Sprad E and we dash for our radio shacks min sentence
Sporadic Ionisation of the E layer, brings far off countrys right into our radios
So? just highlighting this, show me something man has not harmed rivers lakes seas land animals insects, think with me on this
Why the hoax, why are more and more daily, joining my side
What are the benefits in ending research in to lower carbon fuels? stopping looking for renewables or just plain alternatives?

To Belly.

There're a chance you've missed my position on climate change and the environment entirely. My being against climate change science has both do do with the science's poor track record (or at least what access I have to the record of climate science, namely what's reported on it); and with the growing direction of the causes for action within climate change rhetoric. I am not against the environment, and do think we need to continue to work on projects to take better care of the environment. Instead of gas emissions bring a concern for global warming, in my position I see them as a concern for local environments. Smog in cities, or general pollution scattered across highways. The bigger contribution to pollution, as far as I'm aware is cooperate pollution not cars. Meaning manufacturing industries, and planes.

I have explained my position on climate science's track record several times before. This is that they say a huge increase in emissions and in temperature with a predicted spike in the near future to engorge fears. The temperatures recorded through observation however don't match up even close to the predictions in the ongoingly edited computer models. Thus climate science is unreliable. Don't try and extract a who done it and why from me as if a lack of that answer makes everything ok. The truth is that the science is off too often and too much to be considered reliable.

As for why more and more are buying into it? It's because tell a story long enough and it becomes part of our culture. Part of our society. I'd wager that global warming in the media is the closest thing today to indoctrination. No actual standard to hold them to but a continued front pressing the same story over and over again.

It's become a distraction. There are many more pressing matters then global warming. Not just because it's been exaggerated. But because even if it's as bad as the exaggerated models predict, there are far worse things to fight against. Look up modern slavery to get a picture of just one thing that's a more pressing issue then climate change.

NNS I can not let you off the hook you have made claims in the past that are too say the least, not quite bright
Climate change is man made its denial is to, trying to protect fossil fuels and keep profiting from things we should stop