Hi Foxy,

Not much use arguing with the FLAT EARTH people. I like the explanation rache gave for the reasons these far right mob oppose the science behind human induced climate change. To them its not science, but political.

Bazz said- "I don't know who is standing in my electorate yet but I will vote for Liberal Democrats, One Nation, Liberal, Labour, The Locals (Can't remember) and the very last the Greens."

Answer- From memory the Liberal Democrats and the DLP (Democratic Labor Party) are interesting- and easy to confuse- though both better than the Labor Party.

The Liberal Democrats policy seems to favour high immigration.

The Democratic Labour Party are explicitly anti-Communist and is linked with B.A.Santamaria and the Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Australia)

It will be interesting to see if Terry Young, Liberal, for the seat of Longman since 2019, will be the one term wonder he deserves to be.

He is an example of politicians representing their party to the people rather than representing their people to the party and government.

Young told the Liberal party room that he voted for net zero by 2050 despite the fact that his electorate objected to it.

There is just one politician who should be kicked out by his employers at the coming election.

Between March 4-6, marketing company Dynata found that 72% of respondents to a poll believed reliability and affordability should be the focus of energy policy, and only 28% said meeting zero emissions by 2050 should be in focus. Last year at the same time, the figures were 44% and 55% respectively. People are waking up. Only by rejecting the smug, tired old time servers of the Coalition, Labor and the Greens will they be better off.

Overseas, governments are backing off renewables in light of public opinion and the obvious warnings (Ukraine) against relying on foreign suppliers for energy. But not the hicks in Canberra. Apart from the nonsense of unreliables, with windmills and panels coming from China, in an emergency, we would have just 1.5 day's domestic consumption of oil.

Plimer is a geologist with no recognised expertise in climate science.
As well as being a director and board member of several mining companies he holds millions of shares in at least one of those companies.

He has published some books, some containing contradictory statements but is known for misrepresenting data and several even basic scientific errors. He also refuses to respond to critics and provide evidence for his theories. He is considered a "grandstander" by many in the science community.

Other common climate misrepresentations in the media include an often quoted 70s Time magazine article that suggested we were heading for an ice age. The truth is that only 10% of scientists believed the amount of aerosoles would eventually cancel our and eventually overtake "The Greenhouse Effect" . The only reason the story got a run was that Texas was experiencing a bizarre unseasonal snowstorm at the time.

Another is that Greenland used to be green but the name was a marketing strategy intended to attract new settlers. The vikings eventually abandoned their settlement and the country has been under an ice sheet for between 50,000 and 400,000 years.

Some people try to blur science but cling to myths.

Otherwise one American commentator once remarked that in Australia you can't tell where the coal industry ends and the government begins.

Only part right Rache. If history is being repeated we will head for
a cool period like the Maunder Minimum. Between early 19th century and
1814 the Thames froze over and yearly Ice Festivals were held on the ice.
The rising temperatures meant the river did not freeze.
The Vikings lived on Greenland from 900 to the 1400s when it was too
cold to farm. Their churches are still there.
We will not be heading for an ice age. That is just silly talk.
There have been 8 named cycles lasting between 600 and 1000 years in length.
Of course there has been criticism of Plimer, he is the bearer of a
message that a lot of people do not want to hear.
Goodness me, hasn't he been cancelled yet ?
We have examples of the cycles of temperature and to say they do not
exist is to deny history.

From the 1930s to the 1950s cigarette companies were able to employ "doctors" who proved; "smoking was good for you". This was proved with medical experiments conducted on smokers. In fact these same doctors denied there was any connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Today we have people who are climate deniers like the smokers of yesteryear and scientists like those doctors "proving" human induced climate change is not real.