PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Kevin Bonham
29-09-2007, 01:56 PM
Yeah. And poverty is a far bigger danger to life than an extra degree or two next century.

This is actually my concern as well - that remedial measures for global warming need to be targeted so as to not be just another means of keeping the poor in their place by slugging them with increased electricity bills.


Seems to be. You pay people not to work, so it's not surprising that people don't work.

Do you have any hard evidence on the nature and effects of dole systems in these countries? I believe the UK's, for instance, is also no cup of tea.


This article was "The 'working poor' scam", so makes the opposite point you want to make though.

It makes a variety of points, and I'm saying that some of them still support the case that there is a problem. One-twelfth is not a small fraction in context, that one-twelfth are not young and are probably not inexperienced beginners, and while "most people in the bottom 20 percent do not stay there even one decade, much less three." it would be interesting to note what the proportion staying there was for those who are in that one-twelfth.


As for "sexual freedom", it is one thing to support freedom to be promiscuous, but what about the freedom not to subsidise the problems resulting from this behaviour?

What about the freedom not to subsidise the health problems resulting from smoking, drinking, playing sport, overeating, worrying too much about going to Hell, sitting in front of the internet (etc - almost everyone has some kind of lifestyle-related health problem or other)? If you're going to have a publicly funded health care system at all (and this is an open question) then you must be objective in picking and choosing whose health issues you will or will not fund.

Capablanca-Fan
30-09-2007, 03:44 PM
Liberals and Class (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4260), Part 3
by Thomas Sowell (June 10, 2005)


Sometimes it seems as if liberals [American for "loony lefties" — JS] have a genius for producing an unending stream of ideas that are counterproductive for the poor, whom they claim to be helping. Few of these notions are more counterproductive than the idea of "menial work" or "dead-end jobs."

Think about it: Why do employers pay people to do "menial" work? Because the work has to be done. What useful purpose is served by stigmatizing work that someone is going to have to do anyway?

Is emptying bed pans in a hospital menial work? What would happen if bed pans didn't get emptied? Let people stop emptying bed pans for a month and there would be bigger problems than if sociologists stopped working for a year.

Having someone who can come into a home to clean and cook and do minor chores around the house can be a godsend to someone who is an invalid or who is suffering the infirmities of age — and who does not want to be put into an institution. Someone who can be trusted to take care of small children is likewise a treasure.

Many people who do these kinds of jobs do not have the education, skills or experience to do more complex kinds of work. Yet they can make a real contribution to society while earning money that keeps them off welfare.

Many low-level jobs are called "dead-end jobs" by liberal intellectuals because these jobs have no promotions ladder. But it is superficial beyond words to say that this means that people in such jobs have no prospect of rising economically.

Many people at all levels of society, including the richest, have at some point or other worked at jobs that had no promotions ladder, so-called "dead-end jobs." The founder of the NBC network began work as a teenager hawking newspapers on the streets. Billionaire Ross Perot began with a paper route.

You don't get promoted from such jobs. You use the experience, initiative, and discipline that you develop in such work to move on to something else that may be wholly different. People who start out flipping hamburgers at McDonald's seldom stay there for a full year, much less for life.

...

Axiom
30-09-2007, 06:22 PM
Liberals and Class (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4260), Part 3
by Thomas Sowell (June 10, 2005)


Sometimes it seems as if liberals [American for "loony lefties" — JS] have a genius for producing an unending stream of ideas that are counterproductive for the poor, whom they claim to be helping. Few of these notions are more counterproductive than the idea of "menial work" or "dead-end jobs."

Think about it: Why do employers pay people to do "menial" work? Because the work has to be done. What useful purpose is served by stigmatizing work that someone is going to have to do anyway?

Is emptying bed pans in a hospital menial work? What would happen if bed pans didn't get emptied? Let people stop emptying bed pans for a month and there would be bigger problems than if sociologists stopped working for a year.

Having someone who can come into a home to clean and cook and do minor chores around the house can be a godsend to someone who is an invalid or who is suffering the infirmities of age — and who does not want to be put into an institution. Someone who can be trusted to take care of small children is likewise a treasure.

Many people who do these kinds of jobs do not have the education, skills or experience to do more complex kinds of work. Yet they can make a real contribution to society while earning money that keeps them off welfare.

Many low-level jobs are called "dead-end jobs" by liberal intellectuals because these jobs have no promotions ladder. But it is superficial beyond words to say that this means that people in such jobs have no prospect of rising economically.

Many people at all levels of society, including the richest, have at some point or other worked at jobs that had no promotions ladder, so-called "dead-end jobs." The founder of the NBC network began work as a teenager hawking newspapers on the streets. Billionaire Ross Perot began with a paper route.

You don't get promoted from such jobs. You use the experience, initiative, and discipline that you develop in such work to move on to something else that may be wholly different. People who start out flipping hamburgers at McDonald's seldom stay there for a full year, much less for life.

...
if the work "has to be done " so much , then pay more for the job to be done ,in the spirit of your free trade ideology !

if we improved ,informing and educating our young, there would not be the necessity to be corraled into these jobs..............ah, but maybe thats the idea !....so we can import cheap labour ala the usa illegal mexican invasion which you so rightly denounce !

Basil
30-09-2007, 09:24 PM
if the work "has to be done " so much , then pay more for the job to be done ,in the spirit of your free trade ideology !

if we improved ,informing and educating our young, there would not be the necessity to be corraled into these jobs..............ah, but maybe thats the idea !....so we can import cheap labour ala the usa illegal mexican invasion which you so rightly denounce !
Ooops dribble alert.

Yes, the work has to be done. I didn't mind driving a cab. Others love it. Why pay them 'more'?

'More'? How much more? Or do you just pluck a figure. Who pays? The consumer? The government? Don't get me started on balance sheets?

Improved educating? There are sooooooooooooo many courses unfilled at the moment it's not funny. We are screaming for nurses, electricians etc.. Noone wants to do RIGHT NOW while the government has places and incentives in place RIGHT NOW.

Capablanca-Fan
01-10-2007, 06:12 PM
Year of the loaded hypocrite (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22498554-5001031,00.html) by Tim Blair, 29 September 2007:

JANUARY: Canadian enviromonk David Suzuki sets out on a journey across his great white nation - staining it black with diesel fumes from his gigantic rock star-style tour bus. "It's kind of too fancy for our needs," admits Suzuki's press agent. "But it does the job."

FEBRUARY: Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth wins an Oscar, but the next morning a genuinely inconvenient truth is reported by the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research. "Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year," the Centre reveals.

"In his documentary, the former vice-president calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home . . . Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400kWh per month in 2006."

...

APRIL: Four US Democrats vying for the presidency fly from Washington DC to South Carolina for a debate. Each candidate - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden - will happily talk your leg off about the crucial vitalness of addressing global warming. And each one of them flew in their own chartered jet.

...

JUNE: Australian country singer and scary actress husband Keith Urban joins the "blockbuster line-up of performers" who'll play at Al Gore's Live Earth concert in New Jersey next month. "Global warming is something that will ultimately affect all of us on this planet," Urban says, "and if there is one thing that music can do, it is to bring people together despite their politics or differences."

One difference between most people and Urban: most people don't have a 12-cylinder, 300km/h, Gaia-torturing Bentley Continental GTC in their Sydney garage. Another difference between Urban and most people: Keith keeps a second Bentley at his US home. Way to save the planet, yodel boy.

JULY: ...

Also in July, Al Gore's Live Earth concerts starred Joss Stone - who asked staff to keep her car engine running while she gave interviews at Live Earth Johannesburg - and Madonna, who owns a fleet of cars including a Maybach, two Range Rovers, two Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S.

...

Axiom
01-10-2007, 06:49 PM
Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

Washington Post | September 27, 2007
H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602127_pf.html

But as long as we're brainwashed.....

Labour 'is brainwashing pupils with Al Gore climate change film' says father in court
Daily Mail UK on 27th September 2007

Children are being brainwashed by propaganda from the Government on climate change, a court heard yesterday.

The "New Labour Thought Police" were accused of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484249&in_page_id=1770

pax
01-10-2007, 06:55 PM
Why does it matter how many cars these people own? Last time I checked, I wasn't able to drive three cars simultaneously. A car that is driving 500km per year isn't contributing a whole lot to global warming.

pax
01-10-2007, 06:58 PM
JANUARY: Canadian enviromonk David Suzuki sets out on a journey across his great white nation - staining it black with diesel fumes from his gigantic rock star-style tour bus. "It's kind of too fancy for our needs," admits Suzuki's press agent. "But it does the job."

Perhaps you would prefer if they chartered an aeroplane? Or perhaps travelled in a convoy of Humvees? No, it's just that morons like Tim Blair expect environmentalists to live a hermit's existence, preferably with no media contact whatsoever.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 12:00 AM
Why does it matter how many cars these people own? Last time I checked, I wasn't able to drive three cars simultaneously. A car that is driving 500km per year isn't contributing a whole lot to global warming.
Duh, they probably have family members or friends who can drive them.


Perhaps you would prefer if they chartered an aeroplane? Or perhaps travelled in a convoy of Humvees? No, it's just that morons like Tim Blair expect environmentalists to live a hermit's existence, preferably with no media contact whatsoever.
Good grief, the Anointed can be obtuse! No, I expect them not to demand sacrifices of others that they are not prepared to make themselves!! :evil:

pax
02-10-2007, 09:25 AM
Good grief, the Anointed can be obtuse!

Could you please desist with your little pet terms of abuse.



No, I expect them not to demand sacrifices of others that they are not prepared to make themselves!! :evil:

Then perhaps you could enlighten us to where David Suzuki is demanding other people not travel in buses?!?

pax
02-10-2007, 09:27 AM
Duh, they probably have family members or friends who can drive them.

Right. The point here is that the number of cars somebody owns is actually pretty meaningless, unless you know how often and how far they are driven, and with how many occupants. Would you care to furnish this information?

pax
02-10-2007, 09:41 AM
FEBRUARY: Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth wins an Oscar, but the next morning a genuinely inconvenient truth is reported by the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research. "Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year," the Centre reveals.

Another cheap shot from the hate-Al crowd.

Yes, Al Gore has high power bills. But in fact, he pays a premium to his electricity company to cover his electricity use with power sourced from renewables. So in fact, his high power bills actually result in significant investment in renewable energy.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 10:44 AM
Could you please desist with your little pet terms of abuse.
They are not terms of abuse but statements of facts about people who excuse rank hypocrisy. These superstar alarmists are demanding sacrifices that they are not prepared to make themselves. What is so hard about that? We are told to drive less, shower less etc. while they jetset everywhere and live in energy-guzzling mansions. Or else these limousine leftists pay carbon indulgences to atone for their sins (e.g. to a company Gore owns or his new managed fund will get wealthy from), while we plebs can't afford that so have to cramp our lifestyles even more.

pax
02-10-2007, 10:56 AM
They are not terms of abuse but statements of facts about people who excuse rank hypocrisy. These superstar alarmists are demanding sacrifices that they are not prepared to make themselves.

So David Suzuki driving around the country in a bus is some sort of "jetset lifestyle"? "rank hypocrisy"?

Come off it, you are just making a bunch of cheap shots because it is easy to cry "hypocrite" rather than actually analyse with any depth.

Why is it a problem that Al Gore buys carbon credits from a company he has invested in? When he buys carbon credits, these are actually paid to other companies that are involved in renewable energy generation, forest regrowth, and energy efficiency.

How is it somehow a bad thing that somebody is paying a lot of money to be invested in carbon reduction?

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 11:13 AM
Come off it, you are just making a bunch of cheap shots because it is easy to cry "hypocrite" rather than actually analyse with any depth.
It happens to be true. It is disgusting to see jetsetters with huge gas-guzzling cars and houses demanding big lifestyle sacrifices from others.


Why is it a problem that Al Gore buys carbon credits from a company he has invested in? When he buys carbon credits, these are actually paid to other companies that are involved in renewable energy generation, forest regrowth, and energy efficiency.

How is it somehow a bad thing that somebody is paying a lot of money to be invested in carbon reduction?
Yeah, paying money in effect to himself, so he doesn't bear any cost for it. Indeed, he gets rich by exploiting Greenie gullibility. As usual, it is poorer people who will become even less well off because of limousine lefty policies that they are insulated from themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 11:21 AM
Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

Washington Post | September 27, 2007
H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602127_pf.html
Of course, he won't feel much pain himself. It is the poor who bear the cost of the policies of rich greenies. And the same rich greenies have the chutzpah to blame Greedy Big Oil for high petrol prices, yet they never blame Greedy Big Government for making even more on taxes than the oil companies and petrol stations make in profits!

Similarly, rich lawyers and judges release violent thugs back on the street, because "society" is to blame for their thuggery, because the thugs are, say, black and poor. Of course, these judges don't bear the costs of their lenience, living in secure gated communities; rather, the "black and poor" society is what bears the costs of criminals being returned to them.

And the rich Dems who are in hock to the teachers' unions fight tooth and nail against school vouchers to protect the union monopoly, but the Dems (and many public school teachers) send their own kids to the best private schools money can buy. The poor people are stuck with the crappy government schools, and denied the educational opportunities that would give them a real chance of climbing out of poverty.

pax
02-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Yeah, paying money in effect to himself, so he doesn't bear any cost for it. Indeed, he gets rich by exploiting Greenie gullibility. As usual, it is poorer people who will become even less well off because of limousine lefty policies that they are insulated from themselves.

You keep peddling this bullshit line, and it's just fiction. Yes, he buys carbon credits from a company that he helped to found, but a) he does not wholly own the company, and b) when Al Gore or anyone else buys carbon credits - those credits must first be purchased from other companies which are actually involved in CO2 reduction such as renewable generation. It's really not much different to any other retail business.

Carbon credits are not "indulgences", as you so glibly like to call them. They are real investments in carbon reduction technologies and businesses.

A further point is that Al Gore pays a premium to his electricity company to source his power from renewable sources.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 12:12 PM
You keep peddling this bullshit line, and it's just fiction. Yes, he buys carbon credits from a company that he helped to found, but a) he does not wholly own the company,
It doesn't matter: he still benefits from his part-ownership. So he is making no sacrifices for the indulgent lifestyle that he and his fellow Anointed want to deny us Benighted people. Similarly, he whinged about overpopulation, but he was happy to have four kids himself!


Carbon credits are not "indulgences", as you so glibly like to call them. They are real investments in carbon reduction technologies and businesses.
Which alGore stands to profit from.

pax
02-10-2007, 12:20 PM
It doesn't matter: he still benefits from his part-ownership. So he is making no sacrifices for the indulgent lifestyle that he and his fellow Anointed want to deny us Benighted people. Similarly, he whinged about overpopulation, but he was happy to have four kids himself!

He benefits from part-ownership in the same way that someone who owns Coles shares benefits by doing their grocery shopping at Coles. i.e not very much - the goods still have to be bought from a supplier!

This "Al Gore buys indulgences from Al Gore" line is a gross misrepresentation. But it sounds great, like all your other glib soundbites..

Aaron Guthrie
02-10-2007, 12:33 PM
He benefits from part-ownership in the same way that someone who owns Coles shares benefits by doing their grocery shopping at Coles. i.e not very much - the goods still have to be bought from a supplier!

This "Al Gore buys indulgences from Al Gore" line is a gross misrepresentation. But it sounds great, like all your other glib soundbites..I'd like to anticipate a new charge of self interest- Al Gore's whole campaign is just to promote his own company!

pax
02-10-2007, 12:40 PM
I'd like to anticipate a new charge of self interest- Al Gore's whole campaign is just to promote his own company!

Hardly "new". The rightwing anti-environmentalists have been slinging this charge around for years. It doesn't cross their minds that someone concerned about climate change would put their money where their mouth is and put up a big investment to establish a company that facilitates investment in renewable energy and carbon reduction industries..

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 04:14 PM
Al Gore claims:


We can’t sell our cars in China today because we don’t meet the Chinese emissions standards.

Tim Blair reports (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/worlds_cleanest_humvee/):


Via a Chinese-reading correspondent, who emails: “Not only is China importing US vehicles. Not only are they importing gas-guzzling US Hummers. Now they’re importing US Hummers stretched to breaking point.


“This Hummer is 10.5 metres long, weighs 5 tons, cost more than RMB 4 million (around US$500,000), and uses 30 litres of fuel per 100 km (http://news.163.com/07/0930/03/3PJVH8CE00011229.html). It costs over 10,000 RMB (more than US$1,000) to fill up the tank! The owner says it is fully imported from the US and has a Bose sound system.

“Now, where were those regulations again? You know, the ones that prevent US imports ...”

pax
02-10-2007, 04:20 PM
More cheap shots from Jono


“Now, where were those regulations again? You know, the ones that prevent US imports ...”

Why, here:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cn/

If Chinese authorities are not properly enforcing the standards, that is another matter (and nothing to do with Al Gore)...

And for the record, Al Gore is not "my hero". In case you haven't noticed, we have not even debated the substance of what Al Gore has to say, because we can't get past your wildly inaccurate cheap shots.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 04:27 PM
If Chinese authorities are not properly enforcing the standards, that is another matter...
Then their standards are as phony as the Kyoto protocol (and alGore and his fellow Green hypocrites). The US is doing more to cut back on CO2 than many of its signatories (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/walk_your_talk_warming_hypocrite/), who are really anti-American and anti-capitalist more than pro-environment.

pax
02-10-2007, 04:47 PM
Then their standards are as phony as the Kyoto protocol (and alGore and his fellow Green hypocrites). The US is doing more to cut back on CO2 than many of its signatories (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/walk_your_talk_warming_hypocrite/), who are really anti-American and anti-capitalist more than pro-environment.

Andrew Bolt, another rabid right-wing climate change denier. He is about as balanced as you are..

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 04:49 PM
Andrew Bolt, another rabid right-wing climate change denier. He is about as balanced as you are..
While you're as well balanced as most lefties: a chip on both shoulders and dribbling out of both sides of your mouth.

pax
02-10-2007, 04:54 PM
Then their standards are as phony as the Kyoto protocol (and alGore and his fellow Green hypocrites). The US is doing more to cut back on CO2 than many of its signatories (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/walk_your_talk_warming_hypocrite/), who are really anti-American and anti-capitalist more than pro-environment.

You don't even know that the Hummer in question does not meet the emissions standards. The standards are measured in g/kWh, and I'd say the Hummer in question probably generates an enormous power output..

pax
02-10-2007, 04:55 PM
While you're as well balanced as most lefties: a chip on both shoulders and dribbling out of both sides of your mouth.

You wouldn't have the first clue..

TheJoker
08-10-2007, 02:51 PM
Jono

Here is the rationale on why we should act on climate change. Whilst there are a number of scientists who do not consider climate change to be a critical issue, the large number of scientists do (some would say the vast majority).

Which group is actually correct is an unknown and irrelevant; what is important is the potential risks and how to manage the risk to an acceptable level. Due to the number of scientists concerned by climate change, one would be a fool to dismiss such a wide spread scientfic opinion as not respresenting a significant risk.

Now that we have established that there is a risk lets look at it from a risk management point of view. Is action required to mitigate the risk? Lets look at the probabilities and outcomes

The majority view point (may be incorrect) is that climate change is occuring as a result of CO2 emissions; the worse case scenarios predict catastrophic results, the majority of scenarios predict atleast a significant impact if climate change is left unchecked.

Definately appears that action should be governments and informed populations and corporations agree with this.

That is why, apart from a few people out to make a name for themselves, the debate is no longer focused on whether we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Instead the focus is more how to manage the reductions (reduce the risk to an acceptable level) with minimal economic impact.

Swindle or not, you would be a poor leader to ignore the current majority opinion and face a potential global disaster. No leader will have egg on their face if they base a decision on a majority expert opinion that is latter shown to be incorrect.

Axiom
08-10-2007, 04:05 PM
1. How do you manage or control a natural cycle(ie. that of the sun's radiance)?
note:-much of the solar system is likewise warmed,and the 1200s ad was warmer than it is now,and dont forget the ice age scare of the 70s!

2. Will taxing C02 emmissions(the only plan put forward) cut C02 emmissions significantly or simply make it more expensive for those who emit?

3.This safety first policy(as per your above post) would be fine ,if there was some basis to this man made GW hypothesis, but since there isnt,shouldnt we devote our energies to real problems like pollution (eg. millions of tons of nerve agents dumped into the sea,biosphere toxicity),disappearing species,disappearing rain forests,,disappearing common sense ! ?

TheJoker
08-10-2007, 04:35 PM
1. How do you manage or control a natural cycle(ie. that of the sun's radiance)?
note:-much of the solar system is likewise warmed,and the 1200s ad was warmer than it is now,and dont forget the ice age scare of the 70s!

2. Will taxing C02 emmissions(the only plan put forward) cut C02 emmissions significantly or simply make it more expensive for those who emit?

3.This safety first policy(as per your above post) would be fine ,if there was some basis to this man made GW hypothesis, but since there isnt,shouldnt we devote our energies to real problems like pollution (eg. millions of tons of nerve agents dumped into the sea,biosphere toxicity),disappearing species,disappearing rain forests,,disappearing common sense ! ?

1. The earth temperature has been increasing while solar activity cycle is decreasing. i.e. it has shown that the recent temperature increase (last 20 years) is not directly related to solar activity. Because there was no ice age in the seventies does that mean global wwarming won't occur in the future. Most people predicted NZ to beat France in the Rugby World Cup it didn't happen, does that mean that I would be foolish to suspect that NZ might win their next test match.

2. Taxing CO2 emissions is not the only plan put forward. Is is part of a multi-faeceted solution including renewable engery targets, increases in generation effficiencies and storing emission etc. However creating an business environment that encourages reductions in CO2 emission (by taxing, targets and funding) is certainly a step in the right direction. The market tends to adapt very quickly to economic pressures or advantages.

3. I have no problem finding support for the man made GW hypothesis perhaps your not looking in the right places. No doubt I can also find support for the alternate point of view. I am not a scientist and do not pretend to understand the complexities of climate science, but there is enough support from notable scientists for the hypothesis for me to consider it as risk worth managing.

You won't get any opposition from me for tackling the other problems you mentioned. Of course getting politicians to act is a different matter especially considering the short terms of office means that they are in permanent campaign mode, and focus on short term strategies and vote winning policies and delivering benefits to to major campaign sponsors.

Davidflude
08-10-2007, 09:29 PM
Read the book "Freakonomics" or at least the chapter on why drug dealers live with their mums. It explains really well why some jobs pay more than others.

don't read the chapter on "Where have the criminals gone" if you are a pro-lifer. It will upset you.

Capablanca-Fan
09-10-2007, 04:34 AM
Here is the rationale on why we should act on climate change. Whilst there are a number of scientists who do not consider climate change to be a critical issue, the large number of scientists do (some would say the vast majority).
Truth is not decided by majority vote. Esp. when the great "hockey stick" is a proven fallacy.


Which group is actually correct is an unknown and irrelevant; what is important is the potential risks and how to manage the risk to an acceptable level. Due to the number of scientists concerned by climate change, one would be a fool to dismiss such a wide spread scientfic opinion as not respresenting a significant risk.
It is important to consider not only the risks in not doing anything about the alleged AGW, but also the risks in following some of the proposals. More people die of cold than heat today. And poverty is a proven health hazard, unlike warming, yet many of the proposals would make people poorer. There are far better things we could do for world health, such as supplying sanitary water.


Definately appears that action should be governments and informed populations and corporations agree with this.
This "corporate social responsibility" is a sham. It merely erects higher barriers to entry to competition.

eclectic
09-10-2007, 09:13 AM
This "corporate social responsibility" is a sham.

as is "personal social responsibility" ? :hmm:

TheJoker
09-10-2007, 11:19 AM
Truth is not decided by majority vote. Esp. when the great "hockey stick" is a proven fallacy.

If you read my post more carefully you would see that I never stated that man made GW was the 'truth' or 'proven'. In fact the truth about whether man made GW represents a potential crisis is unkown, that is the whole point are you willing to take the gamble that the many GW alarmists are wrong? Why not take out some insurance?

The "hockey stick" controversy is still debated however most research seems to confirm the model while admitting that there were minor errors in the original methodology.

"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries." (US Congress "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years")



It is important to consider not only the risks in not doing anything about the alleged AGW, but also the risks in following some of the proposals. More people die of cold than heat today. And poverty is a proven health hazard, unlike warming, yet many of the proposals would make people poorer. There are far better things we could do for world health, such as supplying sanitary water.

Of course the effects of any strategies need to be considered. And I agree that any major increase in the cost of energy could have drastic effects on the world's poor. But countries like Denmark already generate 20% of their energy needs through renewable energy (wind), with a minimal impact. I am sure that most of the other deveoped countries could also follow suit with a minor impact.

I agree that access to clean water is the major health issue faced by the world's population, and is certainly worth addressing. But since this issue has little effect on developed countries you aren't likely to see it as a major issue on their political agendas any time soon. You need to realistic in the problems you want to tackle. If you can think of a way to make the issue relevant to the general public, governements and corporations withtin such countries, then you might be someway to resolving the issue



This "corporate social responsibility" is a sham. It merely erects higher barriers to entry to competition.

I have no doubt that "corporate social responsibility" is nothing more than marketing ploy to build a stronger brand name. However this ploy can be used to the community advantage; if it is a good marketing strategy for a brand to support a social issue, it is possible to unlock some of those corporate dollars that would otherwise be inaccessable.

I think we need to remind ourselves that we need to tackle issues within the current social/economic framework (i.e. a capitalist driven society focused on profits and materialism). If you want to change/reform that framework then that is whole new issue, and again you would have my support.

Desmond
10-10-2007, 07:15 PM
Do your bit for the environment:

http://blackle.com/

Kevin Bonham
10-10-2007, 09:22 PM
Do your bit for the environment:

http://blackle.com/

It looks cool but I understand its effectiveness has been questioned - works for some screens and not others and on some may use more energy.

Axiom
10-10-2007, 09:31 PM
Do your bit for the environment:

http://blackle.com/Dear Socialist Environmentalist Tyrannists,
i am sitting in the dark 2 hours a night, no electricity, as my gesture towards a better more caring world, i also want cctvs in all homes and everyone to be microchipped, so we can monitor ppl at all times to make sure they do not err from the state line.
Well,if you've nothing to hide,and its all for our own good .
Sincerely,
your unquestioning programmed slave.
ZombieX41567795R

PS. BTW, i was just wondering,......can we expect the same conditions for the proposers of these directives ?

pax
10-10-2007, 09:41 PM
I'm all for sensible measures to reduce energy consumption, but today's story about TVs looks completely overblown. It's being reported as if plasmas and LCDs are much higher energy consumers than CRTs, which is just completely false. It's only when you compare moderate size CRTs with hyuuge Plasmas (e.g the "average" CRT and the "average" plasma) that the comparison works, which is not valid.

Desmond
10-10-2007, 11:22 PM
<SNIP>
i am sitting in the dark 2 hours a night, <SNIP>Do you stand for the remaining 22 hours a day?

Desmond
10-10-2007, 11:25 PM
It looks cool but I understand its effectiveness has been questioned - works for some screens and not others and on some may use more energy.Do you have a source for that? I myself haven't looked too deeply into it, but I would have thought that all monitors would operate under the same principles.

Desmond
10-10-2007, 11:28 PM
I'm all for sensible measures to reduce energy consumption, but today's story about TVs looks completely overblown. It's being reported as if plasmas and LCDs are much higher energy consumers than CRTs, which is just completely false. It's only when you compare moderate size CRTs with hyuuge Plasmas (e.g the "average" CRT and the "average" plasma) that the comparison works, which is not valid.Yes, CRT's are massive energy guzzlers. Also, on the computer front, huge in-roads have been made into keeping components as energy efficient as possible. They are also reducing the amount of heat the components generate, which in turn saves on energy again with the reduced heat dissipation required.

Axiom
10-10-2007, 11:33 PM
Do you stand for the remaining 22 hours a day?
why do you mock my sacrifice, one for the greater good of mankind ?

Desmond
10-10-2007, 11:35 PM
why do you mock my sacrifice, one for the greater good of mankind ?Get down off your cross Ax; we need the wood.

Axiom
10-10-2007, 11:41 PM
Get down off your cross Ax; we need the wood.
as long as youre willing to pay your global warming tax on it !

pax
11-10-2007, 09:19 AM
Do you have a source for that? I myself haven't looked too deeply into it, but I would have thought that all monitors would operate under the same principles.

It works for a CRT, because the picture is generated by shooting electrons at a fluorescent screen - the more electrons you fire, the brighter the picture (hence darker=less power). For an LCD it makes no difference, because the backlight is always on regardless of the picture brightness - the state of the pixels determines which colour and brightness of light is transmitted by the screen, but the power is the same.

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2007, 01:17 PM
The British Labour government made alGore's climate propagandistic movie, An Inconvenient Truth, a compulsory viewing for all schools.

Fortunately, some parents challenged this force-feeding of lefty propaganda masquerading as education, and the High Court agreed. It found at least 11 false or inaccurate claims in the film:

1.The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2.The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3.The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4.The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5.The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6.The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7.The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8.The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9.The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10.The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11.The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government was unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Aaron Guthrie
11-10-2007, 01:34 PM
Could you cite your source for this, Jono?

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2007, 01:45 PM
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663)
by Deborah Corey Barnes


...
However, the most radical environmentalists reject cap-and-trade. They say it allows polluters to continue to pollute by purchasing carbon credits. That is true but irrelevant. A ton of CO2 emitted in Beijing has the same climatologic effect as a ton emitted in New York. The real problem is that every country’s government has an incentive to cheat on behalf of its domestic producers. This has been the European Union’s (EU) experience with the Emissions Trading System (ETS) that the EU established to implement the Kyoto Protocol. In just about every EU country except Britain, the credits allowed exceed the corresponding tons of emissions.

Carbon offsets provide even more opportunities to cheat. For example, some aluminum companies claim they deserve credits just because they recycle aluminum for a living -- recycling being less energy intensive and thus generally cheaper than making the stuff from scratch. The most popular activity for generating offsets is planting trees. But this method of storing carbon takes years and the long-term results are uncertain. If the trees die and decay, or are burned to clear land for agriculture, there is no net emission reduction. The net carbon reduction from tree planting may not materialize for decades, but the offsets are given out now.

To critics on both the free-market right and the environmentalist left, carbon offsets are no more than a marketing gimmick. Some describe the fanciful device as akin to medieval indulgences that were sold in a cleric-run market to regulate the remission of sin.

...

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

...

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that’s almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2007, 01:51 PM
Could you cite your source for this, Jono?
Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html)

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2007, 02:05 PM
Joker thinks we should act on the "precautionary principle", but meanwhile, here is more from the other side, which alGore and the other "debate is over" screechers claim doesn't exist:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf)
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

...

CONCLUSIONS
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in at mospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.

There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of cur rent trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 pr duced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. An imal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the di versity of plant and an imal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gasfrom be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush environmentof plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

pax
11-10-2007, 02:18 PM
Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html)

How about citing a non-political source?

Since the source you cite is actually directly linked to the claimant against the film, it's hardly likely to be balanced.

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2007, 02:22 PM
How about citing a non-political source?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You mean like alGore himself?

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2007, 02:35 PM
It works for a CRT, because the picture is generated by shooting electrons at a fluorescent screen — the more electrons you fire, the brighter the picture (hence darker=less power). For an LCD it makes no difference, because the backlight is always on regardless of the picture brightness — the state of the pixels determines which colour and brightness of light is transmitted by the screen, but the power is the same.
Yeah, CRTs definitely don't operate on the same principles as LCDs.

It's recommended that for PPT presentations, one should use light printing on a dark background. People used to OHTs don't get this at first.

Kevin Bonham
11-10-2007, 09:40 PM
Al Gore's Inconvenient Judgement (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece?source=cmailer)

Report from the Times Online of a recent court case in which Al Gore's film was found to be broadly accurate but in parts sensationalist and polemical, leading to a finding that where it is shown in UK schools, it must be accompanied by "new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views."

pax
11-10-2007, 09:55 PM
You mean like alGore himself?

What's your point? I have never quoted Al Gore as an authoritative source.

pax
11-10-2007, 09:57 PM
Al Gore's Inconvenient Judgement (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece?source=cmailer)

Report from the Times Online of a recent court case in which Al Gore's film was found to be broadly accurate but in parts sensationalist and polemical, leading to a finding that where it is shown in UK schools, it must be accompanied by "new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views."

See Jono? That wasn't so hard. But I guess you will always prefer a blogger who cherry picks your favourite points.

TheJoker
12-10-2007, 10:57 AM
Joker thinks we should act on the "precautionary principle", but meanwhile, here is more from the other side, which alGore and the other "debate is over" screechers claim doesn't exist:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf)
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.[/INDENT]

No-one claims that these studies don't exist.

But people should be aware that the Oregon Insitute of Science and Medince. Is a "research institue" with no students and only 6-8 staff, none of whom hold any qualification in climate sciences. :hmm:

We should beware of scientist trying to make a name for themselves by commenting on matters that they know little about.

Heck I know people who hold Ph.D's in chemistry and bio-technology, and whilst they might be able to review scientific data on global warming marginally better than myself, It doesn't qualify them to write research paper that should be considered seriously. You don't ask Orthopaedic surgeon to perform Neuro surgery.

As for the Al Gore film it is a Hollywood style documentary, I am not surprised one bit that it includes some "creative" journalism. I don't think policy decisions will be made based on the Al Gore doco.

What should be reviewed is scientific research by "qualified" scientisits, not this "I've got a Ph.D in chemistry so I will now right a paper on climate change".

Not that I am saying there aren't any research papers opposing the veiw of man made global warming written by experienced climate scientists. But Jono you should make a point to check your sources.

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2007, 11:55 AM
No-one claims that these studies don't exist.
That is an implication of the "debate is over" crap.

Now, do you have any actual refutation of the data and analysis?

TheJoker
12-10-2007, 04:02 PM
That is an implication of the "debate is over" crap.

Now, do you have any actual refutation of the data and analysis?

I think you are misunderstaning the point the "time for debating is over" where a debate can't be resolved with any certainty at some point you just have to weigh up the current view points and take some action (in this case either resolve to do something or do nothing).

Like I made clear in previous posts it is not my place to refute such data and analysis as I am not a climate scientist. Interestingly enough the article you posted was not subject to peer review (anon review by another technical expert) before being published.

However here is refutation I did find:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html

I am assuming these poeple are qualified to make comment.

Desmond
14-10-2007, 09:37 PM
Breaking News

Gore Wins Nobel Prize; High Court gives it to Bush

Axiom
14-10-2007, 10:02 PM
Breaking News

Gore Wins Nobel Prize; High Court gives it to Bush
in both instances - ABSURD !

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 01:38 AM
Breaking News

Gore Wins Nobel Prize; High Court gives it to Bush
What do you expect from a committee that awarded a prize to terrorist leader Arafat, a devoted disciple of the Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a companion of Hitler during WW2 and close friend of Eichmann, who told him to hurry up with the "final solution" and recruited Bosnian Muslim for SS death squads? If anyone called Hitler or Eichmann "our hero", they would be rightly pilloried, yet Arafat called Nazi-lover al-Husseini "our hero". See Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Myths by Prof. Alan Dershowitz (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E36120C9-D999-4CE1-B285-A838B7D316A2).

Or for that matter, a prize to the proven fraud Rigoberta Menchú (http://www.boundless.org/1999/departments/isms/a0000074.html), a politically correct award for a Marxist and feminazi forged autobiography; and the explicitly politically motivated award to the pathetic Jimmy Carter, who never met a murderous despot he didn't love (Castro, Ceaucescu), and whose craven weakness contributed greatly to enabling the rise of the Islamofascist ayatollahs in Iran and Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan?

Ironically, alGore was awarded the prize after a British court determined that there were at least 9 errors in his alarmist film. Nice to see a court do the right thing, just like the US Supreme Court in smacking the activist Florida court.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 12:01 PM
Not Nobel Winners:
Some nominees for next year. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010732)

Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

In Olso Friday, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded to the Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World.

The prize was also not awarded to Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.

Or to Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.

Or to Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.

Or to Colombian President &#192;lvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.

Or to Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.

...

Or to Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.

Or to thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.

...

Axiom
15-10-2007, 02:17 PM
It's As Ridiculous As If They'd Given Goebbels One in 1938
Al Gore's Peace Prize
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Put this one up on the shelf of shame, right next to Henry Kissinger's, or the peace prize they gave to Kofi Annan and the entire UN in 2001, sandwiched between the UN's okay for the bombing of Serbia, the killing of untold numbers of Iraqis, many of them babies and children in the years of sanctions, and its greenlight for the bombing of Baghdad in 2003. In 1998 the Nobel crowd gave the prize to Medecins Sans Frontieres, whose co-founder Bernard Kouchner is now France's foreign secretary urging the bombing of Iran. Like Gore, Kouchner was a rabid advocate of the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia and onslaughts on Serbia.

The UN often has an inside track on the "Peace" prize. The UN Peace-Keeping Forces got it in 1988. In 1986 another enthusiast for attacking Iraq and Iran, Elie Wiesel, carried off the trophy. Aside from Kissinger, probably the biggest killer of all to have got the peace prize was Norman Borlaug, whose "green revolution" wheat strains led to the death of peasants by the million.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10132007.html

Axiom
15-10-2007, 06:34 PM
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_02/9errorsDM_468x720.jpg

Desmond
15-10-2007, 06:50 PM
Is it your assertion, Jono, that the Nobel prize is not a prestigious award?

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 07:27 PM
Is it your assertion, Jono, that the Nobel prize is not a prestigious award?
It is my assertion, Boris, that the current deciders of the Nobel Prize for Peave have corrupted a once-prestigious award by giving it to a terrorist leader, a proven fraud who just said what lefties want to hear, and an alarmist whose film has been shown in court to have many errors in fact.

Axiom
15-10-2007, 07:30 PM
It is my assertion, Boris, that the current deciders of the Nobel Prize for Peave have corrupted a once-prestigious award by giving it to a terrorist leader, a proven fraud who just said what lefties want to hear, and an alarmist whose film has been shown in court to have many errors in fact.
Absolutely :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Desmond
15-10-2007, 08:11 PM
It is my assertion, Boris, that the current deciders of the Nobel Prize for Peave have corrupted a once-prestigious award by giving it to a terrorist leader, a proven fraud who just said what lefties want to hear, and an alarmist whose film has been shown in court to have many errors in fact.

Sorry Jono, but your attempt to discredit the Nobel Prize smells bad to me. IMO the award is prestigious and its recipient this year is a sore blow to your campaign against those who are against climate change.

Desmond
15-10-2007, 08:13 PM
PS was Kasparov amoungst those arrested? I assume not, but the article makes that ambiguous.

Basil
15-10-2007, 08:21 PM
Sorry Jono, but your attempt to discredit the Nobel Prize smells bad to me. IMO the award is prestigious and its recipient this year is a sore blow to your campaign against those who are against climate change.
Brian, this is a bit disingenuous isn't it? I appreciate that we all have different perspectives on socio-politico matters, but Jon's position seems much more substantiated than some of the aspersions that you (for one) cast on others while voicing your disdain for them.

pax
15-10-2007, 08:26 PM
Brian, this is a bit disingenuous isn't it? I appreciate that we all have different perspectives on socio-politico matters, but Jon's position seems much more substantiated than some of the aspersions that you (for one) cast on others while voicing your disdain for them.

I'd hardly call a series of right wing pundits "substantiation". The court ruling that Jono refers to also called Gore's film "broadly accurate", but you won't find Jono's right wing blogger mates mentioning that bit.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 08:35 PM
Brian, this is a bit disingenuous isn't it? I appreciate that we all have different perspectives on socio-politico matters, but Jon's position seems much more substantiated than some of the aspersions that you (for one) cast on others while voicing your disdain for them.
Thanx Gunner. Evidently Boris thinks that it's OK to award prizes to the likes of Arafat, who far from promoting peace promoted terrorism, and had as a hero and mentor one who was intimately involved in the Nazi final solution. And to ignore evidence that another awardee, one Rigoberta Menchu, wrote a whole lot of fibs in her "autobiography", e.g. how Guatemalan security forces killed her brother, who was actually alive and well at the time of writing. But hey, she made all the right Marxist and feminist points, remarkable for a self-proclaimed illiterate. And look no further to the award to that idiot Carter, who presided over stagflation and the rise of the Ayatollah and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, because it was explicitly stated to be a rebuke for GWB. It boggles the mind how Boris can be so willfully ignorant of the politicization of the award.

It should be obvious even to a demented dryopithecine that any prestigious award can degenerate. Albert Nobel had clear instructions on how to award his prize, and in the case of the Peace Prize, the conditions were: " "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."

But there is little he can do to make sure they are enforced. Danish peace advocate Jan Oberg has criticized alGore's achievement as Nobel Peace Prize winner, saying that it was "a mockery of peace and the prize itself." Indeed so: how do his jetsetting, energy-guzzling mansion and film with at least 9 court-proven errors contribute to Alfred Nobel's criterion?

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 08:40 PM
I'd hardly call a series of right wing pundits "substantiation".
What Pax calls "right-wing pundits" include distinguished economist and author Thomas Sowell, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman ...

But Pax just uncritically accepts the leftist claptrap of most universities and media, just the places where there are no consequences for being wrong, hence the survival of leftist ideas. Their idea of "diversity" is a female lefty, a black lefty and a gay lefty.


The court ruling that Jono refers to also called Gore's film "broadly accurate", but you won't find Jono's right wing blogger mates mentioning that bit.
Because that is pretty much a sop. The facts remain, even if the world were getting warmer as he claims, the alarmist consequences are so much bunk.

Desmond
15-10-2007, 09:12 PM
Brian, this is a bit disingenuous isn't it? I appreciate that we all have different perspectives on socio-politico matters, but Jon's position seems much more substantiated than some of the aspersions that you (for one) cast on others while voicing your disdain for them.Oh yes, Jono is substantiated - I'll give you that!

What smells funny to me is the undermining of the Nobel Prize because he doesn't like the guy who won it. In fact, since you posted this, Jono has pointed to someone else as having a Nobel as being a feather in the cap! So, which is it?

Desmond
15-10-2007, 09:17 PM
Thanx Gunner. Evidently Boris thinks that it's OK to award prizes to the likes of Arafat, who far from promoting peace promoted terrorism, I'm not familiar with the circumstances of Arafat winning the Prize, but I suspect the distinction between peace-maker and terrorist is one of perspective.



snip
It boggles the mind how Boris can be so willfully ignorant of the politicization of the award.
Well I don't know how you could say it's willful, but I suppose I am quite ignorant on the history of the award. I suppose if you drew a line down the middle of a page to make a wishlist, marking one column with "awards I would like to have" and "awards I would not like to have", the Nobel Prize for Peace would be in the first column for me.

Axiom
15-10-2007, 09:36 PM
I'm not familiar with the circumstances of Arafat winning the Prize, but I suspect the distinction between peace-maker and terrorist is one of perspective.

Well I don't know how you could say it's willful, but I suppose I am quite ignorant on the history of the award. I suppose if you drew a line down the middle of a page to make a wishlist, marking one column with "awards I would like to have" and "awards I would not like to have", the Nobel Prize for Peace would be in the first column for me.
maybe thats because you're a mind controlled programmed brainwashed uncritical thinker ? :hand:

oh yes, and dont forget your mantra - government is good, the media informs, and no grand conspiracies ever occur !

pax
15-10-2007, 09:55 PM
What Pax calls "right-wing pundits" include distinguished economist and author Thomas Sowell,
He may have written a lot of books, and he may be the favourite poster child of extreme right-wing economics, but that doesn't make him right.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman ...

.. and we all know what you think of Nobel laureates..



But Pax just uncritically accepts the leftist claptrap of most universities and media, just the places where there are no consequences for being wrong, hence the survival of leftist ideas. Their idea of "diversity" is a female lefty, a black lefty and a gay lefty.

More vitriolic drivel with no basis in reality. You have no idea what I accept or reject.



Because that is pretty much a sop. The facts remain, even if the world were getting warmer as he claims, the alarmist consequences are so much bunk.

The fact remains that you pick and choose the bits of evidence which support your view, while ignoring the rest. There is no validity in quoting the court's criticism of Gore's film if you do not accept that the court also determined that the film was 'broadly accurate'.

(incidentally it also ruled that the film could be shown to school students provided that some balancing discussion notes were provided to teachers).

Basil
15-10-2007, 10:36 PM
It is my assertion, Boris, that the current deciders of the Nobel Prize for Peave have corrupted a once-prestigious award by giving it to a terrorist leader, a proven fraud who just said what lefties want to hear, and an alarmist whose film has been shown in court to have many errors in fact.


Brian, this is a bit disingenuous isn't it? I appreciate that we all have different perspectives on socio-politico matters, but Jon's position seems much more substantiated than some of the aspersions that you (for one) cast on others while voicing your disdain for them.


I'd hardly call a series of right wing pundits "substantiation". The court ruling that Jono refers to also called Gore's film "broadly accurate", but you won't find Jono's right wing blogger mates mentioning that bit.


What smells funny to me is the undermining of the Nobel Prize because he doesn't like the guy who won it. In fact, since you posted this, Jono has pointed to someone else as having a Nobel as being a feather in the cap! So, which is it?

Hi Pax & Boris (nicks used for clarity), if I accept the 'broadly accurate' counter-proposition as mentioned by Pax (which I will although I haven't checked), then your point stands (viz Jono's selective reporting). But I'd argue that he can selectively report in that his omission does not alter the validity of his opinion.

Nor am I sure that your points (a) he doesn't like the candidate and (b) he didn't quote in full refutes Jono's original anyway. His position is his personal disdain for an award he says is devalued, because a recipient has presided over a movement, which at times has been up to its armpits in murder. I appreciate that the murder may have been retaliatory (let's call it evens - especially for the purposes of this thread), but murder nonetheless.

As such, Jon says he devalues the prize (in comparison to say a 'Kofi Annan'). I think his position is fair as a stand-alone concept (regardless of whether you agree with it politically) - it's cogent and valid.

In parallel, my point to Boris was, I have seen (from you and Boris - and no doubt from me and Jono) statements about political leaders (whom we dislike) based on far less evidence of fact. In fact we have all from time to time slain a political target with very little beyond bile :lol:

Summary - I think you guys are wrong to disallow Jono's cogently stated devaluation of the prize.

Can you guys go along with that?

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 11:02 PM
He may have written a lot of books, and he may be the favourite poster child of extreme right-wing economics, but that doesn't make him right.
What "favorite poster child"? And how is he wrong?


.. and we all know what you think of Nobel laureates..
Bzzt! My recent criticism was of Nobel Peace laureates!


More vitriolic drivel with no basis in reality. You have no idea what I accept or reject.
I have some idea in fact from the "government knows best" faith you assert, provided that it's a leftist government.


The fact remains that you pick and choose the bits of evidence which support your view, while ignoring the rest. There is no validity in quoting the court's criticism of Gore's film if you do not accept that the court also determined that the film was 'broadly accurate'.
You quote what you want, I'll quote what I want!


(incidentally it also ruled that the film could be shown to school students provided that some balancing discussion notes were provided to teachers).
Who would argue with that? I think it would be an exercise in educating kids on greenie alarmism at the expense of facts.

Axiom
15-10-2007, 11:07 PM
The Lies of Al Gore: Another Pro Nuker Wins the Peace Prize

RUSSELL HOFFMAN
Counterpunch
Monday October 15, 2007

Ho Hum. Yesterday, pro-nuker Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental charade. He shares it with the UN's IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change).

A few years ago (2005) the International Atomic Energy Agency -- pro-nukers in all possible ways, as long as they get to watch -- received the "prestigious" award.

In 2002, ex nuclear-navy reactor operator Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. Carter was President during the Three Mile Island accident and toured that facility to prove it was safe (it wasn't). He campaigned on the promise that we would only use nuclear power "as a last resort," only to get into office and -- ho hum -- declare that "we are down to our last resorts" because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) raised the price of a barrel of oil a couple of bucks (to about 1/4 of what it is now).

http://www.counterpunch.org/hoffman10132007.html

Kevin Bonham
15-10-2007, 11:10 PM
In 2002, ex nuclear-navy reactor operator Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. Carter was President during the Three Mile Island accident and toured that facility to prove it was safe (it wasn't). He campaigned on the promise that we would only use nuclear power "as a last resort," only to get into office and -- ho hum -- declare that "we are down to our last resorts" because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) raised the price of a barrel of oil a couple of bucks (to about 1/4 of what it is now).

Carter surely got his more for his post-presidential form; I have no issues with that.

I thought the award to Gore and the IPCC was too political and contestable.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 11:11 PM
I'm not familiar with the circumstances of Arafat winning the Prize, but I suspect the distinction between peace-maker and terrorist is one of perspective.
Good grief, what a moral pygmy. Oh yeah, "One man's peace-maker is another man's terrorist" huh? There is a huge difference between stopping a war and keeping one going by deliberately targeting innocent civilians. PaulB and Stephen Spielberg are other moral pygmies who refuse to differentiate between Israel's acts of self-defence and accidentally killing civilians (because the terrorists hide among them) and the "Palestinians" blowing up school buses and shopping malls.

And it seems that you have no problem with the demonstrable Nazi connections (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E36120C9-D999-4CE1-B285-A838B7D316A2)of Arafat's mentor and hero and other "Palestian" leaders. And just to remind you, I am talking about their overt support for the Final Solution, as well as local terrorism that persuaded the appeasing Brits to close off Palestine as a possible escape for Jews fleeing the genocide.

Anyway, go back to Alfred Nobel's clearly stated criterion and ask how a murderer like Arafat qualifies.


What smells funny to me is the undermining of the Nobel Prize because he doesn't like the guy who won it.
No, because a number of people who won it do not meet Nobel's criteria, and instead include a terrorist, fraud and alarmist.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2007, 11:13 PM
Carter surely got his more for his post-presidential form; I have no issues with that.
I have issues with the reasoning of the committee: to deliver a rebuke to Bush. That is party political.


I thought the award to Gore and the IPCC was too political and contestable.
Agreed. So was Carter's.

Desmond
16-10-2007, 09:08 PM
Over-react much, Jono? Find someone else to baffle with your bullshit and insult. I'm not much interested.

Capablanca-Fan
16-10-2007, 09:13 PM
Over-react much, Jono? Find someone else to baffle with your bullshit and insult. I'm not much interested.
You've obviously been baffled by the alarmism and bullshit of the globull warm-mongers and assorted lefties, as well as insults towards anyone who dares to question the party line.

Axiom
16-10-2007, 09:20 PM
You've obviously been baffled by the alarmism and bullshit of the globull warm-mongers and assorted lefties, as well as insults towards anyone who dares to question the party line.
Boris sadly lacks the temerity and fortitude to follow through his thinking to any reasoned conclusion, but hits and runs, learning little.

Desmond
16-10-2007, 09:39 PM
You've obviously been baffled by the alarmism and bullshit of the globull warm-mongers and assorted lefties, as well as insults towards anyone who dares to question the party line.No, but I have quite enough of being insulted by you for no reason. You have called me:

a terrorism sympathiser (in as many words)
mind-bogglingly willfully ingorant
a moral pygmy
a nazi sympathiser (in as many words)

Why? because I dared to suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize is a prestigious award.

Use all the fancy words and long-winded arguments you want Jono. You are being a real so-and-so.

Capablanca-Fan
16-10-2007, 09:53 PM
No, but I have quite enough of being insulted by you for no reason. You have called me:

a terrorism sympathiser (in as many words)
Only after you said that the difference between terrorism and peacemaking were just a "one of perspective".


mind-bogglingly willfully ingorant
After your admission that you didn't know the circumstances of certain Nobel Peace Prize awards, and apparently not caring about the Nazi-Arafat link.


a moral pygmy
Again, after you relativised the difference between terrorism and peacemaking.


a nazi sympathiser (in as many words)
No, I have no doubt that you're not one. It is still disturbing that many who are rightly repelled by the Nazis seem to have no problem with the demonstrable links of the Palestinian terrorists with the Nazis.


Why? because I dared to suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize is a prestigious award.
Then dismissed my documented examples of where the prize was awarded to totally unworthy recipients. And no, none of the above complaints were anything to do with your uncritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize which certainly WAS prestigious, or even to do with your using this as a slap in my face for not accepting globull warm-mongering.

Desmond
16-10-2007, 10:00 PM
Is that it? I tell you that you insulted me, and no apology, just more justification. I could retort each of your points, but what is the point?

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2007, 10:02 PM
Hey, if someone called me a moral pygmy I would probably take it as a compliment! :lol:

Axiom
16-10-2007, 10:27 PM
Hey, if someone called me a moral pygmy I would probably take it as a compliment! :lol:
You, ..you,...you MORAL GIANT ! :doh:

Axiom
16-10-2007, 10:30 PM
Is that it? I tell you that you insulted me, and no apology, just more justification. I could retort each of your points, but what is the point?
Its called DEBATING IN THE KITCHEN !

Capablanca-Fan
17-10-2007, 12:10 AM
Is that it? I tell you that you insulted me, and no apology, just more justification. I could retort each of your points, but what is the point?
No, I made it clear that you are clearly NOT a Nazi sympathizer, for example. Also, you're no terrorist sympathizer either, that much is obvious.

Terrorism is a deadly serious issue, and one which seriously calls into question the Nobel Peace Prize committee. And although there are those who say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", this ignores the difference between deliberate and accidental killing, and between civilian and military targets.

Axiom
17-10-2007, 03:24 PM
The Real Al Gore Sr.

WorldNetDaily
12-11-98 Joseph Farah


Some people will no doubt object to this column. After all, you're not supposed to speak ill of the dead -- especially the recent dead. But with all the flowery tributes to Al Gore Sr. in the last few days, I figure somebody has to speak the truth about this man who, in his lifetime, collaborated with and profited handsomely from evil.

Vice President Al Gore eulogized his father Tuesday as a politician driven by "conscience" who never forgot his humble upbringing and always tried to help others.

"Dad, your whole life has been an inspiration,'' Gore said, his voice cracking slightly.

I believe Al Jr. when he says that. And it scares the hell out of me.

To appreciate what I'm about to tell you with regard to Al Gore Sr., you first must familiarize yourself with a man by the name of Armand Hammer -- worth more than a few columns himself.

Hammer was a personal friend of V.I. Lenin. He was known as Lenin's "path" to America's financial resources -- in other words, the guy who would sell us the rope with which we would be hanged. Hammer was the first Western businessman to participate in KGB-controlled joint ventures in the Soviet Union. The son of Julius Hammer, a founder of the Socialist Labor Party and later the Communist Party USA who served time in Sing Sing for performing illegal abortions, Armand was called the "Capitalist Prince" by the KGB. Hammer dutifully served the Soviets for seven decades and became the first -- and only -- American capitalist to be awarded the Order of Lenin.

Edward J. Epstein's "Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer" is must reading for anyone who wants to understand how so-called "capitalists" like Hammer can serve as willing and able tools of revolutionary Marxists and global socialists.

Lenin told Stalin about Hammer: "This is a small path leading to the American 'business' world, and this path should be made use of in every way." To the Soviet Union in his day, Hammer was a figure with much in common with the contemporary spy-cum-billionaire Mochtar Riady -- doing the bidding of socialist tyrants -- and making a bundle in the process.

Hammer was part-time spy, part-time money-launderer, part-time industrialist -- but a full-time traitor to the United States of America.

But I digress. The story for today is how Hammer's corrupt, evil career was aided in numerous ways by Vice President Al Gore's Daddy, who was a partner in various Hammer enterprises for more than four decades. As Epstein documents in "Dossier," the elder Gore helped Hammer make connections with a series of U.S. presidents and used his influence to help Hammer's Occidental Petroleum company gain access to foreign political leaders. But, most importantly, it was Gore who helped stop the FBI from pursuing an investigation of the industrialist as a Soviet agent of influence.

It seems Al Gore Sr. knew something about "controlling legal authorities" and obstruction of justice himself. Like father, like son.

Conscience? Humble beginnings? When the elder Gore retired from the Senate, he received a $500,000-a-year job as head of Occidental's coal division. So, it would seem, the cleanest money in Al Gore's family tree came from tobacco. The really dirty, blood money came direct from Moscow for services rendered to Communist totalitarians and their pseudo-capitalist puppet, errand boys. Tell me about conscience, Al.

After the younger Gore was elected to the Senate in 1980, he continued a tradition begun by his father by inviting Hammer into the "senators only" section during President Reagan's inauguration.

Al Jr. has emulated his Dad in other ways, too. Today he serves as co-chairman of an Russian-U.S. commission intended to help the next generation of Armand Hammer-style "Capitalist Princes" develop contacts with KGB-dominated businesses.

In 1994, the vice president established U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on Economic and Technical Cooperation, better known as the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission. The purpose of the commission is to help establish joint ventures in space exploration, science and technology, defense conversion, environmental initiatives, public health issues, agribusiness and economic development. The Russian side of this equation is littered with shadowy figures with one foot in the intelligence community and the other in mob-related activities.

Sound familiar? Like father, like son. A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at http://www.ktkz.com/


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39aa5e7d1932.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you might be interested in the above Jono.
The funding of communism by capitalists like Armand Hammer,is an interesting line of study.
I would be interested in your view here .

Jono, while im at it, i would be very interested also on your views on the following:-
John Birch Society
NAFTA/NAU ( www.spp.gov )
The CFR
The Bilderberg Group.

Thankyou,
Axiom.

Capablanca-Fan
17-10-2007, 05:26 PM
Thought you might be interested in the above Jono.
The funding of communism by capitalists like Armand Hammer,is an interesting line of study.
I would be interested in your view here .
Very interesting that his father profited from tobacco (and Occidental Petroleum). Now of course alGore should profit very nicely from the socialistic anti-poor government controls to alleviate his manufactured globull warm-mongering "crisis", as chairman and founder of Generation Investment Management. Here's a recent piece, Gore Wins, Facts Lose by Tony Blankley (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/TonyBlankley/2007/10/17/gore_wins,_facts_lose):



...

But carbon offsets are a rather strange concept. Let me use a simple metaphor to explain it: Let's suppose that Al Gore goes to an Italian restaurant and eats a loaf of garlic bread, a plate of lasagna, a bowl of spaghetti and meatballs, an extra-large pizza with seven toppings, a couple bottles of Chianti and a large assortment of pastries. As a result, he puts on 10 pounds. But he is deeply concerned that mankind is getting too fat. So he pays 10 peasants in Asia $10 each to eat nothing for a week. Although they are already thin, by starving themselves for a week, they each lose a pound. As a result, after a week, mankind is weight neutral. Al Gore weighs 10 pounds more, 10 Asians weigh 10 pounds less — and Al Gore is given another Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in keeping mankind's waistline in check.

Of course, this example is not quite fair to Gore because that imagined humanitarianism actually costs him cash money. In the real carbon offset business, he looks forward to being paid for directing other carbon consumers to invest in carbon neutral projects. Although when Gore personally is using carbon, as when he flies in a carbon-belching Gulfstream, one of his companies would pay some other fella not to fly or plant a tree or do something to offset Gore's carbon belching.

...


Jono, while im at it, i would be very interested also on your views on the following:-
John Birch Society
NAFTA/NAU ( www.spp.gov )
The CFR
The Bilderberg Group.
I know hardly anything about them, sorry.

Axiom
17-10-2007, 06:33 PM
I know hardly anything about them, sorry.
ok, im sure you would be fascinated,should you research them.
Do you have any opinion on globalisation? No doubt you would be anti the forming of trade blocks,and the direction towards the ultimate in centralised control ie. one world govt (NWO) ?

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 01:29 AM
So alGore is paid $180,000 per speech (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c2eeedb6-8195-11dc-9b6f-0000779fd2ac.html)! Of course his devoted hero-worshippers here would still deny that there is a conflict of interest in his globull warm-mongering.

pax
25-10-2007, 01:44 AM
I have some idea in fact from the "government knows best" faith you assert, provided that it's a leftist government.

I have never asserted anything of the sort, and I challenge you to find any such assertion from me. As usual, you paint anybody vaguely critical of you with some sort of closet-communist brush. I may be left of you, Jono, but that category includes everybody on this board and probably 99.999% of the population.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 10:32 AM
I have never asserted anything of the sort, and I challenge you to find any such assertion from me. As usual, you paint anybody vaguely critical of you with some sort of closet-communist brush.
It's obvious. You prefer Labor, with its promise to increase bureaucracy with over 60 new government organizations, and to make it harder for employers to sack useless employees and thus more reluctant to hire new ones. And their crony capitalist policies of picking winners that will actually impoverish more people.


I may be left of you, Jono, but that category includes everybody on this board and probably 99.999% of the population.
Yeah, but 99.999% of the population would be better off with my libertarian policies of getting big government out of their lives more.

Spiny Norman
25-10-2007, 11:41 AM
I've got a potential solution for global warming ... if anyone's interested in hearing what it is, post here ... I need some experts to check it out to see if its technically and financially feasible.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 01:33 PM
What has the efficiency of solar cells got to do with it?
Another thing: the manufacture of solar cells produces a lot of greenhouse gas! To get silicon, sand must undergo reduction by:

SiO2 + C → Si + CO2.

I wouldn't necessarily mind solar cells if they were cost effective, and not simply pushed by greenie governments trying to pick winners via subsidies.

pax
25-10-2007, 01:36 PM
Yeah, but 99.999% of the population would be better off with my libertarian policies of getting big government out of their lives more.

So who is the "anointed" now?

pax
25-10-2007, 01:38 PM
Another thing: the manufacture of solar cells produces a lot of greenhouse gas! To get silicon, sand must undergo reduction by:

SiO2 + C → Si + CO2.

I wouldn't necessarily mind solar cells if they were cost effective, and not simply pushed by greenie governments trying to pick winners via subsidies.

That's a bit of a pathetic argument. The amount of CO2 produced making the silicon for solar cells is tiny compared to that offset over the lifetime of the cells. Really - is that the best you can do?

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 02:33 PM
So who is the "anointed" now?
Not me, because by their very nature, libertarian policies allow people to make their own choices without an anointed class to tell them what's best for them. The only role of the government is to restrain coercion and fraud, and to protect people's lives and property.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 02:34 PM
That's a bit of a pathetic argument. The amount of CO2 produced making the silicon for solar cells is tiny compared to that offset over the lifetime of the cells. Really — is that the best you can do?
Oh, I didn't include the energy required to produce the high temperatures required for this greenhouse-unfriendly reaction.

pax
25-10-2007, 02:45 PM
Not me, because by their very nature, libertarian policies allow people to make their own choices without an anointed class to tell them what's best for them.

What if people actually want properly funded public health and education systems? And they obviously do, since the major political parties know it would be electoral suicide to abolish medicare or publicly funded schools. Face it, Jono, your extreme right-wing politics is irrelevant in this country.



The only role of the government is to restrain coercion and fraud, and to protect people's lives and property.

According to you. According to almost everybody else, the government has other important duties too.

pax
25-10-2007, 02:46 PM
Oh, I didn't include the energy required to produce the high temperatures required for this greenhouse-unfriendly reaction.

It's still a small fraction of the energy produced during the lifetime of good quality solar cells. Keep grasping, Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 03:01 PM
What if people actually want properly funded public health and education systems?
They have to do so by coercing money from others. Then the results are plain to see: healthcare rationing and long waiting lists, and schools who lack competition and church out graduates who need remedial English lessons and can't add up. And the extra funding would go to more pencil-pushing desk-jockeys. Watch some episodes of Yes (Prime) Minister for an astute satire on the perverse incentives of bureaucrats, of which KRudd wants many more.


And they obviously do, since the major political parties know it would be electoral suicide to abolish medicare or publicly funded schools.
Yep, demagogery beats data every time.


Face it, Jono, your extreme right-wing politics is irrelevant in this country.
Although JH has moved Australia in the right direction, away from the socialist and black armband view of this country.


According to you. According to almost everybody else, the government has other important duties too.
Thanx largely to historical revisionism of the virtues of big government, e.g. the New Deal of that charlatan FDR. However, very little that government can do can't be done better by private industry. A recent article is How government expansion worsens hard times (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/24/how_government_expansion_worsens_hard_times).

And this revisionism is helped by the Leftmedia, another advocate of big government. The ABC (Atheist Bolsheviks' Collective) wouldn't survive unless it was funded by money coerced from taxpayers.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 03:02 PM
It's still a small fraction of the energy produced during the lifetime of good quality solar cells. Keep grasping, Jono.
How many years before they repay their cost? If they were any good, they wouldn't need government subsidies, aka crony capitalism that impoverishes most people.

pax
25-10-2007, 04:11 PM
Although JH has moved Australia in the right direction, away from the socialist and black armband view of this country.

Interesting.

I wonder what you think of his plan to add a new layer of bureaucracy to every hospital in the country?

Or his opposition to the mergers of failing local councils in Queensland?

Or his latest $4bn handout to pensioners?

pax
25-10-2007, 04:13 PM
How many years before they repay their cost? If they were any good, they wouldn't need government subsidies, aka crony capitalism that impoverishes most people.

Thousands of Australian businesses receive government support to get started. Why do you pick incessantly on renewable energy? What about all the rest of the government's handout to small businesses?

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 04:31 PM
Thousands of Australian businesses receive government support to get started. Why do you pick incessantly on renewable energy? What about all the rest of the government's handout to small businesses?
If true, they should not get handouts either.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 04:36 PM
I wonder what you think of his plan to add a new layer of bureaucracy to every hospital in the country?
Which one is this? Or is it to repair the atrocious state Labor bureaucracies that have stuffed up our hospitals?


Or his opposition to the mergers of failing local councils in Queensland?
Failing according to whom? State Labor? Actually I think we are way too over-governed.


Or his latest $4bn handout to pensioners?
Not much. I'd prefer to see the fuel excise reduced. That would benefit even more people than the cuts in tax rates (that KRudd has plagiarized). But the Greenie ecofascists would scream, even though petrol excise disproportionately hurts the poor, like most Green policies.

pax
25-10-2007, 10:23 PM
Which one is this? Or is it to repair the atrocious state Labor bureaucracies that have stuffed up our hospitals?

You know, the 'local boards' idea which was hatched for the Mersey, and then spun out to the whole country with a level of detail that extended to one press release after Labor released their hospital policy.



Failing according to whom? State Labor? Actually I think we are way too over-governed.

Failing according to their bank balances. They are going bankrupt left, right and centre.



Not much. I'd prefer to see the fuel excise reduced. That would benefit even more people than the cuts in tax rates (that KRudd has plagiarized). But the Greenie ecofascists would scream, even though petrol excise disproportionately hurts the poor, like most Green policies.

All tax disproportionately hurts the poor, except for tiered income tax. But your concern for the taxation burden of the poor is quite disingenuous, since you favour a flat tax and seem to have no problem with the GST.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 11:43 PM
Failing according to their bank balances. They are going bankrupt left, right and centre.
One day you might learn that big government is the problem, not the solution for everything.


All tax disproportionately hurts the poor, except for tiered income tax.
Tiered income tax violates the principle of equality under the law, by hurting "high" income earners more. It also encourages economically useless tax minimization schemes and tax professionals, instead of productive activity.


But your concern for the taxation burden of the poor is quite disingenuous, since you favour a flat tax and seem to have no problem with the GST.
Nothing disingenuous about it. Greenie ideas like petrol excise and carbon taxes do hurt the poor more. They also increase the cost of food that has to be transported. And governments picking winners will add more costs to people, while pouring money into your hero alGore's managed fund.

The usual flat tax systems have a threshold, so the poorest pay no tax. And the GST was a much better consumption tax than the convoluted Labor excise tax system. Many goods dropped in price.

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2007, 12:02 AM
Tiered income tax violates the principle of equality under the law, by hurting "high" income earners more.

Although it hurts them more as a proportion of their income, it probably hurts them less in terms of how much impact it has on their quality of life.

If a person is on $200,000 a year then even losing 40% of their total income in tax is still not going to stop them being wealthy and financially secure, and ditto for their family, and most of the impact of tax is simply on their ability to engage in major investments and personal exercises in luxury and/or conspicuous consumption.

But if a person is on $20,000 a year then even losing 15% of their total income in tax can make it extremely difficult to make ends meet at all.

I believe that if the fairness test for income tax was impact of tax on a person's financial security and quality of life, then low-income earners would simply not be taxed at all and high income earners would be taxed rather more than they are. There are doubtless strong economic arguments against applying such a test as a basis for tax assessment, but for those who are loaded far beyond need to claim they are discriminated against if taxed a higher percentage is missing the point that the relationship between income and wellbeing is not linear.

I also believe there should be zero tax (the GST is bad enough) on a person's first $15K and very low tax rates up to $30K.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2007, 12:38 AM
Although it hurts them more as a proportion of their income, it probably hurts them less in terms of how much impact it has on their quality of life.

If a person is on $200,000 a year then even losing 40% of their total income in tax is still not going to stop them being wealthy and financially secure, and ditto for their family, and most of the impact of tax is simply on their ability to engage in major investments and personal exercises in luxury and/or conspicuous consumption.
Maybe not, but it will reduce the incentive for entrepreneurial activities that employ some people and supply goods others want. So do the absurd State Labor payroll taxes, a fine on hiring people. So everyone loses but the demagogues who appeal to envy and resentment.

There is a big difference between income and wealth. Those earning 200k are likely to be near the end of their working lives, and paying off mortgages and kids' uni fees. It's no accident that very wealthy but relatively low-income limousine leftists like Warren Buffett, John Kerry, Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy (http://www.ytedk.com/) just love high taxes which don't affect their wealth very much (if necessary, they can afford overseas tax shelters), but affect those aiming to be wealthy.


But if a person is on $20,000 a year then even losing 15% of their total income in tax can make it extremely difficult to make ends meet at all.
For sure, and this is a good reason not to burden them more with green taxes.


I believe that if the fairness test for income tax was impact of tax on a person's financial security and quality of life, then low-income earners would simply not be taxed at all and high income earners would be taxed rather more than they are.
The fairness test should be equality of process, not equality of outcome.


There are doubtless strong economic arguments against applying such a test as a basis for tax assessment, but for those who are loaded far beyond need to claim they are discriminated against if taxed a higher percentage is missing the point that the relationship between income and wellbeing is not linear.
Some leftist demagogues also miss the point if they insinuate that the poor are poor because the rich are rich, and that socking the "rich" is going to help the poor.


I also believe there should be zero tax (the GST is bad enough)
Would you prefer the previous excise tax system? But yeah, the GST is bad when combined with our high rates of income tax, petrol excise, State Labor stamp duties etc.


on a person's first $15K and very low tax rates up to $30K.
The Coalition's new tax policy, parroted by KRudd, does something almost the same with the low-income tax rebate.

Spiny Norman
26-10-2007, 07:11 AM
Good-o ... very Pythonesque (Life Of Brian scene where two groups infiltrate Herod's castle, end up killing each other instead of focusing on actually completing the mission and kidnapping Herod's wife).

I'll be off then ...

pax
26-10-2007, 11:11 AM
Some leftist demagogues also miss the point if they insinuate that the poor are poor because the rich are rich, and that socking the "rich" is going to help the poor.


Some right-wing demagogues also miss the point if they insinuate that the poor are poor because they are lazy or don't work hard enough.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2007, 11:34 AM
Some right-wing demagogues also miss the point if they insinuate that the poor are poor because they are lazy or don't work hard enough.
While leftist demagogues miss the point when they claim that pointing out that SOME poverty is the result of poor choices is the same that ALL poverty is caused that way.

Certainly Dr Theodore Dalrymple, a British doctor who worked for years in slums and prisons, has written the book Life at the Bottom: The worldview that makes the underclass (see review (http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVMartinUnderclass1103.html)). He astutely punctures some of the self-destructive ideas of many of the permanent welfare class (who actually have more actual wealth than a medieval duke), but points out that these ideas have filtered down from Leftacademia. A major one is that things merely happen to people, who are not responsible for their own choices.

But to underline the fact that conservatives are not attacking ALL poor, I've already cited Thomas Sowell showing that the "poor" and "rich" are not classes, but the same people at different stages of their lives. E.g. in ‘Tax cuts for the rich!’ (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102204.asp), he writes:


The income of most Americans varies greatly over the course of their lives. Most of the people who are in the bottom 20 percent at one point are in the top 20 percent in later years.

Another Sowellism that fits Pax perfectly: Envy plus rhetoric = social justice.

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Maybe not, but it will reduce the incentive for entrepreneurial activities that employ some people and supply goods others want. So do the absurd State Labor payroll taxes, a fine on hiring people. So everyone loses but the demagogues who appeal to envy and resentment.

None of this goes to the issue of fairness. It goes to the issue of structuring the tax system according to outcomes, which is a debate I'll leave to the economists except to observe that I'll be hugely surprised if flat tax at any level turns out to provide the best outcomes for the poor.


There is a big difference between income and wealth. Those earning 200k are likely to be near the end of their working lives, and paying off mortgages and kids' uni fees.

Assuming their income has been increasing gradually, then anyone earning 200K who is near the end of their working life and still paying off a mortgage is probably living in some seriously expensive real estate.


For sure, and this is a good reason not to burden them more with green taxes.

Or to exempt them from their impact. I'm disgusted to admit it but I thought Howard made some very promising noises in that direction during the leadership debate. Not that it matters as his goose is looking well and truly cooked at the moment.


The fairness test should be equality of process, not equality of outcome.

Why?


Some leftist demagogues also miss the point if they insinuate that the poor are poor because the rich are rich, and that socking the "rich" is going to help the poor.

Again, these are the economic arguments. My point is that they are not valid fairness-based arguments and hence do not provide a fairness-based reason to object to levels of tax.


Would you prefer the previous excise tax system?

My point is that whether you have a GST on everything or a system of tax on particular things, low income earners are already being taxed as it is. They can do without having to pay income tax on top of that.

Spiny Norman
26-10-2007, 03:28 PM
<eeyore>
Umbrellas. Not that anyone cares it seems. I suppose its not really much of an idea. Umbrellas. Hmmph. Still, I was rather attached to it ...
</eeyore>

pax
26-10-2007, 04:30 PM
But to underline the fact that conservatives are not attacking ALL poor, I've already cited Thomas Sowell showing that the "poor" and "rich" are not classes, but the same people at different stages of their lives.

Gimme a break. The top tax bracket is currently $150,000 and soon moving to $180,000. You cannot seriously claim that the majority of working poor have a high expectation of joining that group.

The Sowell statistic is extremely misleading. I would expect that the bottom 20% of income includes many school and university students with a very high expectation of upward mobility. The real poor however probably have higher incomes than your average student, but much lower expectations of upward mobility. Low income does not necessarily equate to poverty. I would be very surprised if the result was repeated if you restricted attention to people over the age of, say, 30.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2007, 05:14 PM
Gimme a break. The top tax bracket is currently $150,000 and soon moving to $180,000. You cannot seriously claim that the majority of working poor have a high expectation of joining that group.
Why not?


The Sowell statistic is extremely misleading.
Why don't you prove it?


I would expect that the bottom 20% of income includes many school and university students with a very high expectation of upward mobility.
But your fellow Leftists are happy to cite these people to show that there is a poverty problem. Never mind that many of the "poor" have a house, car, refrigerator, running water, colour TV—which even millionaires of 100 years ago didn't have. Dinesh d'Souza, an Indian immigrant to America, said he knew another Indian who just wanted to see America for the incredible phenomenon of a poor person who is fat!


The real poor however probably have higher incomes than your average student, but much lower expectations of upward mobility. Low income does not necessarily equate to poverty. I would be very surprised if the result was repeated if you restricted attention to people over the age of, say, 30.
So where is your evidence that people are stuck on low incomes? You'd rather have them stuck on welfare for generations? And how does socking the "rich" help them?

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2007, 05:22 PM
None of this goes to the issue of fairness. It goes to the issue of structuring the tax system according to outcomes, which is a debate I'll leave to the economists except to observe that I'll be hugely surprised if flat tax at any level turns out to provide the best outcomes for the poor.
What about flat taxes with a decent tax-free threshold, as most advocate, including Steve Forbes? And the simplicity alone would prevent the time-wasting that can hardly help the poor.


Assuming their income has been increasing gradually, then anyone earning 200K who is near the end of their working life and still paying off a mortgage is probably living in some seriously expensive real estate.
I dunno. What about education expenses?


Or to exempt them from their impact. I'm disgusted to admit it but I thought Howard made some very promising noises in that direction during the leadership debate. Not that it matters as his goose is looking well and truly cooked at the moment.
Yeah, which is a shame from what you say, if it means that genuinely promising policies get axed.


Again, these are the economic arguments. My point is that they are not valid fairness-based arguments and hence do not provide a fairness-based reason to object to levels of tax.
It seems very fair to take the same percentage from everyone. How fair is bracket creep?


My point is that whether you have a GST on everything or a system of tax on particular things, low income earners are already being taxed as it is. They can do without having to pay income tax on top of that.
Then we would have to abolish consumption tax in general, as Forbes proposes.

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2007, 07:06 PM
What about flat taxes with a decent tax-free threshold, as most advocate, including Steve Forbes?

I'm open to that if the economists say that it works. Tax-free threshold would have to be very decent though, not the ridiculous $7000-odd that it is now.


I dunno. What about education expenses?

Or breeding waaaaay above replacement level. :D


It seems very fair to take the same percentage from everyone.

Not according to my argument above which shows that such an approach is likely to hurt people on lower incomes more).


How fair is bracket creep?

Probably not at all, but that's another issue - and one that can be resolved within a tiered system.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2007, 09:58 AM
I'm open to that if the economists say that it works. Tax-free threshold would have to be very decent though, not the ridiculous $7000-odd that it is now.
In practice, it is higher because of the low-income tax rebate, which the Coalition's tax policy will raise further. There is also a low-income spouse rebate.


Or breeding waaaaay above replacement level. :D
Better than breeding below replacement level, as in Europe. This has plenty of dangers, e.g. fewer workers for each retiree, and the likelihood of Muslims being able to impose Sharia democratically in a few decades (see America Alone by Mark Steyn). It's also notable that many people of a few generations ago had larger families, despite more poverty including a lack of labour-saving devices.


Not according to my argument above which shows that such an approach is likely to hurt people on lower incomes more).
But these people are hurt anyway, regardless of whether high-income earners are hurt more. And what the leftist demagogues refuse to see is that low-income earners are hurt if entrepreneurs and investors are discouraged from expanding job-creating businesses by punitive confiscatory taxation.

Also, while demagogues decry the "obscene profits" of some businesses, they seem not to care that many of their shareholders are low-income (including holders of superannuation funds that invest in shares) and are hurt when governments regard businesses as sources of money to plunder. E.g. Heilary Klinton wants to take profits of Big Oil (but not the greater profits of her supporters in Big Hollywood).


Probably not at all, but that's another issue — and one that can be resolved within a tiered system.
Only the Australian Democrats seem interested in indexing the brackets to inflation, but they are on the way out.

As far as equality of process/opportunties v equality of outcome is concerned, the former is fairer. Equality of process is a good practice, resulting in a more stable society with more predictable laws. My support for equality of process explains my support for flat tax, as well as for judicial originalism, and my opposition to affirmative action and hate crime laws.

There is no reason that a fair world would result in equality of outcome. It might sound fairer, but can this be achieved without gross inequalities of power instead? Those countries that tried it merely equalized poverty. Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2007, 11:06 AM
As far as equality of process/opportunties v equality of outcome is concerned, the former is fairer. Equality of process is a good practice, resulting in a more stable society with more predictable laws.

The advantages of stability and predictability are lessened when what is stabilised and made predictable is a very bad outcome.

Though I agree with you that if there is flat tax with a tax-free threshold (the flat tax you have when you're not having a flat tax) the problems can be greatly reduced.


There is no reason that a fair world would result in equality of outcome.

I am not suggesting, and do not believe, that it would. Indeed, the kind of outcome-based fairness test I imagined above would not seek to equalise outcome, but would seek to equalise proportional impact of taxation on outcome (where outcome is considered as the comfort of one's life and not, misleadingly, as a simple dollar value.) In any case, I'm mainly interested in just eliminating what I see as very bad outcomes, except for those resulting from criminal intent, extreme incompetence, or recklessness to the point of malignant stupidity.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2007, 12:58 PM
The advantages of stability and predictability are lessened when what is stabilised and made predictable is a very bad outcome.
Maybe, but John Stuart Mill said (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell063005.asp):


"I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject than to the caprice of a man."

He warned about the latter leading to:


"a life of anxiety lest by some of my acts I should unwittingly infringe against a will which had never been made known to me."

A bit like playing in a tourney arbited by Geurt Gijssen ;)


Though I agree with you that if there is flat tax with a tax-free threshold (the flat tax you have when you're not having a flat tax) the problems can be greatly reduced.
Sure, this is not strictly a flat tax, but is in keeping with the usage of those known as flat tax advocates, e.g. Steve Forbes in his book.

This has the advantage of genuinely benefiting low-income earners while not punishing high income earners, but the politicians won't like it because it reduces their ability to punish their enemies and reward their friends.

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2007, 06:02 PM
Greenland celebrates local warming (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greenland_celebrates_local_warming/)
Andrew Bolt


Greenland just loves “global” warming:


In the past, locals had to settle for wilting fruit and vegetables flown in from Denmark, but the warmer weather means everything from lettuce to Chinese cabbage is growing in Greenland (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=311715).

“It’s proving that we’re able to produce much more vegetables here — we can get a better quality and hopefully at a better price as well,” scientist and farmer Kenneth Hoegh tells 60 Minutes.

Greenlanders are also discovering multi billion-dollar deposits of precious metals like vanadium and titanium in their soil — and the warmer weather is making it more economical to mine.

“Yes it’ll be very good for Greenland… extremely good for Greenland,” Stefan Magnusson says, adding that the promise of more tourism to Greenland as it warms is stirring up local excitement, rather than dread.

It’s a reminder that Greenland was once named Greenland for a reason, in days even warmer than these before the deep ice came.

But how luckily Greenland is near the Arctic rather than the Antarctic, where the temperatures have cooled and ice cover has actually increased, not decreased (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/12/record-antarctic-ice-levels-ignored-media).

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 12:45 AM
Al Gore's Inconvenient Stock Portfolio Exposed; SEC Filing Raises Questions About the "Sustainability" of Generation Investment Management's $438 Million Investment Fund, says JunkScience.com (http://junkscience.com/oct07/al_gore.html)


(W)ith the exception of General Electric ─ which actively lobbies for global warming regulation while its stock significantly underperforms the broad stock market ─ GIM’s portfolio doesn’t seem to have anything to do with climate change. Notably absent from GIM’s portfolio are energy and utility companies ─ even those that claim they will benefit from global warming regulation. With the exception of GE, corporate members of the pro-global warming regulation lobbying group called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership are also missing from GIM’s portfolio.

“GIM’s portfolio is a run-of-the-mill mix of financial service, healthcare, consumer products, technology and industrial materials companies that hardly seems to live up to Gore’s rhetoric about social and environmental sustainability allegedly driving GIM’s investment choices,” Milloy said.

...

“GIM’s investments do not appear to be reducing anyone’s carbon footprint,” said Milloy. “Before falling for GIM’s ‘sustainability’ pitch, investors may want to check out GIM’s portfolio first,” Milloy added.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 04:11 PM
Dead treaty, but Labor's flogging it (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/dead-treaty-but-labors-flogging-it/2007/10/31/1193618972373.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2)
Miranda Devine
1 Nov 2007


It was hilarious seeing Kevin Rudd give a press conference on renewable energy at a Townsville school on Tuesday, when the wind and solar batteries failed and plunged the room into darkness. The media questioning continued, but under the thin light of the battery-operated TV cameras.

Rudd had the wit to laugh about the mishap but it is an omen of things to come if climate-change hysteria continues and the desire to drastically slash carbon emissions overrides reality.

In their rush to embarrass the Prime Minister, John Howard, over his refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty to cut global carbon emissions, Rudd and his environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, this week revealed the shallowness of their thinking on climate change.

The aim of the Kyoto treaty was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 per cent by 2012 compared with 1990 levels.

But Kyoto has proven to be nothing but a feel-good gimmick which has done little to reduce carbon emissions and places no obligation on some of the world's biggest emitters. The developing world is responsible for 50 per cent of carbon emissions, tipped to rise to 75 per cent in the next 40 years, when China and India will account for one-third of global emissions. Australia emits a mere 1.4 per cent. Even if we ratified Kyoto and cut our emissions by 100 per cent tomorrow, we would have a negligible impact.

Kyoto has backfired on well-meaning countries who signed up, such as New Zealand and Canada, which will have to spend a fortune buying foreign carbon credits to get anywhere near their targets.

The world is moving on from Kyoto, but Garrett appeared oblivious to that this week when he declared to the ABC and The Australian Financial Review that Labor would sign a new Kyoto treaty after 2012 that did not include developing nations such as China and India - a move the Prime Minister soon pointed out would mean exporting Australian jobs and industry.

Rudd happily endorsed Garrett's position until, after hairy media questioning, he realised what it meant, reportedly hunkering down in a "crisis meeting" and emerging with a reverse policy a few hours later, saying Labor "absolutely" would refuse to sign a new post-Kyoto agreement unless it also applied to developing nations.

The episode showed Rudd hadn't thought much beyond the empty symbolism of ratifying Kyoto and exposed the danger of having a green ideologue and anti-nuclear protester as your environment spokesman. In other words, he had not given deep thought to a subject that was always going to be one of the big issues of this election campaign. He was not up to date with the international debate and he delegated that responsibility to a man clearly not suited to balanced pragmatic decision-making in the national interest. That is scary.

...

[Bjørn Lomborg] ends with a warning for Kyoto-tragics such as Garrett: "I hope that in 40 years we will not have to tell our kids that we went for a long series of essentially unsuccessful command-and-control Kyotos that had little or no effect on the climate, but left them poorer and less able to deal with problems of the future."

pax
02-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Why don't you prove it?

It is your thesis that poor people all become rich over time, and you have only one half assed statistic to back it up. Why don't you prove it?



So where is your evidence that people are stuck on low incomes? You'd rather have them stuck on welfare for generations? And how does socking the "rich" help them?

No, I'd rather that there be a safety net sufficient for people to have a roof over their head and food on the table if they happen not to have a job. Frankly, the suggestion that "most" genuinely poor (adult) people become rich eventually is just completely laughable (as opposed to "some").

Capablanca-Fan
02-11-2007, 06:37 PM
It is your thesis that poor people all become rich over time, and you have only one half assed statistic to back it up. Why don't you prove it?
See above. Where is your proof that most poor people remain that way? It's amply documented that the poor and rich are not classes but the same people in different stages of their lives.

No, I'd rather that there be a safety net sufficient for people to have a roof over their head and food on the table if they happen not to have a job.
A safety net is one thing, but a welfare lifestyle promoted by the so-called 'war on poverty' is quite another. Also, genuine safety nets were provided by charities and mutual aid societies before giant impersonal welfare bureaucracies, so beloved of Chairman Rudd, took over.


Frankly, the suggestion that "most" genuinely poor (adult) people become rich eventually is just completely laughable (as opposed to "some").
Typical of the leftist class war rhetoric, devoid of facts. But since when did demagogues need facts to confiscate people's hard-earned money?

Desmond
03-11-2007, 01:40 PM
Wasn't it christ who said that the poor would always be with us? Keeping them poor is just doing his work. :rolleyes:

Basil
03-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Wasn't it christ who said that the poor would always be with us? Keeping them poor is just doing his work. :rolleyes:
:lol: you idiot ;)

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2007, 03:36 PM
Wasn't it christ who said that the poor would always be with us? Keeping them poor is just doing his work. :rolleyes:
Nope, nothing was said about anyone else keeping them poor, but that some people are poor because of their own choices. Those who finish highschool, avoid crime and drugs, get a job—any job, and wait till marriage before having kids, have a very low rate of poverty. And those few don't usually stay poor. Only discredited leftist class rhetoric still claims that the poor are poor because the rich are rich and somehow keeping the poor poor.

Desmond
04-11-2007, 09:58 AM
Jeezus Jono, it was a joke. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2007, 10:10 AM
Jeezus Jono, it was a joke. ;)
I couldn't tell. There are a few among some leftist clergy who say such things with seriousness, and others who think that all poor people are righteous and all rich people are evil.

Basil
04-11-2007, 11:34 AM
There are a few among some leftist clergy who say such things with seriousness
True enough


and others who think that all poor people are righteous and all rich people are evil.
You mean the poor aren't all righteous? What? Battlas gone bad? Battlas who are the cause of their own circumstances (like the one who just left my house). What? Wealthy people aren't all evil?

Jono, this is staggering. Daddies who fan the hating flames to their children at an early age will no longer have a legitimate basis to do so.

The entire passing of the lefty birthright practice is at risk.

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2007, 01:24 PM
Gunner, interesting commentary from your old country, Does Australia look like it needs a change? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/03/do0301.xml):


We really do see a people who have never had it so good.

Indeed, it is hard to name a nation in history that has ever had it so good as the Australians are having it now.

...

It would be an exaggeration to say Australia has changed out of all recognition since I first came here 20 years ago: but not much of one.

Then it was, in the words of the Treasurer (and soon to be Prime Minister) Paul Keating, "a banana republic".

Unemployment was soaring, the economy was sclerotic and over-regulated, and half of those in work were members of trades unions.

There were mountains of debt and an appetite for high spending and taxation.

Ironically, it was Labour's Mr Keating who initiated the process of reform.

Mr Howard, who succeeded him as Prime Minister and now seeks a fifth term, needed no lessons in economic liberalism, and stepped up the process.

Now, wealth is everywhere.

Only 15 per cent who work in the private sector belong to a union, which effectively breaks the most illiberal and anti-democratic force in Australian society: unless, that is, the Labour leader Kevin Rudd gets lucky and becomes Prime Minister.

The unions, having pumped tens of millions of dollars into Labour's campaign, are expecting a return on their investment; and 70 per cent of those on Labour's front bench are ex-union officials.

It is a measure of how Australia has changed that so many worry about what Mr Rudd might do to compromise the nation's prosperity.

A waitress from the young, metropolitan constituency that Labour is supposed to have sewn up told me she would vote for Mr Howard because she intended to start a business, and feared what Labour might do to it.

Her sense of aspiration typifies the new Australia.

Far more people are better off now than ever before: paying only ~8% on their mortgage, higher wages, beneficiaries from the sharemarket (given the high rate of share ownership even aside from the superannuation funds), and indeed having a job at all compared to a million unemployed under Labor ... And what a complement to Howard's leadership that Chairman Rudd is copying most of his policies almost verbatim.

pax
05-11-2007, 11:32 AM
I couldn't tell. There are a few among some leftist clergy who say such things with seriousness, and others who think that all poor people are righteous and all rich people are evil.

And then there are the right-wing Prosperity Theology whack jobs who believe that wealth is a sign that God has blessed them (and by implication that poor people are being punished by God)...

Basil
05-11-2007, 11:36 AM
And then there are the right-wing Prosperity Theology whack jobs who believe that wealth is a sign that God has blessed them (and by implication that poor people are being punished by God)...
I haven't heard of this Jon. Is this is a genuine comment? One link would be appreciated.

pax
05-11-2007, 11:37 AM
I haven't heard of this Jon. Is this is a genuine comment? One link would be appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

Hillsong is right into it..

Basil
05-11-2007, 11:42 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

Hillsong is right into it..
Thanks.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2007, 12:00 PM
And then there are the right-wing Prosperity Theology whack jobs who believe that wealth is a sign that God has blessed them (and by implication that poor people are being punished by God)...
I have long opposed Prosperity Theology (e.g. circulating the expos&#233; Suffer the Children (http://www.sufferthechildren.com/)). It has nothing whatever to do with free market advocacy or "right wing" (Pax's favorite swear word).

pax
05-11-2007, 12:04 PM
I have long opposed Prosperity Theology (e.g. circulating the exposé Suffer the Children (http://www.sufferthechildren.com/)). It has nothing whatever to do with free market advocacy or "right wing" (Pax's favorite swear word).

Good for you. Nevertheless, there is plenty of it out there. I wonder how many Prosperity advocates vote Labor (or Democrat):hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2007, 12:08 PM
Good for you. Nevertheless, there is plenty of it out there. I wonder how many Prosperity advocates vote Labor (or Democrat):hmm:
I couldn't tell you. If they don't vote for Labor or Democrat it is more likely because they perceive that secularism is rife in these parties. BTW, prosperity theology is also called the "health and wealth" gospel, and the health part has even less to do with free market economics. It is not as popular as you think; high profile does not necessarily mean wide support.

Axiom
07-11-2007, 12:44 AM
Myth of ‘thousands’ of UNIPCC climate scientists
6 November 2007

Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Debunking the myth of ‘thousands’ of UNIPCC climate scientists

“The time is well overdue to destroy the myth that there are ‘thousands’ of scientists supporting claims of catastrophic global warming,” says Owen McShane, chair of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=686

TheJoker
07-11-2007, 12:05 PM
We really do see a people who have never had it so good.

Indeed, it is hard to name a nation in history that has ever had it so good as the Australians are having it now.

We also have more people living in poverty than when Howard came to government. So the benefits are only flowing to a certain part of the community, that is the upper and middle classes (those with the capital to make investments).

Don't read into this comment that I am saying that all of the people living in poverty are victims of Government policy. Some people are victims of their own actions. Where I do think the governments (federal and state) have failed is in creating more oportunities for these people to lift themselves out of the poverty cycle (i.e. education, housing affordability etc).

...


Ironically, it was Labour's Mr Keating who initiated the process of reform.

Mr Howard, who succeeded him as Prime Minister and now seeks a fifth term, needed no lessons in economic liberalism, and stepped up the process


I am not so sure Howard has done anything rather than ride on the back of the Keating reforms and a booming world economy based on China's growth.

Most economists predict that Work Choices has had little or no impact on growth or productivity, in the short time since it's introduction. The GST was seen as a minor tax reform, again the goverment has been seen as lacking in any real tax reform.

The goverment has allowed unregulated access to credit for individuals; the economy bouyed by the debt (not exactly sustainable). We are have record household debt levels, in fact most people have very little in the way of net wealth. We actually have some of the worst personal debt levels in the world.

Negative gearing and first home buyers grants helped create a housing affordability crisis.

Jono could you please explain exactly what economic reforms Howard has implemented.

As for your comment that people are better of with an 8% mortage rate, you are wrong, For example in Sydney the average house price is now 7 times the median income, during the peak interest rates under labour it was about 2.5 - 3 times the median income. Therefore owning your own house is now less affordable despite the low interest rates. The housing affordability crisis is beacuase of both state and federal goverment policy failures.

People in Australia are definitely benefiting from economic growth and cheap products coming out of China, just some a great deal more than others, and many are worse off since the Howard governement came to power.

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2007, 01:20 PM
We also have more people living in poverty than when Howard came to government.
Prove it. Even "poor" people today are better off materially than the middle class of decades ago.


So the benefits are only flowing to a certain part of the community, that is the upper and middle classes (those with the capital to make investments).
Again, no. Real wages have increased, so the poor are also getting richer. And there are more 400,000 more full time jobs now. In fact, from March quarter 1996 to March quarter 2007, real wages increased by 20.8%, compared to a fall of 1.8% under the previous Labor government (March 1983 to March quarter 1996). Even following the maligned IR laws, real wages have increased by 2.4% (March 2006 to March 2007).


Where I do think the governments (federal and state) have failed is in creating more oportunities for these people to lift themselves out of the poverty cycle (i.e. education, housing affordability etc).
Even those would be better off if the government stayed out it it.


Most economists predict that Work Choices has had little or no impact on growth or productivity, in the short time since it's introduction.
Hard to believe, since economists like Thomas Sowell have shown a correlation between laws that protect existing workers from unemployment and high unemployment. After all, why should an employer take on a new employee who will be almost impossible to dismiss.


The GST was seen as a minor tax reform, again the goverment has been seen as lacking in any real tax reform.
GST got rid of the cumbersome excise taxes and made many things cheaper. I agree though about real tax reform, but then the usual Howard-haters here don't want a simple flat tax system with a threshold.


The goverment has allowed unregulated access to credit for individuals;
So the answer is more government regulation? Yet it is the government regulation in the form of housing band laws (euphemized as "green belt", "open space", "smart building" laws) that have made the house prices skyrocket.


Negative gearing and first home buyers grants helped create a housing affordability crisis.
Very minor. The worst things are the state government refusing to release land. Econ 101: increase demand and keep supply the same → higher prices. And the States still rake in stamp duty.

Negative gearing would not be an issue were it not for the high marginal tax rates that people understandably want some relief from. Also, negative gearing applies to borrowing to invest in any asset that produces taxable income, not just rental property.

I agree about the home buyers grant, but Rudd wants to increase that!

Basil
07-11-2007, 04:12 PM
We also have more people living in poverty than when Howard came to government. So the benefits are only flowing to a certain part of the community, that is the upper and middle classes (those with the capital to make investments).
I don't think any of us (or even those in politics, the relevant public service or possibly those who might conduct a study after the fact) are in a position to know for certain, but I have some observations:

1. The premise (that more ppl are in poverty now than when the government came to power) does not necessarily support the conclusion (the benefits only flow to certain parts of the community).

One hypothesis which defeats this assertion is that the benefits of the present government's policies have indeed flowed throughout (and benefited) the community (including the lower end of the socio-economic bands), and that the levels of poverty (both quantity of those affected and degree to which they are affected) may have been worse without the Howard policies.

I am not saying this is the case. As I said in my opening, I can't prove it and I doubt anyone can refute it. However I am saying that the original assertion cannot be sustained and is as arguable as my hypothesis.

I happen to believe my hypothesis and I accept anyone else's right to believe the contrary.


Don't read into this comment that I am saying that all of the people living in poverty are victims of Government policy. Some people are victims of their own actions.
OK.


Where I do think the governments (federal and state) have failed is in creating more oportunities for these people to lift themselves out of the poverty cycle (i.e. education, housing affordability etc).
I note you have cited both sides of the political fence. I am (as most of us are) constrained by my own limited vision in matters of 'what is to be done about housing', but I feel ATM that there was little of substance to be done by either side, federally or at a state level. The various proposals to release government land, reduce first home-buyer levies and other less salubrious ideas while well-intentioned, all roundly miss the point (and the boat) IMO. I would happy to elaborate in a different post/ thread if anyone is interested.

I reject (respectfully) the suggestion that more (of substance) could have been done by anyone.


I am not so sure Howard has done anything rather than ride on the back of the Keating reforms and a booming world economy based on China's growth.
I agree that the country has benefited from the Keating reforms.
I agree that the country has benefited from a booming world economy.
I agree that the country has benefited from the so-called mining boom.

However, where I and other Liberals differ is that we do not up-stumps there and deny the Howard government its domestic credit.

I see a tenuous and flawed commentor's balancing act between wanting to include the Howard Government's actions when attacking it and willfully excluding the Howard Government's actions when trying to remove credit.

At some point, the Howard Government's detractors are going to have to settle on whether the government was or was not responsible for the housing costs, interest rates, full employment and so forth. Opting in and out of allocating economic traction for the sake of argument doesn't wash.


Most economists predict that Work Choices has had little or no impact on growth or productivity, in the short time since it's introduction.
Little impact on productivity (to date)? Yes.
Impact on full employment and economic stimulation? More so. Still early days.


The GST was seen as a minor tax reform, again the goverment has been seen as lacking in any real tax reform.
Seen by whom? Compared to what? They have to be joking. Compared to an ideal? Pfft. Compared to what Rudd is offering on tax reform? Pfft. Compared to other reform by other governments of any persuasion in the last 100 years? Pfft.


The goverment has allowed unregulated access to credit for individuals; the economy bouyed by the debt (not exactly sustainable). We are have record household debt levels, in fact most people have very little in the way of net wealth. We actually have some of the worst personal debt levels in the world.
All true. What would you or the Rudd government suggest would have been a better alternative? Tighter regs on lending guidelines? Easier said than done. Let's say some regs had been put in place. I believe the problem would have still occurred, but we are talking degree. Of the hypothetical regs, would the left have then cried "only the rich can access the credit and the poor are denied their one chance to get ahead"? Should one of the regs have been "no credit cards for povos?" Would the left have chanted "rich boys' club"? Would the left have chanted "that's right, we can't look after ourselves and just because we're poor, you're saying we can't manage credit"?

Basically a summary of everything I despise in lefty model-making. Lefties have all the answers on paper. Under scrutiny they don't stack up.


Negative gearing and first home buyers grants helped create a housing affordability crisis.
Negative gearing helped stimulate middle-class self-investment (which is great thing), but it has certainly played its part in the so-called housing crisis. I just hope you and others aren't rafting this home to the Howard Government. That would be a singular lack of understanding of the concept and origins of negative gearing.

The idea that the first home-buyers grant is responsible is laughable.


As for your comment that people are better of with an 8% mortage rate, you are wrong
I disagree.


For example in Sydney the average house price is now 7 times the median income, during the peak interest rates under labour it was about 2.5 - 3 times the median income. Therefore owning your own house is now less affordable despite the low interest rates.
All true. However I believe you are connecting (apparently causal) events together where you shouldn't. I firmly believe that the monster increases in the cost of houses would have happened anyway. It happened in Europe some 20 years ago where many middle class people simply opted out of the home-buying cycle. The dramatic increase in house prices occurred there and now here regardless of the apparent causal nature of unrelated events.


The housing affordability crisis is beacuase of both state and federal goverment policy failures.
Disagree. I rely on all that I have said before.


People in Australia are definitely benefiting from economic growth and cheap products coming out of China, just some a great deal more than others, and many are worse off since the Howard governement came to power.
Huh? Is there any causal link you wish to make?

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2007, 08:58 AM
“Al Gore seems to have found a home at the peacock network. Both he and the network’s symbol like to strut a lot and frequently have their feathers ruffled. This week the peacock’s feathers are a solid green as NBC, among other activities, sends its ‘Today’ show stars, as the promo puts it, to ‘the ends of the earth’ to promote Gore’s agenda of saving the planet and repealing the Industrial Revolution...

NBC began its Green Week with Sunday night’s Dallas Cowboys-Philadelphia Eagles football game. Bob Costas solemnly intoned: ‘As part of NBC Universal’s Green is Universal initiative, we have turned out the lights in the studio to kick off a week that will include more than 150 hours of programming designed to raise awareness about environmental issues.’ Actually, the studio lights were off for about a minute, during which time you could see the giant stadium screen over his right shoulder and glowing video monitors all over the set. At halftime, Costas tossed it to Matt Lauer standing before some sled dogs in the Arctic, bathed in bright lighting flown in for the occasion.

The folks at Newsbusters.org have calculated that flying Lauer and two crew to the Arctic Circle in Greenland—from New York to Thule AFB, a 2,487-mile distance—produced six tons of carbon emissions. That’s one ton each way per person. They used the carbon calculator found on Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Web site.

[Al] Roker’s journey from New York to Quito, Ecuador... produced another six tons of carbon emissions. Ann Curry’s trip to Antarctica—11,686 miles in all—produced a total of 12.9 tons of carbon. That’s a grand total of 24.9 tons of CO2 produced for a momentary photo-op while most people were up getting a beer or making a pit stop. According to Gore’s Web site, the average person produces 7.5 tons of CO2 in a year.”
—Investor’s Business Daily

Adam
08-11-2007, 10:21 AM
:doh: :evil:

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2007, 12:04 PM
10,000 warming prophets jet to hot resort (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/10000_warming_prophets_jet_to_hot_resort/)
Andrew Bolt
8 November 07


They could video-conference instead to make a statement about cutting emissions, but what’s the fun in that?

So thousands of global warming prophets, including many hundreds from the United Nations agencies which have whipped along this new faith, will next month jet to a luxury resort (above) in Bali instead for a conference on how to cut emissions (http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30360920071106) like the kind they blew in getting there. Flying business class, of course, as Claudia Rossett reports (http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/claudiarosett/2007/11/04/how_to_run_your_own_climate_ch.php):


The would-be regulators of the world’s climate (and your wallet) will be jetting to Bali this December for Ban Ki-Moon’s next UN weather fest: “UN Climate Change Conference 2007.” UN policy allows even the lowlier UN staffers to travel business class on long-haul flights (your tax dollars at work), the better to arrive wined, dined and ready to hit the ground …and the beaches … and the golf courses … and the tennis courts — running. Apparently there is so much to discuss that the conference will run for a full fortnight, from Dec. 3-14, at Bali’s seaside luxury resort of Nusa Dua.

How many will be taking to the air for this leisurely chat at a tropical paradise?


Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar… said 189 countries to be represented by some 10,000 delegates and 2,500 foreign journalists (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/08/content_6847392.htm) had officially registered to take part.

That’s right: 12,500. To fly to conference that will cost more than $70 million to stage.

This oinking conference is guaranteed not to cut emissions, but increase them, Al Gore style. But the new green faith was always for the privileged to enjoy, and the masses to endure. Hypocrisy is too small a word for so monstrous a circus.

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2007, 10:36 AM
Says Laurie David, producer of alGore's film that a court found had 11 serious falsehoods. But at least she says, “I feel horribly guilty about it.” She is well known for screaming abuse at SUV drivers—evidently far worse than private jets that pump out far more CO2.

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, campaigning for the Climate Change Coalition that demands we “introduce energy efficiency standards for motor vehicles”, while he chooses to drive a V8 Holden Monaro, but only on the freeway apparently.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin attends celebrity global warming conferences to debate ways to make suburban types dim their lights, despite having a wide-body Boeing 767-200 for his private plane.

Are there any Green types actually worth listening to, as opposed to most of the leading spruikers who are such shameless hypocrites? No, they wallow in CO2-producing luxury, while demanding that we plebs do with less.

Virgin will be trying to guilt passengers into coughing up for carbon credits, while Branson, the founder of this CO2-spewing business laughs all the way to the bank. I'll be asking the hostess and pilot to donate if they really feel so guilty.

See Bali bloviators snatch Gore’s title of Grand Hypocrite (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_bali_bloviators_snatch_gores_title_of_grand _hypocrite/) by Andrew Bolt.

arosar
11-11-2007, 06:52 PM
Have you guys been following the latest spoof? It hasn't quite lasted as long as the notorious Sokal hoax, but it apparently bagged a few sceptics.

You can start here (http://www.desmogblog.com/spoof-website-touts-global-warming-death-were-you-duped").

AR

pax
12-11-2007, 11:57 AM
Have you guys been following the latest spoof? It hasn't quite lasted as long as the notorious Sokal hoax, but it apparently bagged a few sceptics.

You can start here (http://www.desmogblog.com/spoof-website-touts-global-warming-death-were-you-duped").

AR

Try this (http://www.desmogblog.com/spoof-website-touts-global-warming-death-were-you-duped) instead.

Sam
15-11-2007, 09:34 AM
It's official. We are number one! Thanks Johhny.:wall:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm

Basil
15-11-2007, 10:51 AM
It's official. We are number one! Thanks Johhny.:wall:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm
I take it this was not meant to be informed comment Sam - just the usual claptrap supporting pre-conceived prejudices.

Have you considered:

-- What Kevin Rudd intends to do to change this? If you mention Kyoto, please say something intelligent about the application of Kyoto (to the cited stats and not the country's average).
-- Economies of scale, specifically the cost and energy to deliver the resource per capita against horrendous geographical challenges say against a pin prick of a place such as the UK? <this is applicable if at first blush it doesn't appear so>.

and about five other things that I think would go over your head. But to be fair, if you can answer the first two sensibly, I'll serve up the others.

Can I bash my ahead against a brick wall at your naivety now?

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 10:55 AM
It's official. We are number one! Thanks Johhny.:wall:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm
Big whoop. When it comes to the alleged damage a country causes to the earth, what matters is absolute numbers not per capita. But this won't stop Labor from signing silly protocols—brokered by the monumentally corrupt UN thugocracy—that exempt big polluters like China.

And do you realise why Europe doesn't emit so much? Because it generates much of its power by nuclear reactors, which the scientific illiterates in Labor reflexively oppose.

pax
15-11-2007, 12:25 PM
It's official. We are number one! Thanks Johhny.:wall:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm

And that doesn't even consider the Carbon load of Australia's humungous coal exports.

Spiny Norman
15-11-2007, 01:05 PM
And that doesn't even consider the Carbon load of Australia's humungous coal exports.
I'm curious to know ... if we stopped exporting our coal and uranium ... what do you think would happen as a result? What odds would you give for Australia remaining a free democracy until 2020?

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 03:07 PM
No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm)
by John Christy
Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama
He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007


While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead


At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.
After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."
Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.
And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure.

… scientists are mere mortals.

The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere, to know).

You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".

This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)

The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."

We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".

So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."



Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.

Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.

[F]undamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.

Basil
15-11-2007, 03:17 PM
I'm curious to know ... if we stopped exporting our coal and uranium ... what do you think would happen as a result? What odds would you give for Australia remaining a free democracy until 2020?
Oo oo Mr Beazley, can I have a go?

Ummm unemployment?
Ummm increased exports from other nations
Ummm an immediate economic shock that would plunge Australia into recession.
Ummm everybody happy in their beds coz we signed Kyoto.

Aaron Guthrie
15-11-2007, 03:28 PM
Ummm increased exports from other nationsYou mean we would import less? I'd say this one is wrong. China's products would become more expensive, since they don't have the cheap coal. And we would have less money to spend since we are not getting the money from exporting the coal.

Basil
15-11-2007, 04:09 PM
You mean we would import less? I'd say this one is wrong. China's products would become more expensive, since they don't have the cheap coal. And we would have less money to spend since we are not getting the money from exporting the coal.
No I didn't mean that. I meant that other nations would pick up the slack where we stopped. Net result? Same emissions - someone else's back yard.

Political way ahead? Do what Johhny has been suggesting forever and get the big producers to commit as well.

Did this policy of Johnny's contribute to 10,000s silly kiddies growing up to hate him? Yes.
Has Labor now adopted Johhny's stance? Yes.

Result? Both parties with the the same stance. One gets kudos (for learning late and back-flipping) - one gets hate for being on the money from the get go.

Do you see my frustration? Yes. It's obvious.
Do you care? No :lol:

Aaron Guthrie
15-11-2007, 04:18 PM
Political way ahead? Do what Johhny has been suggesting forever and get the big producers to commit as well.But why should they join when even Australia won't? And why should we when they don't? Ad infinitum.

Basil
15-11-2007, 04:26 PM
But why should they join when even Australia won't? And why should we when they don't? Ad infinitum.
No no no no no ....

Australia is not saying you join - and then we'll think about it. Australia is saying, this is not a bad plan - it's got much in its favour, but it's only workable if all the important ones join at the same time (Australia, US, China and soon to be biggest economies/ producers). And indeed Australia has actively tried to make this happen. The US has point-blank (up until just recently) refused to be a party to it. Australia has played a very important role in bringing them (US and China) around.

Why doesn't Australia go first and take the moral high ground? Because of the immediate economic loss - the void that countries such as the US and other exporters would fill.

You have asked a reasonable question, but I did think that this was covered adequately for the Australian people over the last 5 years. Perhaps the message got lost in the clueless and very loud baying and you just switched-off in the face of the white noise. You certainly don't come across as a hater for the sake of it.

Aaron Guthrie
15-11-2007, 05:15 PM
Australia is not saying you join - and then we'll think about it. Australia is saying, this is not a bad plan - it's got much in its favour, but it's only workable if all the important ones join at the same time (US, China and soon to be biggest (emerging)). And indeed Australia has actively tried to make this happen. The US has point-blank (up until just recently) refused to be a party to it. Australia has played a very important role in bringing it around.It is a general point about the problem you have when both sides lose (at least in short term political ways) by making an agreement. And the problem gets worse when if you move first, you lose more. And then even worse when you don't trust your negotiating party. I don't think anyone has a good solution to it.
You certainly don't come across as a hater for the sake of it.NFI how what I said was hating.

Basil
15-11-2007, 05:21 PM
NFI how what I said was hating.
Are we at cross purposes? I don't understand NFI. I hoped to have implied a good attribute in that you clearly aren't a hater.

Aaron Guthrie
15-11-2007, 05:28 PM
Are we at cross purposes? I don't understand NFI. I hoped to have implied a good attribute in that you clearly aren't a hater.I didn't take it as an insult. But I don't know why the reference was in there at all. NFI = "No flipping idea".

Basil
15-11-2007, 05:29 PM
It is a general point about the problem you have when both sides lose (at least in short term political ways) by making an agreement. And the problem gets worse when if you move first, you lose more. And then even worse when you don't trust your negotiating party.
Again, I don't think we are communicating. I don't believe the coalition's stance has anything to do with trust or lack of it.

The coalition is simply saying "we will not subject the citizens of Australia to economic loss while non-compliant countries have non-government organisations within them who will pick up the economic slack, and

"we will not subject Australian citizens to economic loss while, were we to do so (comply), countries who are not committed / believe in greenhouse effect will continue to 'pollute'.

Perhaps the position is easier to digest in reverse. Had Australia complied (like say Canada and NZ), the American/ Chinese position wouldn't change one scrap. That much is known. This itself debunks the moral high ground approach (so loved by lefty theorists in so many areas of model-watching).

The issue has always been about achieving consensus and moving together.

Basil
15-11-2007, 05:35 PM
I didn't take it as an insult. But I don't know why the reference was in there at all. NFI = "No flipping idea".
The reference was there to begin with because I was at a loss as to why you were asking a question to which I believed the answer was extremely common knowledge.

So I gave two options;

the first being that you tuned out to the coalition's argument because of lefty shouting which occupied so many column cms and air-time hours and won a swag of votes (only for them to dump the idea once the election got closer, but they kept the votes :wall:)

or secondly you were just being a mindless hater spewing any old crap that you could pluck out of thin air to shout at a government for the sake of it -

and on that second issue (of being a mindless hater), I was suggesting you didn't strike me as one - which just left the first option of having tuned out while the arguments were being constructed by the coalition and destroyed with mindless white noise by Labor (until now :wall:)

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 05:37 PM
It shows how the Greenie religion addles the brain that NZ's socialist PM has imposed carbon taxes. Imagine, a country like NZ famed for its pristine greenery paying taxes for pollution, while smoggy places like China and India don't. Well, the Kiwis get the government they deserve. I hope Aussies won't made the same mistake.

Aaron Guthrie
15-11-2007, 05:50 PM
Again, I don't think we are communicating.Agreed! :lol:
I don't believe the coalition's stance has anything to do with trust or lack of it.I'm trying not to enter into the specifics of the debate (my first post should probably have left Australia out of it). But the trust bit has to do with China and the USA in this case. How do you get such countries to make an agreement that they both think the other will keep to? How do you get the countries to make an agreement when both think the other is trying to rip them off?

The issue has always been about achieving consensus and moving together.Right, and the answer that "we won't, because we all need to" is an answer to why we won't, but not an answer to how we all will. Which is a very interesting general problem.


and on that second issue (of being a mindless hater)...But if both parties have the same position how could critique of one of them be hating of only one of them. Also, I wasn't critiquing anyone.

Basil
15-11-2007, 06:01 PM
But if both parties have the same position how could critique of one of them be hating of only one of them. Also, I wasn't critiquing anyone.
Exactly! Two parties. Same position. Should be neutral. Didn't pan out like that.

Liberal stance received:
Out of touch. Planet killer. Sucking to yanks. Old-school fool.

Labor stance received:
Oh, OK. If you think so Kevin *shuffle feet ... forget prior marching and water-cooler and dinner-table indoctrination*. Let's get all countries on board together because ... wait for it wait for it ... drum roll ... all together now ...

"We are economic conservatives ... and we understand the effect on the economy".

This proves exactly what I am saying about the messenger and not the message.

Basil
15-11-2007, 06:03 PM
Right, and the answer that "we won't, because we all need to" is an answer to why we won't, but not an answer to how we all will. Which is a very interesting general problem.
Disagree. I believe that had the coalition been allowed to pursue its line unfettered, it would have (played its heavy) part in achieving exactly that goal of commonality.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 12:45 PM
“As coercive monopolies that spend other people’s money taken by force, governments are uniquely unqualified to solve problems. They are riddled by ignorance, perverse incentives, incompetence and self-serving. The synthetic-fuels program during the Carter years consumed billions of dollars and was finally disbanded as a failure. The push for ethanol today is more driven by special interests than good sense—it’s boosting food prices while producing a fuel of dubious environmental quality. Even if the climate really needs cooling down, government can’t be counted on to accomplish that.”

—John Stossel (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/11/14/dont_look_to_government_to_cool_down_the_planet)

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 01:46 PM
Loehle, C., A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025), Energy & Environment 18(7–8): 1049–1058, 2007.


Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3&#176;C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

But new historical research explains the MWP: the Normans used motorized units to overwhelm the English at Hastings :P

pax
20-11-2007, 02:58 PM
Loehle, C., A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025), Energy & Environment 18(7–8): 1049–1058, 2007.

An obscure paper by an obscure academic in an obscure journal using nonstandard and untested methods. Goodo.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 03:03 PM
An obscure paper by an obscure academic in an obscure journal using nonstandard and untested methods. Goodo.
Oh yeah, much better to push the thoroughly discredited hockey stick (http://www.whackynation.com/?page_id=58) than use real data which match historical records of the MWP. But the latter wouldn't enrich alGore or help Pax's big government interventionist agenda.

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 05:44 PM
The latest New Scientist has a greenie guilt trip article, Why bother going green? (http://asia.tmcnet.com/news/2007/11/16/3102526.htm) It's a shame that Nigel Calder is no longer editing it, because he doesn't swallow the alarmism so uncritically. Here's something interesting:


If you fly more than once a year, cutting back on those journeys will be the best single thing you could do to cut your emissions. Cut out that long return flight from Europe to Miami, or the US to Rome, and you have saved 2.5 tonnes of CO2 which is probably more than you emit from your car all year. The simple truth is that frequent fliers have carbon footprints tens of times bigger than the rest of us.

Yet nothing said about alGore, Flummery, and all the other Green prophets (or should that be profits (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663)) preaching warm-mongering doom. Even worse, they praise that Bali bloviating conference on global warming with 12,500 delegates jetting there business class (http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/column_bali_bloviators_snatch_gores_title_of_grand _hypocrite/), without the slightest awareness of their cognitive dissonance.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 11:25 AM
See also A Cool Look at Global Warming: The Economics and politics of Climate Change (http://www.nzcpr.com/guest76.htm)

Speech to the NZ Business Round Table by The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson, 15 November 07.


Warmer but richer is in fact healthier than colder but poorer.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2007, 10:47 AM
With 10,000 delegates, including those one private chartered planes, and neglecting the 2,500 delegates, and of course choosing a lovely holiday destination that's very distant from most places in America, Europe and africa ... Carbon Footprint of UN Conference (http://www.therazor.org/?p=916). Bali International Airport is concerned about space for all these planes (http://www.balidiscovery.com/messages/message.asp?Id=4112).

Bottom line: I might start taking global warming alarmism seriously when the leading alarmists act as if they do too. At present, they are like 150 kg gluttons having a conference at a fancy restaurant about the obesity crisis, demanding government controls against what the rest of us eat.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2007, 04:02 PM
The Free Market Does It Better (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2007/11/28/the_free_market_does_it_better)
By John Stossel


...

I've argued that even if global warming is something to worry about, it's dangerous to look to government to fix the climate. Government is a blunt instrument, riddled with self-serving politics and special-interest pandering. To expect it to do something as complicated as calibrate regulations and taxes to fine-tune the climate — without making many people poorer and a few cronies richer — is naive.

But that doesn't mean we can do nothing. We have a powerful generator of solutions if we let it work: the free market.

The market has solved environmental problems many times in the past. Before the automobile, America's cities suffered from a terrible pollutant. It bred disease and emitted noxious odors.

It was horse manure.

As economist Nobel laureate Robert Fogel said, "There were 200,000 horses in New York City at the beginning of the 20th century defecating everywhere. When you walked around you were breathing pulverized horse manure". From such air and water pollution, people contracted cholera, typhoid and other deadly diseases.

When the internal-combustion engine came along, the air and ground became much cleaner. Environmentalists romanticize the days before the car, but who wants to go back to that filth and disease?

...

pax
28-11-2007, 05:10 PM
But that doesn't mean we can do nothing. We have a powerful generator of solutions if we let it work: the free market.

Couldn't agree more. Therefore, the sooner a price is put on Carbon emissions, the better.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2007, 05:32 PM
Couldn't agree more. Therefore, the sooner a price is put on Carbon emissions, the better.
A government tax for the free market is like fornication for chastity.

pax
28-11-2007, 05:45 PM
A government tax for the free market is like fornication for chastity.

No, but using the free market to reduce consumption of something that's free is like using a lawnmower to cut concrete.

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2007, 05:51 PM
No, but using the free market to reduce consumption of something that's free is like using a lawnmower to cut concrete.
The only things which are "free" are usually what a nanny state provides. That's why we are running out of water.

If the government can get its grubby paws on carbon taxes, then it has an incentive to keep up their supply.

But as Stossel showed, the market could clean up the alleged greenhouse problem as surely as it got rid of the more dangerous horseshit problem.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2007, 09:17 AM
But as Stossel showed, the market could clean up the alleged greenhouse problem as surely as it got rid of the more dangerous horseshit problem.
In the mid 19th century in London it was predicted to be the biggest ecological disaster of 20th century

pax
29-11-2007, 10:50 AM
But as Stossel showed, the market could clean up the alleged greenhouse problem as surely as it got rid of the more dangerous horseshit problem.

He showed nothing of the sort.

Horseshit disappeared, not because of any specific economic incentive to clean up, but because something else came along which was more profitable. The fact that it happened to do away with horseshit was complete coincidence. If it happened to be more profitable to increase the output of horseshit, that's exactly what would have happened.

There are currently massive incentives for carbon emissions, because the cheapest fuels by far are those which emit lots of CO2, and there is zero cost related to the emission of CO2. Unless you do something about that incentive, you are basically pissing into the wind.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2007, 11:29 AM
He showed nothing of the sort.
Make up your mind, if you have one. You first said that you couldn't agree more, but now you reveal your true totalitarian impulse: Big Government Knows Best.


Horseshit disappeared, not because of any specific economic incentive to clean up, but because something else came along which was more profitable.
The free market often produces very beneficial outcomes which are unintended by its participants. That's the beauty of it, as noted by Adam Smith centuries ago. Stossel in his books has documented numerous examples of the free market working and government bureaucracies failing.


There are currently massive incentives for carbon emissions, because the cheapest fuels by far are those which emit lots of CO2, and there is zero cost related to the emission of CO2. Unless you do something about that incentive, you are basically pissing into the wind.
Doesn't this cheapness say something about the futility of wind power and all the other fantasies you greenies love.

Unlike horseshit, which is really dangerous, even if Australia got rid of CO2 emissions completely, it would not make a dent in the globe's temperature. So all this Kyoto rubbish is about setting an example to the real polluters like India and China, which have no intention of cutting down and impoverishing themselves.

pax
29-11-2007, 01:56 PM
Make up your mind, if you have one. You first said that you couldn't agree more, but now you reveal your true totalitarian impulse: Big Government Knows Best.
I agreed that the market is the best place to fix it, but if you don't understand that the market needs a price signal to have any impact then you need to review your economics.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2007, 03:00 PM
I agreed that the market is the best place to fix it, but if you don't understand that the market needs a price signal to have any impact then you need to review your economics.
By definition, the free market and government interference are contradictory. The role for the government is restraining coercion and fraud, not interfering in prices. Prices should be set by supply and demand. There are already enough chicken littles that there should be market rewards for reducing CO2 emission.

pax
29-11-2007, 04:16 PM
By definition, the free market and government interference are contradictory.

While companies are subject to taxation, the above is clearly false.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2007, 04:41 PM
While companies are subject to taxation, the above is clearly false.
Not if the taxation is flat, as at present.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 01:05 PM
Arnie is another Gulfstream Greenie: preaching to the masses to reduce CO2 emissions, while flying on his private jet that emits more CO2 in an hour than you'd drive in a year.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 03:29 PM
Bali not for party-poopers (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bali_not_for_party_poopers/)
Andrew Bolt
7 Dec 2007


With 15,000 global warming believers already choking the UN’s conference on how to cut the gases they emitted just getting there, it’s natural a few had to excluded.

And how convenient those exclusions were:


The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401) seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Same story with reporters unlikely to write the right stuff:


A group of reporters representing the conservative newspaper Environment & Climate News (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/04/skeptics-denied-press-credentials-un-climate-meeting-bali) were refused press credentials to attend the U.N.’s climate change meeting in Bali this week.

pax
07-12-2007, 04:10 PM
Interestingly, a Google search for "international climate science coalition" produces four links, all of which relate to the Bali conference. Does this group even exist? If the members are scientists of any standing, they should be able to gain access to the conference via any number of academic institution affiliations.

And as for the Environment & Climate News, is it any wonder that they deny press credentials to a publication which has the express purpose of undermining the work of Kyoto, Bali and the IPCC?


Bali not for party-poopers (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bali_not_for_party_poopers/)
Andrew Bolt
7 Dec 2007


With 15,000 global warming believers already choking the UN’s conference on how to cut the gases they emitted just getting there, it’s natural a few had to excluded.

And how convenient those exclusions were:


The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401) seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Same story with reporters unlikely to write the right stuff:


A group of reporters representing the conservative newspaper Environment & Climate News (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/04/skeptics-denied-press-credentials-un-climate-meeting-bali) were refused press credentials to attend the U.N.’s climate change meeting in Bali this week.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 05:33 PM
And as for the Environment & Climate News, is it any wonder that they deny press credentials to a publication which has the express purpose of undermining the work of Kyoto, Bali and the IPCC?
Of course, no dissent allowed, as would be expected from such a corrupt thugocracy as the UN. It might not only expose the flimsy basis of their "science", but also the rank hypocrisy of jetsetting to a distant tourist spot while spruiking forth on the need to reduce emissions.

pax
07-12-2007, 06:04 PM
Of course, no dissent allowed, as would be expected from such a corrupt thugocracy as the UN. It might not only expose the flimsy basis of their "science", but also the rank hypocrisy of jetsetting to a distant tourist spot while spruiking forth on the need to reduce emissions.

If any of them are real journalists, they will have real jobs with real newspapers and they can get real press passes. The likes of Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine (both strong climate change skeptics) would have no problem getting press passes.

Denying press passes to a massively biased two bit lobbyist rag? It's pretty meaningless.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2007, 01:40 AM
If any of them are real journalists, they will have real jobs with real newspapers and they can get real press passes. The likes of Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine (both strong climate change skeptics) would have no problem getting press passes.

Denying press passes to a massively biased two bit lobbyist rag? It's pretty meaningless.
The UN, with Zimbabwe, Libya and other thugocracies on their human rights panel, is in a position to complain about realism? And "biased" is just Gulfstream Greeniespeak for those that don't swallow their dogma.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2007, 03:33 PM
It's Ruddy eco-illogical (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22885898-5001031,00.html)
By Tim Blair
8 December 2007

...

But first, some due diligence is required. Before signing any contracts, a fellow needs to know his new belief system is in sound working order, unburdened by internal contradictions and free of technical glitches that may end up causing frustrating warranty claims.

Or millions of deaths — those of us who previously bought into socialism have sure learned that particular lesson.

Most important for those of us in middle-age is that a belief system be simple, consistent and straightforward — even basic.

...

Let's take a tyre-kicking stroll around the climate change showroom that is Kevin Rudd's Australia and see if we can't find ourselves a clean, low-mileage green political sensibility with all simplicity options included.

Kevin Rudd pledged before the election that he'd ratify the Kyoto Protocol as soon as he was able. And he did. Can't get much more straightforward than that.

But he also vowed to appoint a petrol price commissioner to monitor big oil companies, with the aim of keeping fuel prices down. Now, the purpose of ratifying Kyoto is to cut our carbon emissions; but the result of cheaper fuel will be to increase carbon emissions.

This isn't merely complex. It's contradictory and it becomes even more so with Rudd's explanation for appointing petrol police: "The playback that I get from communities across the country is that families are under real financial pressure."

So he exposes them to Kyoto, which Rudd knows will cause a blow-out in household expenses: "When you're dealing with climate change, ultimately it will impact for example on energy prices."

Hmmm. Cars — or, for that matter, drivers — don't generally survive too long if one selects reverse gear while at highway speed, which is approximately the manoeuvre Rudd is attempting.

Across the aisle, former environment minister Malcolm Turnbull is also a high-velocity reverser, writing in June: "Kyoto has a number of shortcomings and will fall well short in terms of delivering what the world requires … the Australian Government remains focussed on real, practical actions that will make a material difference. The reality is that the old Kyoto is now part of history."

Then he pushed the Howard government to ratify it.

Not easy to follow, all of this climate change changing. For example, the Liberal Party opposed Kyoto while in government and now agrees with it in Opposition.

Confused? Imagine how Turnbull must feel. After a contest for his inner-Sydney seat in which the main issue was a Tasmanian pulp mill, he lost the Liberal leadership to a former ALP member and next year in Parliament will face a new environment minister banned by his own party from discussing climate change.

Desperate for clarity, we turn to the United Nations Climate Change Conference currently under way in Bali.

"Some of the most vulnerable countries of the world have contributed the least to climate change but are bearing the brunt of it," reports the UN.

Perfectly true. New Zealand contributes just 0.2 to 0.3 per cent of total global emissions, yet — as economist Alex Robson explained in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks back — is already exposed to $NZ708 million of Kyoto debt, a figure that could grow into billions by the time payback is due.

Talk about bearing the brunt. Australia is another low climate change contributor (1.2 per cent to 1.4 per cent) but is likewise financially vulnerable.

Where will Australia's and New Zealand's money go? Most likely to big-polluting eastern European nations who under Kyoto's perverse structuring find themselves classified as clean and have the carbon credits to prove it.

And what wicked entity put Australia and New Zealand in this unpleasant situation?

The Kyoto-pushing UN itself, which now wrings its hands over the fate of nations that have "contributed the least to climate change".

...

Quite why Garrett finds himself among the several Government ministers flying to Bali to talk about climate change is therefore a mystery. In fact, it is a mystery why anyone concerned about the environment would attend the 12-day conference, given that it'll generate some 47,000 tonnes of CO2 — about the same as produced by a Formula 1 racing car over the course of an entire racing season, including driver flights around the planet to each of 18 rounds.

"Wherever you held it, people would still have to travel to get there," rationalises Yvo de Boer, the conference's executive secretary.

"If you don't put the US, the big developing countries, the European Union around the table to craft a solution together, nothing will happen and then the prophecy of scientists in terms of rising emissions and its consequences will become a reality."

Or, as Simon Scowl at www.deceiver.com explains: "It's okay to hurt the environment in the name of saving the environment because if we don't it'll hurt the environment. See how beautiful that is?"

It's so beautiful it hurts.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2007, 03:58 PM
The price of Rudd’s Kyoto madness soars (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_plops_us_in_hot_water_with_his_warming_panic/)
Andrew Bolt
Monday, December 10, 2007 at 01:30pm


Kevin Rudd last week signed us up for big fines if we didn’t meet our Kyoto targets by 2012, which turns out not to have been a smart move.


An Australian Bureau of Statistic snapshot released today found that ... Australian greenhouse gas emissions are now rising rapidly (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22898317-2702,00.html), putting pressure on the Kyoto target of average of 8 per cent above 1990 levels for the period 2008 -2012.

Unless there are changes in policy emissions, by 2020 emissions would be 27 per cent higher than according to official predictions.
In 2005-6 coal accounted for 41.6 per cent of energy production, while renewable energy sources, such as wind, hydro-electricity and solare energy represented 5 per cent.

The Rudd Government wants to have 20 per cent of Australia’s energy produced from renewable sources by 2020.

Not only will the Kyoto fines cost, at this rate, billions, but Rudd’s wild promises to slash emissions and increase renewables will cost billions more in direct costs, higher bills and lost production.

This is fast proving to be every bit the disaster I warned of. Oh, and how much will Rudd’s cuts lower temperatures?

That’s right: by the most expensive zero in history.

Oh, but like all the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37), feelings of moral superiority are more important than results. Chairman Rudd thinks that it will give him moral authoritaaah (I dunno whether Kevin intends a broad a or long a here :confused:) over the real polluters. Alas, they have no intention of falling into line:


China, India and other developing countries probably won’t be required to take on legally binding commitments to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aeCGSVss.0EA&refer=home) under a new climate-change treaty, a United Nations official said today.

But maybe KRudd hopes to become as filthy rich as alGore (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3022274.ece), the leading globull war-mongering pimp, living off his prostitution of climate science:


Today Gore commands between &#163;50,000 and &#163;85,000 a speech, holds stock options in Google worth &#163;15m and has made as much as &#163;4m from advances on his book deals. He is also advising a US venture capital company on how to invest a $600m green technology fund … Since the release of his documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has given 150 speeches a year.

Thus alGore is a worthy successor to that dunce and fraud Paul Ehrlich, who has profited both financially and in prestige from his totally discredited predictions of doom.

Axiom
10-12-2007, 08:56 PM
The Global Warming Scam

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [Telegraph]
Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register] Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. [World Climate Report]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/nh_temp2.gif


Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. [Telegraph]

Okay, take notes, there will be a quiz at the end of class.

First of all, greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life as we know it, as the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/greenhouse_sources3.gif

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.

Now, this is not to say that I think we should waste our planet's resources. Quite the contrary, I think we need to be very careful of what we have, because we are not likely to get a replacement planet any time soon. But the global warming "hype" is exactly that, hype to sell products and policies. If you want to do something about the damage to the planet caused by oil, STOP THE WARS BEING FOUGHT OVER IT!

Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.

Spiny Norman
11-12-2007, 09:11 AM
I read through the following yesterday:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf

Why aren't the dissenting voices being given more credence? I sense scientific, commercial and political snouts snuffling around the taxpayer's pocket ...

Axiom
11-12-2007, 12:30 PM
I read through the following yesterday:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf
I sense scientific, commercial and political snouts snuffling around the taxpayer's pocket ...
Yet more proof, that the mass media has absolutely no intention whatsoever of properly informing us. Precisely where is the informed debate?

Major new directives work on a top-down basis, and the corporate media simply obeys instructions in facilitating the indoctrination of the masses, no matter how patently flawed the directives be.

Look at these wars
The war on terror
The war on drugs
The war on man made global warming,
all hoaxes , designed to tax and control the masses.

The undeclared real wars include:
war on the family unit
war on the human spirit
war on human enlightenment
war on human liberty
war on privacy
war on logic and reason

Aaron Guthrie
11-12-2007, 06:48 PM
Look at these wars
The war on terror
The war on drugs
The war on man made global warming,
all hoaxes , designed to tax and control the masses.

The undeclared real wars include:
war on the family unit
war on the human spirit
war on human enlightenment
war on human liberty
war on privacy
war on logic and reasonThe War on Everything.

Axiom
11-12-2007, 11:05 PM
The War on Everything.
EXCEPT THE WAR ON IRRATIONALITY !

Spiny Norman
12-12-2007, 10:05 AM
If you want to read the dissenting opinions, you have to do a bit of digging. Found the following with topical information about dissent at the Bali Conference:

Skeptical scientists urge the world to have the courage to do nothing at UN conference (http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/skeptical-scientists-urge-world-to-%e2%80%98have-the-courage-to-do-nothing-at-un-conference/)

Part of that article:


BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.

“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

“UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings,” Monckton explained.

“It is a circus here,” agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN’s climate claims.

“This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences,” Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: “Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.” - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.” (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK)

“Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction,” Evans explained.


and this:


‘IPCC is unsound’

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

“There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate,” Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,” Gray, who wrote the book “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” said.

“It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics,” he added.

‘Dangerous time for science’

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a “dangerous time for science” ahead.

“We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction” away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

“The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between,” he concluded.

Axiom
13-12-2007, 11:35 AM
Skeptical Climate Scientists Shunned At UN Bali Meeting
Consensus by force as media ignores dissenting views

December 12, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

The self-proclaimed "consensus" behind man-made global warming is one enforced by threats, intimidation and ignorance, as is again being proven by media coverage of the latest UN meeting in Bali, where skeptical climate scientists are being shunned and ignored if they dare express an opposing viewpoint.

Representatives of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition , which include a member of the IPCC since its inception in 1990, were almost barred from attending the meeting when their credentials were rejected by UN officials.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," said climate researcher and former British government cabinet member Christopher Monckton.


http://www.*******s.com/images2/science/121207misguidedfools2.jpg



Australian scientist Dr. David Evans slammed the conference as a "circus" and warned that the UN's politicization of science had created a dangerous atmosphere.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction, away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, " Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Evans cited a report in this month's International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.


UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, who has been involved in vetting IPCC reports since its inception in 1990, shattered the much vaunted infallibility of the IPCC, which is routinely put forward as evidence that "the debate is over" about the man-made causes of global warming.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," said Gray.

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails."

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.
Dr. William Alexander, Emeritus Professor of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned that the UN's drive to force poorer countries to adopt policies on climate change would increase poverty and lead to more death.

Owen McShane agreed, arguing that such policies will lead to financial ruin for struggling countries.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," said McShane.

Have you heard any of these climate experts quoted in any mainstream media report about the Bali meeting? Do a Google search - there are no corporate media reports covering their speeches and presentations.

Contrast this with the amount of attention lavished on those who push the UN's pre-determined, politicized and unscientific rhetoric - the chicken little sky is falling propaganda about the coming global warming apocalypse.

This is how the "consensus" scam is maintained - any dissenting view is discouraged, shunned and ignored, just as it was when the "consensus" view that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe was aggressively upheld as scientific fact.

Spiny Norman
13-12-2007, 01:08 PM
This is how the "consensus" scam is maintained - any dissenting view is discouraged, shunned and ignored ...
Now where else have I seen that behaviour before ... :hmm: ... more recently than the "earth is flat" argument (which is largely urban legend anyway) ... :hmm: ... science has a pretty poor track record in terms of tolerating dissent.

pax
13-12-2007, 06:14 PM
Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
Monckton is nothing of the sort. He has been a journalist, a politician and a businessman. But mainly, he's a shit stirrer. He has previously written that every AIDS carrier should be permanently incarcerated to prevent the spread of the disease. He most certainly has never been a scientific researcher.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2007, 07:35 PM
What consensus? Experts protest the Bali madness (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_consensus_experts_protest_the_bali_madness/)
Andrew Bolt
13 Dec 2007


Distinguished academics and researchers have sent an open letter to the UN Secretary General and the alarmists in Bali, saying there’s no proof man is heating up the world to hell. Excerpts:


It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages…

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by *government *representatives. The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:


Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.


In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled”, significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future …

Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

The impressive list of signatories (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004).
(Thanks to Professor Bob Carter, who drove this initiative.)

Axiom
13-12-2007, 11:14 PM
[Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems
Yes, it is extremely concerning and ironic that this hoax itself, obscures the harsh light of inspection, needed for real problems like toxic waste pumped into oceans, toxins in the air and food chains,disappearing species, disappearing bees - essential to biosphere, disappearing fauna, gm crops, nanotechnology, to name a few.

pax
13-12-2007, 11:41 PM
Yes, it is extremely concerning and ironic that this hoax itself, obscures the harsh light of inspection, needed for real problems like toxic waste pumped into oceans, toxins in the air and food chains,disappearing species, disappearing bees - essential to biosphere, disappearing fauna, gm crops, nanotechnology, to name a few.

I think you've been reading too much science fiction.

(no argument with the rest of your list though, with the qualified exception of GM crops)

Axiom
14-12-2007, 01:16 AM
I think you've been reading too much science fiction.
not for many years......., i only read science fact these days, and nanotech has unknown pandora potential.

(no argument with the rest of your list though, with the qualified exception of GM crops)
linked to the disappearing bees ?

Spiny Norman
14-12-2007, 11:21 AM
Evidence that the sun is contributing to, if not outright driving global warming:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=511&sid=5080155

pax
14-12-2007, 11:21 AM
not for many years......., i only read science fact these days, and nanotech has unknown pandora potential.

Why? What do you think might happen?

Axiom
14-12-2007, 12:14 PM
Why? What do you think might happen?
Uncontrolled self replication, interference with biological systems.
However i do agree its more potential rather than an actual real present danger.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-possible-dangers-of-nanotechnology.htm

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2007, 01:16 PM
Freedom, not climate, is under threat — Czech leader (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-30915920071210)


The movement against global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world's economic and social order, Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Monday.

Klaus was speaking to reporters at the launch of the German translation of his new book, a sceptical look at the worldwide campaign to stop climate change entitled "Blue Planet in Green Chains: What Is Under Threat -- Climate or Freedom?".

"My answer to that question is unambiguous," said Klaus. "Freedom is under threat.

"Also (threatened) is the prevailing social and economic order, contemporary civilisation, the current prosperity of developed countries and the chances of developing countries to achieve a similar level of prosperity."

He said the climate change movement was not based on science and that theories about man-made global warming could not be proven.

"It has become a new religion or new ideology and in that sense I think it's justified to compare it with other ideologies," Klaus said.

Klaus, an economist and former Czech prime minister who championed the free market, is one of the world's most vocal climate-change sceptics. On Sept. 24 he gave a speech to the U.N. General Assembly expressing doubts whether climate change was man-made.

pax
14-12-2007, 01:18 PM
Uncontrolled self replication, interference with biological systems.
However i do agree its more potential rather than an actual real present danger.

Right now, it's fiction. Maybe there will be a glimmer of a possibility in 50 or 100 years. As with many areas relating to artificial intelligence and robotics, the truth is rather less glamorous than the hype.

Axiom
14-12-2007, 02:06 PM
Right now, it's fiction. Maybe there will be a glimmer of a possibility in 50 or 100 years. As with many areas relating to artificial intelligence and robotics, the truth is rather less glamorous than the hype.
With all the other pressing concerns im happy to let this one slip down the list priorities. But did you read my link above ?

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2007, 04:02 PM
Evidence that the sun is contributing to, if not outright driving global warming:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=511&sid=5080155

I see no evidence of "outright driving" in either of those. However I do think the debate about what proportion of global warming is caused by factors beyond our control will be an interesting one to follow - especially as it may be another reason why the kind of crisis action mooted by some is not needed.

Axiom
15-12-2007, 01:30 AM
Listed below are the names and credentials of the 100 scientists who signed the letter, again dispelling the myth that the man-made explanation behind global warming is an overwhelming"consensus" view.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa


Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand


David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma


Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.


Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University


Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia


Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands


Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University


Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario


David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia


William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame


Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia


R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa


Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey


Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany


Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay


Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden


Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand


William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project


Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut


Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia


Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona


Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA


Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis


Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland


Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia


Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden


Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia


Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia


David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand


Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007


William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology


Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands


Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands


Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands


Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands


The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.


Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary


David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware


Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS


Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand


William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.


Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors


Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia


Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia


Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany


John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand


Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.


Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph


John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia


Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand


Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University


Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University


Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway


Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia


Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden


Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic


John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia


David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa


James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University


Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia


Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia


R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University


Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota


Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia


Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan


Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences


Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force


R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology


Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands


Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.


Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway


Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA


S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service


L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario


Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville


Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden


Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute


Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands


Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC


Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand


Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia


Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia


Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany


Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland


David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia


Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia


A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy


http://www.************.com/articles/december2007/121407_carbon_tax.htm

Desmond
15-12-2007, 09:51 AM
100 opposers in the world hardly means it's not a consensus view.

Spiny Norman
15-12-2007, 11:00 AM
In case anyone hadn't noticed, science doesn't work by consensus (that's the business of politics, not science). I don't care how many scientists think global warming is human caused ... if the data doesn't support it, then the emperor has no clothes ...

BTW, nice list AX ... good to see all those "Professor Emeritus" in the list ...

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 12:43 AM
100 opposers in the world hardly means it's not a consensus view.
100 well-qualified opposers in the world is very strong evidence that it is not. It is certainly premature to claim that the debate is over. Most of the pushers are scientifically illiterate environmentalist pimps, living off their prostitution of alarmist causes. And what if people come to the consensus by counting heads, but the heads counted themselves arrived at the position by counting heads ...


In case anyone hadn't noticed, science doesn't work by consensus (that's the business of politics, not science). I don't care how many scientists think global warming is human caused ... if the data doesn't support it, then the emperor has no clothes ...
Yeah, Michael Crichton pointed this out (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html) , and it's good to have Spiny's reminder.

Spiny Norman
16-12-2007, 06:35 AM
My son is hilarious ... every time I mention human-caused global warming, he tells me not to be stupid and blames the lack of pirates (i.e. the statistical correlation between reduction in piracy and the increase in global temperatures since the 1700's). Its been a good lesson for him, to beware of lies, damn lies, and statistics. As I have seen others post here, correlation <> causation.

We're thinking of getting T-shirts made: Global warming kills Frosty!

pax
16-12-2007, 09:13 AM
Most of the pushers are scientifically illiterate environmentalist pimps, living off their prostitution of alarmist causes.

You do your cause no credit with fiction like this. Most people pushing for change are distinguished scientists (some, I agree, are not). Here are a few, for example:
http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

The deniers will win no arguments based on the weight of their qualifications alone.

pax
16-12-2007, 09:20 AM
We're thinking of getting T-shirts made: Global warming kills Frosty!

Reminds me of a song my choir sang last year:

http://sydneychamberchoir.org/listen

Click on the play button next to "Frosty the Snowman".

Desmond
16-12-2007, 09:47 AM
100 well-qualified opposers in the world is very strong evidence that it is not. It is certainly premature to claim that the debate is over. Most of the pushers are scientifically illiterate environmentalist pimps, living off their prostitution of alarmist causes. And what if people come to the consensus by counting heads, but the heads counted themselves arrived at the position by counting heads ...One could probably round up 100 people with scientific qualifications who think the moon landing was a hoax, and continue to debate it, but that would not stop a consensus either.

pax
16-12-2007, 10:43 AM
One could probably round up 100 people with scientific qualifications who think the moon landing was a hoax, and continue to debate it, but that would not stop a consensus either.
Or, indeed, 100 people who think that the world was made in six days ;)

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 05:29 PM
One could probably round up 100 people with scientific qualifications who think the moon landing was a hoax, and continue to debate it, but that would not stop a consensus either.
Yeah, but those loonies would probably jump on the warm-mongering bandwagon :lol: , where consensus has been self-generated.

Of course, we have eye-witnesses to the moon landings, as opposed to tendentious predictions about world temperatures by people who can't even predict tomorrow's weather :P

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 05:31 PM
Or, indeed, 100 people who think that the world was made in six days ;)
We don't need that, only the One who was there at the time :P

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 05:37 PM
Malcolm Farr and Cindy Wockner on more hypocrisy by Pax's heroes in Bali in How green is 5-star lip service? (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22913102-5001031,00.html):


IN Bali a crush of thousands of green worthies and sweat-stained diplomats and politicians is showing how to save the environment while destroying it.

The United Nations' climate change summit is being carried by fleets of jets and large cars and cooled by banks of power-chewing airconditioners.

Blocks of expensive hotel rooms will be ablaze with lights every night of the 11-day conference, which ends tomorrow.

And watching it all will be a flock of environmentalists and reporters, many of

If you want to know what’s causing global warming, just go to Bali and watch the people who think they can prevent a climate catastrophe…

This is a conference addressing deforestation but which uses huge stacks of paper every day. It is a conference demanding action on air pollution at which security guards have to wear face masks at check-points because of the accumulation of vehicle exhausts…

Rubbish emissions are up by 50 per cent from the conference venue and few pay heed to the garbage bins which are meant to separate paper and plastic. When the rubbish men come around it’s all lumped in together, supposedly to be sorted at the dump later.

Few pay heed to the signs imploring the thirsty crowds to recycle their plastic water cups and bottles, despite the water coolers around the venue. Side events and launches give out lavish souvenirs to attendees — glossy photo books about the forests, T-shirts to save orang-utans. The money would surely be better spent saving the forests and orang-utans.
...

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 05:40 PM
You do your cause no credit with fiction like this. Most people pushing for change are distinguished scientists (some, I agree, are not). Here are a few, for example:
http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

The deniers will win no arguments based on the weight of their qualifications alone.
All the same, there are leading climate experts among them (where are comparable space scientists who deny the moon landings?) — and they are not hypocrites like the Bali swarm.

pax
16-12-2007, 06:49 PM
Malcolm Farr and Cindy Wockner on more hypocrisy by Pax's heroes in Bali in

I'm not sure what you want to see. Everybody stay at home and live in a Yurt? Delegates to travel by boat? The Bali conference is little different from any other major diplomatic meeting - I didn't see you crying about the waste caused by the APEC conference..

Just to keep a bit of perspective - the targets being negotiated at Bali and future similar events will reduce carbon emissions by a factor of millions of times that which are produced in the course of the negotiations.

The irony here is that the people who complain loudest about the carbon emissions of the Bali conference are precisely the same people who believe that carbon emissions have no effect on the climate. So the question is - why do you care?

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 10:20 PM
I'm not sure what you want to see.
Those who preach at US to reduce set an example themselves!! :wall: :wall:


Everybody stay at home and live in a Yurt? Delegates to travel by boat? The Bali conference is little different from any other major diplomatic meeting —
How convenient that they chose a venue far from most of the delegates.


I didn't see you crying about the waste caused by the APEC conference..
Were they not practising what they preach?


Just to keep a bit of perspective — the targets being negotiated at Bali and future similar events will reduce carbon emissions by a factor of millions of times that which are produced in the course of the negotiations.
A likely story. When are they going to plant the 3 million trees needed to offset the humungous amount of CO2 emitted by this conference? And some of the biggest polluters are still exempt, while KRudd has signed us up to stuff up our economy.

Are you seriously suggesting that all those delegates were necessary, or just enjoying the junket.

But to Pax, the global warm-mongers can do no wrong, no matter how gross their hypocrisy.


The irony here is that the people who complain loudest about the carbon emissions of the Bali conference are precisely the same people who believe that carbon emissions have no effect on the climate. So the question is — why do you care?
It should be obvious. Those that shout the largest about the need to reduce are often the most extravagant producers.

pax
17-12-2007, 12:01 AM
How convenient that they chose a venue far from most of the delegates.

It's an INTERNATIONAL conference. Wherever you put it, people have to fly to get there. Putting it in the middle of Europe would barely make any difference.



A likely story. When are they going to plant the 3 million trees needed to offset the humungous amount of CO2 emitted by this conference?

Actually, Indonesia has already planted 79 million trees (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071128-AP-indonesia-deforestation.html) prior to the conference.



And some of the biggest polluters are still exempt, while KRudd has signed us up to stuff up our economy.

Exempt from what? The whole point of Bali is getting the developing world on board.



Are you seriously suggesting that all those delegates were necessary, or just enjoying the junket.

If you want a consensus between hundreds of countries, it really takes a lot of people. I'm sure there were plenty of people enjoying a junket, but there were also a lot of people who were very serious about getting results. I don't imagine those who spent up to 16 hours a day in meetings felt like they were on much of a junket.



But to Pax, the global warm-mongers can do no wrong, no matter how gross their hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? I haven't heard anybody advocating the end of international diplomacy in the interests of reducing carbon emissions. I haven't heard anybody suggest that air travel needs to end, or air conditioners be abolished. You keep crying hypocrisy over this, yet I haven't heard you name a single act of explicit hypocrisy (i.e somebody doing something that they tell others not to do). What would they have to do for you not to be crying hypocrisy over Bali (that's slightly rhetorical, as I expect you would find a reason to cry hypocrisy however the conference was conducted).?

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2007, 12:17 AM
It's an INTERNATIONAL conference. Wherever you put it, people have to fly to get there. Putting it in the middle of Europe would barely make any difference.
Well, obviously you put the conference in a central location to minimize the amount of flying.

And Angus Friday of Grenada (http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7156947), who represents small island states, said the "Bali roadmap" was disappointing and could have been agreed by e-mail instead of sending more than 10,000 delegates on carbon-spewing jets for two weeks to Bali.


Actually, Indonesia has already planted 79 million trees (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071128-AP-indonesia-deforestation.html) prior to the conference.
Watch the verb tense: "Indonesia Planting 79 Million Trees" is the actual title, and look at what the article reports:


Indonesia, which is losing its forests at a faster rate than any other country, launched a campaign on Wednesday to plant 79 million trees before it hosts a critical conference next month on climate change.

Environmental groups have called the planting program well intended but say it will mean little if the government does not immediately impose a moratorium on deforestation.

Around 300 football fields worth of trees are destroyed every hour in the archipelago due to illegal logging, mining, and slash-and-burn land clearing for highly profitable palm oil plantations.

Indonesia is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after the United States and China. According to the World Wildlife Fund, 80 percent of Indonesia's carbon emissions are from deforestation and forest degradation.

So holding a global warming conference in Indonesia is like holding a human rights conference in Zimbabwe. Come to think of it, since the UN actually appointed countries like this and Libya to its human rights council, this is not too far fetched! But Zimbabwe is not such a great tourist destination.
But the actual evidence is meaningless to the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37)like Pax. No matter what hypocrisy is proven, it is irrelevant, because the Anointed are by definition superior to the rest of us, so are not expected to make the same sacrifices that they demand of us.


Exempt from what? The whole point of Bali is getting the developing world on board.
Yeah right. Without China, it is a gigantic farce. Australia could go back to horse and buggy without making the slightest difference to global temperature.


What hypocrisy? I haven't heard anybody advocating the end of international diplomacy in the interests of reducing carbon emissions. I haven't heard anybody suggest that air travel needs to end, or air conditioners be abolished. You keep crying hypocrisy over this, yet I haven't heard you name a single act of explicit hypocrisy (i.e somebody doing something that they tell others not to do).
Duh, the point is that their jetsetting emits far more CO2 than the evil SUV drivers they whinge about. E.g. alGore's producer Laurie David screams abuse at SUV drivers from her Prius window, but takes two holidays on her private jet per year. This burns emits more CO2 every hour than most people drive in a year. But at least she feels terribly guilty about it, she says, which is OK since for the Anointed, feelings and nice-sounding intentions matter more than results.

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2007, 11:23 AM
Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not (http://www.lttonline.co.uk/lttxtraarticle.php?uid=7064)."

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2007, 03:54 PM
Mark Steyn knocks the Gulfstream Greenies and misanthropes in Children? Not if you love the planet (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/child-birth-homeless-1942317-year-percent):


Last week, in the Medical Journal of Australia, Barry Walters went further: To hell with this wimp-o pantywaist "voluntary" child-reduction. Professor Walters wants a "carbon tax" on babies, with, conversely, "carbon credits" for those who undergo sterilization procedures. So that'd be great news for the female eco-activists recently profiled in London's Daily Mail who boast about how they'd had their tubes tied and babies aborted in order to save the planet. "Every person who is born," says Toni Vernelli, "produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases and adds to the problem of overpopulation." We are the pollution, and sterilization is the solution. The best way to bequeath a more sustainable environment to our children is not to have any.

What's the "pro-choice" line? "Every child should be wanted"? Not anymore. The progressive position has subtly evolved: Every child should be unwanted.

By the way, if you’re looking for some last-minute stocking stuffers, Oxford University Press has published a book by professor David Benatar of the University of Cape Town called Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. The author “argues for the ‘anti-natal’ view – that it is always wrong to have children … . Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct."…

Lest you think the above are “extremists,” consider how deeply invested the “mainstream” is in a total fiction. At the recent climate jamboree in Bali, the Rev. Al Gore told the assembled faithful: “My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here.” Really? The American Thinker’s Web site ran the numbers. In the seven years between the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here’s what happened:


Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;
Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and
Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.


It’s hard not to conclude a form of mental illness has gripped the world’s elites. If you're one of that dwindling band of Westerners who'll be celebrating the birth of a child, "homeless" or otherwise, next week, make the most of it. A year or two on, and the eco-professors will propose banning Nativity scenes because they set a bad example.

Axiom
17-12-2007, 05:24 PM
An axiomatic principle i employ in situations of such grand farce, is to ask what was the genesis.
ie. where , when ,what was the genesis of this man made global warming idea, and who launched it.
My suspicions are that it is not born of some mass collective paranoid psychosis(although that helps fuel it), but purposefully engineered by the most powerful for some hidden agenda.
Perhaps to condition us to accept a global eugenics policy ?

pax
17-12-2007, 06:46 PM
Well, obviously you put the conference in a central location to minimize the amount of flying.

In case you hadn't noticed, we live on a sphere. Or are you pushing flat-earth theory now?



So holding a global warming conference in Indonesia is like holding a human rights conference in Zimbabwe.

You're talking out both sides of your head. Either you want the developing world involved in this, or you don't (again, rhetorical, as you clearly want nobody involved in it).

You asked for 3 million trees to be planted to offset the emissions of the conference, I pointed out 79 million. Do you think 79 million trees would have been planted without the conference?

You have still failed to point out any specific act of hypocrisy on the part of conference delegates.

Vlad
17-12-2007, 09:26 PM
In case you hadn't noticed, we live on a sphere. Or are you pushing flat-earth theory now?


Did not expect to get this comment from you... Do you think population is uniformly distributed? If not, there could be an optimal point that minimizes overall travel.

pax
17-12-2007, 10:18 PM
Did not expect to get this comment from you... Do you think population is uniformly distributed? If not, there could be an optimal point that minimizes overall travel.

Come on Vlad, I was just being provocative.

Of course there is an optimal point. But can you tell me where it is? And can you tell me what the difference in net travel is between that point and Bali?

In an overall sense, I'd have thought the optimal point is probably the country that is willing to plant 79 million trees in the lead-up.