John Howard's final years hit households

[IQSRLOW]

Or at the very least, follow the leaders.

So said the naive...

[Deathridesahorse]

Or at the very least, follow the leaders.

So said the naive...

"No man is an island unto himself...."

[pakistani_dalek]

John Howards final magnanimous gesture

[BrokenDrum]

Rudd is locked into carbon trading, not taxes, and may end up handing out a lot of the permits. Carbon Taxation would be a good idea, if used to reduce other taxes.

I'm curious as to why carbon taxation is necessary when the science of 'global warming' is entirely unproven. NASA for instance recorded decreasing temperatures over the past decade, we are getting record lows this winter in various parts of Australia, and the lowering temperatures are coinciding with a decrease in sunspot activity.

This is why they don't call it "global warming" any more. They call it "climate change".

I also fail to understand the way conservative politicians let the science remain unchallenged - is the public simply too dumb to handle a debate on the issue?

[Deathridesahorse]

Rudd is locked into carbon trading, not taxes, and may end up handing out a lot of the permits. Carbon Taxation would be a good idea, if used to reduce other taxes.

I'm curious as to why carbon taxation is necessary when the science of 'global warming' is entirely unproven. NASA for instance recorded decreasing temperatures over the past decade, we are getting record lows this winter in various parts of Australia, and the lowering temperatures are coinciding with a decrease in sunspot activity.

This is why they don't call it "global warming" any more. They call it "climate change".

I also fail to understand the way conservative politicians let the science remain unchallenged - is the public simply too dumb to handle a debate on the issue?

It's all about the words: they are giving the planet the benefit of the doubt.

This means, although unproved(it's hard to prove anything in science as science relies on the inability to disprove theories), there is consensus that there may be a serious problem with CO2 emissions and if left unchecked ocean currents may change etc...

You don't insure a house because you know it's going to burn down: you insure it because it might!

Sunspot activity works in 11 year cycles and is quite well known. Climate, and therefore Climate Change, is a longer term trend than this!

Obviously conservative politicians aren't scientists!

[freediver]

I'm curious as to why carbon taxation is necessary when the science of 'global warming' is entirely unproven.

It's about risk management, or good governance. Science never offers proof of anything, just a currently accepted theory. Only a fool would wait for 100% certainty before abating a risk.

NASA for instance recorded decreasing temperatures over the past decade, we are getting record lows this winter in various parts of Australia, and the lowering temperatures are coinciding with a decrease in sunspot activity.

This is a slightly more subtle, but no less stupid argument than 'there was a frost this morning, so globalw arming isn't happening'. AGW does not rpedict a steady rise. You still get variation with day and night, wind direction, summer and winter, sunspots etc.

This is why they don't call it "global warming" any more. They call it "climate change".

No, they call it climate change because the warming will not be uniform and because things like rainfall pattern changes may be mroe significant. Also, it could lead to an ice age. The earth's atmosphere is a non-linear system and we are pushing it into uncharted territory.

I also fail to understand the way conservative politicians let the science remain unchallenged - is the public simply too dumb to handle a debate on the issue?

Too ignorant really. The science is complex, and you can't expect the general public to have a sensiblke technical discussion. You might as well get a bloke down the pub to design a nuclear pwoer plant for us. Conservative politicians don't challenge the scientists because the scientists are the ones who know what theya re talking about.

[BrokenDrumm]

4

This is a slightly more subtle, but no less stupid argument than 'there was a frost this morning, so globalw arming isn't happening'. AGW does not rpedict a steady rise. You still get variation with day and night, wind direction, summer and winter, sunspots etc.

I'll explain it a little clearer.

Temperatures over the last decade DROPPED ... (here comes the good part ...)

... DESPITE CARBON OUTPUT INCREASING DURING THIS PERIOD.

What coincided with this? Sunspot activity!

We have many periods in history with hotter temperatures on record than the current period.

That's why they changed the name to "climate change" rather than "global warming". If you disprove the globe is warming, you can fall back on, "well, the climate is still changing, but it's all too complicated for you to understand, so please accept the word of this scientist we are funding to give us our conclusion."

No one disputes the climate changes ... what's disputed is that we can affect things to such catastrophic degrees.

So, it's time to ask: who benefits?

The main target of 'climate change' hysteria is the USA. China is the greatest polluter (all the socialist countries puke out incredible amounts of pollution, yet 'climate change' is their bandwagon.)


The global warming doomsday hysteria is the world's greatest scam, simply done to put a great big ball and chain to weigh down the economies of the west, for the advantage of those concocting the scam. It's why those puppetting this movement won't accept going nuclear - that's a solution that'd work and improve the economics of it all.

[freediver]

Temperatures over the last decade DROPPED ... (here comes the good part ...)

... DESPITE CARBON OUTPUT INCREASING DURING THIS PERIOD.

Temperatures have also dropped opver the last two hours. I farted several times during this period. Does that also disprove AGW?

We have many periods in history with hotter temperatures on record than the current period.

But not the rate of change, nor the CO2 imbalance.

The global warming doomsday hysteria is the world's greatest scam

So it's a big conspiracy? Is Putin responsible for this as well?

[BrokenDrum]

Temperatures over the last decade DROPPED ... (here comes the good part ...)

... DESPITE CARBON OUTPUT INCREASING DURING THIS PERIOD.

Temperatures have also dropped opver the last two hours. I farted several times during this period. Does that also disprove AGW?

We have many periods in history with hotter temperatures on record than the current period.

But not the rate of change, nor the CO2 imbalance.

The global warming doomsday hysteria is the world's greatest scam

So it's a big conspiracy? Is Putin responsible for this as well?

Yes, it is indeed a big conspiracy, though you adopt that sneering tone and the word 'conspiracy' to make me sound like a whacko. I'm afraid you are the one who sounds like a whacko. Let me use your logic: I have a theory that the fart you just described will cause a kind of butterfly effect chain reaction, ending in global destruction. I have paid several scientists to verify my concerns (while ignoring or actively villifying others who doubt it.)

So, my proposed solution just happens to disadvantage my enemies in a major way, convenient for me. I propose X Y Z measure, each of which, when the fineprint is examined (which hysterical shriekers of this theory, like you, never bother to examine) benefit me economically and politically whilst damaging my enemies. Which is a forunate coincidence, again.

The rate of change you're so worried about coincides with increased / decreased sunspot activity. Have you noticed that big blazing ball in the sky? It's hard to look at, granted, but we do get rather a lot of energy from it. It's called "the sun". Does it seem reasonable to you that perhaps our climate may just have something to do with it?

As for the 'rate of change', may I point out we have been paying close attention to the 'rate of change' only recently? As in, the last couple decades? We didn't measure this stuff closely in the 1800s - this branch of science practically didn't exist. So you are just parrotting stuff now without any actual idea if it's true or not - what matters to you is that whatever you say services the argument (hence dodgy tactics like misrepresenting my arguments / ad-homenims.)

Do you suppose perhaps that it's worth examining closer, given the drastic measures you insist must be implemented now? As in, they must be implemented THIS VERY SECOND, according to doomsday alarmists, even though the world has cooled over the past decade? (Hence re-naming the, um, crisis from "global warming" to "climate change"?)

I'd say this, um, miraculous cooling of temperatures over the past decade has, at least, bought us a little time to think it through. Don't you? I realize "global warming", oops "climate change" is a handy election plank for leftist governments ... gosh, could that have something to do with perpetuating the myth?

[Guest]

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/perjury/