Jump to content
The Corroboree
Halcyon Daze

Climate Scientists Recieve Death Threats

Recommended Posts

I think this is the best responce you have personally added to this debate. I agree with most of what you have said here.

 

Thanks mateblush.gif....I don't do well at expressing myself or getting my point of view across....I know what I want to say but it never quit comes out the same at the other end..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the sentiment.....there is anger out there and you can see it in the polls whether you want to admit it or not....

 

Not surprisingly considering the stance of the "news media" with their agendas. I have to listen to the radio all day at once of my work-places and it's pathetic sensationalism. "Many people are going to be out of pocket...aeroplane tickets, groceries..." it's getting boring. Fuck it haha I'm not even going to continue for what, in effect, will cost most people a few dollarsper week, crankily being forced to invest in the future of life as we know it. I'm not going to spend weeks of my life whinging or getting worked up about what will cost anyone earning a minimum wage minutes to pay.

Enjpoy your life, hutch, if this is how you do it best. :)

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly considering the stance of the "news media" with their agendas. I have to listen to the radio all day at once of my work-places and it's pathetic sensationalism. "Many people are going to be out of pocket...aeroplane tickets, groceries..." it's getting boring. Fuck it haha I'm not even going to continue for what, in effect, will cost most people a few dollarsper week, crankily being forced to invest in the future of life as we know it. I'm not going to spend weeks of my life whinging or getting worked up about what will cost anyone earning a minimum wage minutes to pay.

Enjpoy your life, hutch, if this is how you do it best. :)

Peace.

 

Proof in point......they haven't sold it well have they? Why is it you believe that it will only cost a few dollars per week? Every job lost will be way more pain than just that and it is well recognized this will cost jobs. You so easily simplify things to "a few dollars per week". Some of us don't have a few dollars a week left and given this governments history, I and obviously most of the rest of us have no faith that they can pull it off. You actually are starting to sound like you realize this is wrong so you will just take your bat and ball and go home.

"Its getting boring" "I'm not even going to continue" "Enjpoy your life, hutch, if this is how you do it best"
.....not much you can add I suppose because the warmest/alarmist crowd have run their race..Its all out there and its not adding up....other scientists keep finding flaws. Like I said earlier, you need a real disaster that can definitely be attributed to the earth warming. The longer they keep putting up graphs that show the earth not over heating nor trending that way then the weaker your argument will become. So you enjoy your life as well...I'm comfortable being me thanks....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPPOSITION environment spokesman Greg Hunt has said this...

1) The difference between the European and Australian carbon abatement programs: Europe's ETS costs $1 per person. Australia's carbon tax will cost $400 per person.

"The Australian carbon tax will be 18 times larger in dollar terms than the European scheme to date," he says.

2) Australia's carbon tax means a huge outflow of funds overseas to buy carbon permits: From $3.5 billion in 2020, blowing out to $23 billion by 2050.

"Each man, woman and child in this country will be transferring $600 a year to foreign owners of permits. Whatever one may think of those transfers, they mean the government's compensation promise is vastly underfunded."

And for what? Australia can abandon its cheap power advantage, close down all its coal-fired power stations and sink into the ocean and the earth's temperature will not change one jot.

Meanwhile, we keep exporting our coal to China so it can benefit from cheap power and emit whatever it likes.

Can anybody refute this?

http://blogs.news.co...ats_it_all_for/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at least Howard had the balls to take the GST to an election and let the people decide.

Yeah, and the people decided "no".

The Coalition won 49% of the 1998 two party-preferred votes, and Beazley/Labor won 51% - it was the peculiarities of unbalanced vote distribution in the electorates that got Howard over the line. And in the Senate Howard had to hound Meg Lees to get the bill passed - and her decision to do so completely destroyed her party, the Australian Democrats.

But as ever, truth-revealing detail has never been your forté, has it?

...from the great man Andrew Bolt...

You mean this Andrew Bolt, who wouldn't know science if it ripped his arms off and slapped his face with the wet ends?

Heh, if Bolt is your guide to anything then you're barking mad.

...how much will this tax reduce the worlds temperature by?

What the tax will do is instigate the beginning of the changes that Australia needs to make in order to meet its share of the effect required to ensure that the planet will not warm more than 2 degrees C.

You've been told previously that humans have put so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it will take centuries for the global temperature to return to its pre-Industrial Revolution average: the whole point of emissions reduction is not to cool the planet, but to prevent it from warming more than it already has, and is already committed to.

If this point is too complicated for you to understand, feel free to say so - we might be able to explain it using pretty pictures, or something else simple, that might permit you to understand.

All the lies and exaggerations have now blinded people to what may be true.

What lies? What exaggerations?

It's like they keep getting caught out crying woof...

F'rinstance?

But the human species is very adaptive so I have no doubt we will survive into the future no matter what happens.

Some of "the... species" might survive, but given the environmental changes that will accompany global warming, and given that oil and coal are both going to run out in the process of baking the planet, future human societies simply will not have the energy reserves available to preserve their current structure.

It will be ugly.

...the warmest/alarmist crowd have run their race..Its all out there and its not adding up....other scientists keep finding flaws.

See, you keep saying this but you don't ever present anything that stands up to scrutiny.

Exactly what is it that doesn't add up Hutch? Where are the flaws in the science? Who are these remarkable scientists who have discovered these supposed flaws, and the incompetence and the fraud?

Why is it that none of your sources are ever clear in explicitly making their cases?

[Edit: spelling]

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Woody.....going to shit hey? Blind to anything that doesn't hold true to your line right till the end. You can never see a fault in anything if supports your view. All you resorted to once again was attacking everything and everyone that didn't agree. How can you say there has been no lies or exaggerations? I know you haven't been hiding under a rock so it is stupid for you to deny none have happened and it is a waste of my time to go back and find them for you...come on now...you should know I wouldn't bother and I thought you smarter than a denier of obvious truths..tongue.gifYou deny faithfully that there is any crack in the fabric of your argument and that major damage hasn't been done to the reputations of those you hold so dear...You have said many times I am a lost cause but you better do better to edgamacate the rest of the "IDIOTS" out there in the real world cause you have lost them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure which is the con tho mate. Climate change or the Solutions? It seems to me that stuff IS happening. If the data on Carbon emmissions effect on Temp rises is correct no amount of tax can save us. Perhaps we just need to continue to be adaptive. Look at the land reclaiming in Holland. Humans WILL survive.

 

Self-sustainability will no doubt be a huge part of our future evolution. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, and the people decided "no".

The Coalition won 49% of the 1998 two party-preferred votes, and Beazley/Labor won 51% - it was the peculiarities of unbalanced vote distribution in the electorates that got Howard over the line. And in the Senate Howard had to hound Meg Lees to get the bill passed - and her decision to do so completely destroyed her party, the Australian Democrats.

But as ever, truth-revealing detail has never been your forté, has it?

Two party preferred doesn't win an election....Howard won the election and the rest is history......

Edited by hutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of "the... species" might survive, but given the environmental changes that will accompany global warming, and given that oil and coal are both going to run out in the process of baking the planet, future human societies simply will not have the energy reserves available to preserve their current structure.

It will be ugly.

 

This is a load of crap. There is no way we are going to run out of resources before this ends, if we do go into a mass extinction we will still have resources left before this happens. Technology is advancing at such a rate that I find it hard to believe we will expend our entire resource bank before adopting other ways of creating energy. Its just the convenient option for now. Efficiency will also increase.

It will get ugly, but not for a select few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You actually are starting to sound like you realize this is wrong so you will just take your bat and ball and go home......not much you can add I suppose because the warmest/alarmist crowd have run their race..

I don't care to challenge this because I have much larger priorities in my life than fighting what, at its worst, is (if your opinions are true) un-necessary but still beneficial environmentalism. If all that matters are your dollars, move to the USA where commerce trumps life. You've already got the spelling suiterizified to that country. ;) There's a whole world outside of our 2nd place on the human development index...why is it that you're concerned about "our" jobs leaving "our" country? That's not very free market of you. :o

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutch.

I notice from you a lot of blah blah blah:

Hello Woody.....going to shit hey? Blind to anything that doesn't hold true to your line right till the end. You can never see a fault in anything if supports your view. All you resorted to once again was attacking everything and everyone that didn't agree. How can you say there has been no lies or exaggerations? I know you haven't been hiding under a rock so it is stupid for you to deny none have happened and it is a waste of my time to go back and find them for you...come on now...you should know I wouldn't bother and I thought you smarter than a denier of obvious truths..Posted ImageYou deny faithfully that there is any crack in the fabric of your argument and that major damage hasn't been done to the reputations of those you hold so dear...You have said many times I am a lost cause but you better do better to edgamacate the rest of the "IDIOTS" out there in the real world cause you have lost them.

and still no addressing of why climate science and physics are wrong.

I take that this indicates that you still have no case.

Fair enough.

Two party preferred doesn't win an election....Howard won the election and the rest is history......

Your point was that the "people decide[d]" in favour of the GST. My point was that a majority of Australians did not vote for the Coalition when it was proposing the GST. It was uneven electoral vote distribution that returned the Howard government, as well as the capitulation of a senator who destroyed her party in order to give Howard what he wanted.

What I was doing was pointing out the speciousness in your argument.

Of course, in hindsight the GST did not bring down the Australian economy. Nor did superannuation - remember when the Liberals told us that the sky would fall if super was brought in? And it will be the same with a carbon tax... Abbott will try as hard as he can to whip up hysteria amongst the uneducated and the suggestible, but it's not the end of the world.

As for myself, as a low income earner, I wish that the carbon price was active now - I will be a definite winner in terms of disposable income. The sooner, the better, I say. I'm especially pleased with yesterday's news that the tax threshold has gone from $6000 to $18200. That's a bloody good reform.

For anyone who wants to learn a bit about the carbon tax one good place to start is here - it has some really good explanations, and no degree in economics is required to understand it. All it needs is ten minutes of attention and some reading skills. Even you, Hutch, might be able to get through it...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting to see now if abbott's going to go tit-for-tat in compo (i.e. keep it all in) and repeal the carbon price, roll back the tax free threshold and find the money to fund his direct action plan, i don't think there's that much room to move in the budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qualia.

Interesting, indeed!

Abbott's announced today that he's staking his political life on dumping a carbon price, and on unwinding the structures that have been built to deliver it.

Frankly, this is crazy talk. By the time that the next election comes along, there will be much more international involvement in carbon pricing, and going backwards at that time would only harm Australia's growing 21st century low-carbon economy. And there's the little fact that to enact his policy, Abbott would have to greatly increase the taxes of low and middle income earners in order to pay the big polluters to engage in "direct action" - a nebulous concept which, going with Abbott's interpretation, would in practise just be pissing in the wind.

And there'd be no guarantee that the big polluters would actually use all of their Abbott grants to actually reduce their emissions - Abbott thinks that it will all happen voluntarily. It's actually quite bizarre that Abbott wants to go with Big Business welfare rather than a market-based pricing mechanism... essentially what's happening is that Abbott is engaging in industry socialism (that ideological boogie-man so loathed of Hutch), and the Gillard government has gone all free-market.

Sadly, because 50% of Australia's voters are of below average intelligence, there's always the distinct possibility that Abbott will use this fact to appeal to their lizard brains. fishing07.gif Tonight's Q & A episode clearly illustrated that many people simply do not know what the science is about, and that a few queue words, like "tax" and "jobs", is enough to herd them into the pen where Abbott wants them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last night I saw an intersting intervieuw on youtube. A russian guy living in th USA talking about the US economy. he said the US economy is in DEEP SHIT,...because the model is based on annual growth (more consumption). he said the US would be better off,... either shifting to trying to survive or better yet to shift their model to one of sustainability.

the reason i mention this is that the sustainability model fits right in with an alternative energy recources lifestyle changes that need to be made.

Hutch,.... did not read most your comments,....but from what gathered when I glanced over them is that you really take a hard stance against the C-tax,... I can imagine that if you are not financially well off that being squeezed out of your hard earned money is a bitch,.... have some good fate man,... hope that the c-tax revenue will be spent in a good way,... if not,... hahaha,.. then you have another good thing to laugh (or bitch about) in the future.

I think it would be a good thing if the OZ government could clearly show the public where the C-tax money will be spent on. Hutch you already told me of the many failures of gov project spending,.... but not trying is worse then sitting around and doing nothing. perhaps when oil prices reach new highs in the future some projects will start becomming economically viable.

btw folks,... the illuminati are going to thin out the world human population..... last night i saw Codex Alimentarius on Utoob.... scary stuff. I think it was mentioned on SAB before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qualia.

Sadly, because 50% of Australia's voters are of below average intelligence, there's always the distinct possibility that Abbott will use this fact to appeal to their lizard brains. fishing07.gif

 

And there it is....Your belief in your superiority is on show for the world to see. 50% you reckon? What pisses you off is you haven't been able to convince the lizards. The lizards rule and that rattles you. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could cull those below a certain IQ.

For a long time now you haven't been able to put anything up but insults...wonder why? Not much left to bang on about is there? The lizards will sink your utopia and that makes me happier than you could ever know. I can sense the frustration in everything you write lately..."why are these lizards not listening'? I've tried to tell you why but each time you give a perfect example as to why hardly nobody in the outside world believes you any more. Sure your little crew here will jump in with you and cheer you on to glory but that's here....elsewhere its a way different story and you know it. You are so quick to slag off anything or anyone that may harm your dreams. Bad luck Woody baby....Your utopia is fucked and its all because of us lizards.....I thought a Wood Dragon was a lizard anyway..... apparently its just a little Sydney nerd who believes himself to be better than the rest. What ever happened to good old fashioned humility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last night I saw an intersting intervieuw on youtube. A russian guy living in th USA talking about the US economy. he said the US economy is in DEEP SHIT,...because the model is based on annual growth (more consumption). he said the US would be better off,... either shifting to trying to survive or better yet to shift their model to one of sustainability.

the reason i mention this is that the sustainability model fits right in with an alternative energy recources lifestyle changes that need to be made.

Hutch,.... did not read most your comments,....but from what gathered when I glanced over them is that you really take a hard stance against the C-tax,... I can imagine that if you are not financially well off that being squeezed out of your hard earned money is a bitch,.... have some good fate man,... hope that the c-tax revenue will be spent in a good way,... if not,... hahaha,.. then you have another good thing to laugh (or bitch about) in the future.

I think it would be a good thing if the OZ government could clearly show the public where the C-tax money will be spent on. Hutch you already told me of the many failures of gov project spending,.... but not trying is worse then sitting around and doing nothing. perhaps when oil prices reach new highs in the future some projects will start becomming economically viable.

btw folks,... the illuminati are going to thin out the world human population..... last night i saw Codex Alimentarius on Utoob.... scary stuff. I think it was mentioned on SAB before

 

Can we afford to take this chance? If something like this was being introduce by the coalition I would have more faith in its implementation. Still don't believe it will make an ounce of difference but least I would be comfortable they could roll it out. This government has shown since 2007 that it can implement nothing. It has zero credibility. And yes mate, you are right I am doing it tough. Sometimes life has a way of making sudden changes that you hadn't planned on. One day you are State Manager of a major international company on brilliant money and the next you are on a carers pension. Now that's a big change in income. I now truly know what it is like to be living below the poverty line. Your life can change in a heart beat. You might think a few bucks a week is simple why are they whining. Try paying a mortgage on a pension? Try living on a pension......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What lies? What exaggerations?

 

Her you go...here is an easy one for you to deal with....not an exaggeration?

March 2000:

 

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,
.

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

May, 2008:

 

Scientists say Australian skiers should prepare for shorter ski seasons because of global warming…
.

July 2011:

 

The 158.9cm-deep snow promises plenty of powder this season. The last time there was snow this thick early in July was in 1990.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting to see now if abbott's going to go tit-for-tat in compo (i.e. keep it all in) and repeal the carbon price, roll back the tax free threshold and find the money to fund his direct action plan, i don't think there's that much room to move in the budget.

 

It only takes one Labor politician to cross the floor and this is all over before it starts. They are under intense pressure at the moment given the avalanche of public opinion against it. Don't be surprised. They know they are on a hiding to no where. By challenging the government they very well may save their own seat and humiliation. Any day now this could all come crumbling down....Prey to god.....

Edit: Spelling

Edited by hutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JUST TRUST ME....

gillll_thumb.jpg

You wont win the debate unless she starts talking to those with a different opinion other than "just vote yes"....These are the very reasons you are loosing public support...you know, from the majority with below average IQ's....Her performance on Q&A was sickly and scattered with lies and deceits......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An article in the Guardian regarding Australia's carbon tax

Interesting to read an international perspective on this.

Australia has unveiled its most sweeping economic reform in decades, including a plan to tax carbon emissions from the country's worst polluters. As the largest emissions trading scheme outside Europe, it revives hopes of stronger global climate action.

 

Australia is the developed world's worst per-capita greenhouse gas emitter because of its heavy reliance on cheap coal for power generation. Emissions are likely to rise in the booming economy without a carbon tax, the government says.

 

It could also aid global efforts to fight carbon pollution, which have largely stalled since the US president, Barack Obama, last year ruled out a federal climate bill in his present term. Outside the EU, only New Zealand has a national carbon scheme.

"Other countries will look at one of the most carbon polluting economies on the planet that has made one huge stride forward towards putting a price on carbon," said John Connor, chief executive of The Climate Institute.

 

Europe's system, which covers the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, has forced power producers to pay for carbon emissions, driving cuts where power plants were forced to switch to cleaner natural gas or biomass.

 

I think the point regarding Australia's adoption of a carbon tax encouraging other nations to tackle climate change is a good one. As a developed nation with a very high standard of living and one of the highest carbon emissions per capita I think its our obligation to be one of the first countries to adopt a carbon tax or trading scheme.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greens demand NSW coal power closures

Updated July 12, 2011 09:22:00

Liddell power station in the NSW Hunter Valley.

The NSW Greens want the Liddell (pictured) and Munmorah coal-fired stations replaced with solar power. (Reuters: Mick Tsikas)

Map: Muswellbrook 2333

The New South Wales Greens are pushing the State Government to shut down two of the nation's oldest and most polluting power stations.

The carbon tax has prompted the State Government to consider the future of the Munmorah plant, on the central coast, and the Liddell station, in the Hunter Valley.

Premier Barry O'Farrell has described the Federal Government's tax plan as a "nightmare" for the people of NSW.

"I have asked the NSW Treasury to do a full review of the (carbon tax) package to determine the impact on NSW," Mr O'Farrell said on Sunday.

But Greens MP John Kaye says Mr O'Farrell should be taking advantage of the scheme, through a grant to pay for power stations to close.

"That's 8.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that wouldn't go into the atmosphere every year. Tens of thousands of jobs would be created and we can create the new solar thermal power industry right here in New South Wales," Dr Kaye said.

"If Mr O'Farrell doesn't act now we will lose the opportunity, this state will be condemned to being the rust-bucket state in Australia.

"If we close down Munmorah and Liddell we will need to build two new large solar-thermal power stations.

"This can be done, we can manufacture the components in the Hunter Valley, we can locate them in the Upper Hunter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadly, because 50% of Australia's voters are of below average intelligence, there's always the distinct possibility that Abbott will use this fact to appeal to their lizard brains. fishing07.gif

And there it is....Your belief in your superiority is on show for the world to see. 50% you reckon?

Hutch, Hutch, Hutch...

You really do struggle with basic statistics, don't you?

Yes, I do "reckon". In fact, more than that - I know it to be true.

By definition "average intelligence" is a hypothetical value in the middle of the human intelligence spectrum, and 50% of the population is above average, and 50% is below. This assumes, of course, that there is a Gaussian distribution of intelligence - and in humans this is almost perfectly the case.

In practice, intelligence quotient is assigned on a scale where 100 is the average, and increments are integers. At this resolution the categorisation is coarse, and getting exactly 50% to be above or below 100 on an IQ measure is not feasible, but this doesn't change the validity of my statement: 50% of Australians are of less than 'average' intelligence.

It has nothing to do with whether you think I'm being superior. It also completely misses the point that you were so predictable that I even put in a little fishing emoticon in anticipation, which in the end made no difference to your shooting from the hip.

Still, it demonstrates why you can't get your head around the basic science that you think you have so cleverly spotted as a ginormous fraud.

[Edit: spelling]

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw folks,... the illuminati are going to thin out the world human population..... last night i saw Codex Alimentarius on Utoob.... scary stuff. I think it was mentioned on SAB before

 

There are some leaders who want to halt and reduce overall populations. That doesn't neccessarily mean genocide or 'thinning' but introducing tougher policies to limit the amount of children a family can have. Whether or not or how they would do that on a global scale is only speculation. The Gorgia capstones are usually misintepretted as being a decree to kill off the worlds population to reach 500 million but all it actually states is to maintain a world population of 500 million. It's a tough one because who doesn't want less people in the world? But going around the world killing lots of people, managing the remaining infrastructure and mitigating the rebellion that would follow would be an epic, vastly expensive and morally volatile task - it would be far easier and efficient to implement more humane strategies to manage and slowly reduce population levels. While its possible this scenario of being rounded up into cities for termination could happen, the fear from such a horrific concept is also a strategy used by the conspiracy media to boost sales/views.

Whatever happens in australia is basically irrelevent anyway. Visit China and India - its going to be hard to stop those juggernauts. Some aspects of evolution are irreversable and we'll have to see them through for better or worse.

It's best to be prepared for the worse. Whatever change happens is still going to be somewhat gradual. Our ancestors have been through all sorts of instantaneous comet strikes and volcanic eruptions. That's the thing, even if we manage to band together and change the climate and population for the better, soon or later a nice big fluffy chunk of ice is going to slam into our planet, a massive supervolcano will erupt, or the ice sheets will march again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutch has been booted for not keeping his temper under control and insulting other members. This happened a few days ago in this thread and his comment was completely unrelated to this topic - it was pure and simple character assassination of someone who isn't even involved in this AGW/CT discussion to any great degree.

As always with booting someone who has views opposed to my own the first accusation by him was that I booted him to censor his views. In fact the opposite is true. I hadn't even follwoed this thread, which is why I wasn't aware of the tabloid style slime he had dished out until someone else pointed it out to me. When I have to admin a situation where a bias is likely perceived I intentionaly give that person a lot more leeway. Hutch got HEAPS of leeway because he had so quickly accumulated 2 points previously and seemed to have tried not to step over the line again. But lately his self control had obviously failed repeatedly. Once there are no warn points left it gets difficult to warn someone without booting them, yet mods, myself and a number of members have repeatedly pulled him up when he went too far.

and yes, his trolling style has contributed to the decision. There are only so many threads that need to end in global warming conspiracy arguments. It's the same discussion over and over - if it was someone else doing it with a different topic they would not have been tolerated as long.

I think hutch is a great example of why deniers are a problem. A denier is the same as a believer, but the opposite. And belief has nothing to do with science. His arguments on AGW are similar to arguing with a fundamental christian/muslim/jew - futile and irritating. I have great respect for sceptics. Some of the greatest inventions and discoveries are down to those who swam against the concensus. I think scpeticism is healthy, including in the AGW debate. If AGW is indeed wrong, then we need people who are ready with alternatives, otherwise much time will be wasted. But all such perspectives need to be based on the balance of scientific evidence. This very site is all about scepticism. Many members here are happy to look at drug research with an open mind rather than with preconceived ideas and it is only with an open mind that you can arrive at the possibility that MDMA might be healthy for the brain for example. It would be hypocritical to accept one type of scepticism while denying another.

I'd like to point out the big difference between denier and sceptic right here on his forum. Slybacon initially had strong opinions on AGW, but has learnt a lot from what woody has presented. he has kept an open mind and has learnt in the process. Whatever side he choses in the end, I have a lot of respect for him for going through the process. It is the process that eluded hutch.

As for the carbon tax I'd just like to say that it will neither have any significant effect on emissions nor will it hurt our wallets. It's about as hollow as it gets. however, it puts in place a framework for actually dealing with the emission problem in the future. if australia decides tat emissions need to be lowered [for whatever reason] then yes, it will hurt the wallet. But to think we can lower emissions without some pain is just naive.

Some comments were made about humans adapting. I am sure some of us will. But as a society things will change dramatically. we can't even adapt to a slight change in rainfall patterns without nearly going broke and we will whine for years about some self induced flooding, so how well will we cope with some dramatic changes as may be possible with AGW. Societies that do well always eventually fail and they usually fail out of arrogance, not because they had no warning. I feel that this may be our arrogant point of undoing.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×