Climate Scientists Recieve Death Threats

[WoodDragon]

George Carlin rocked.

I can't help wondering though if he laughed when he died...

[hutch]

George Carlin didn't need understanding of the scale of the problem he had true insight & a wisdom that is far beyond the reach of most human beings.

Now here's some more insight & wisdom from my boy Doug Stanhope. I'm out.

 

 

Just fucking awesome muskrat....just loved it. Never heard him before.

My favourite bits, "don't fuck in the front hole" and "help mother earth, try sodomy"....fucking classic, thanks for posting.

[hutch]

No need to flame hutch. If you're such a mature person, then act like one. Either don't enter discussions such as these, if you can't stand your ground and argue, or craft yourself a decent reply, rather than than calling someone a 'childish little fuck'.

 

Yes, thank you for your advise tripsis. From another who sits back and just throws a dig in every now and again from the side lines rather than contribute. You may think I'm wrong as the majority on this site do. I may be na "idiot" or any of those other terms I have been called. So fucking what. Do I loose any sleep because of it. No I don't. I do find the actions of you, HD and a couple of others to be like those of children. You don't really put anything up (with the exception of HD) you just like to hang shit from the sidelines with holier than thou attitudes. That pisses me off I'm sorry....likes kids in a school yard......one goes in the biff and the others eggs him on.....That is the work of juvenile brains...sorry!

[rahli]

That is the thing with science Hutch. You either know it or support it. You just can't go making it up out of thin air like some of the imaginative ideas floated around. Some of us like WoodDragon have taken the time to learn the science in depth and can confidently inform others on the outcomes. Others such as myself and many on what you perceive the side line have only learnt enough to have a fair understanding of the direction the science is pointing.

That is the thing with knowledge, the more you learn the more you see that you don't understand and appreciate and respect those that do. A little bit of knowledge is dangerous if you are unaware of the true bulk of knowledge in a certain field. It makes you believe you can discredit the entire wealth of knowledge by misunderstanding a few titbit misconstrued fact stated outside of the context of the whole.

People who are searching for the truths knowledge hold don't generally go around make threats on other peoples lives. People making the threats are generally the ones who are trying to prevent the furthering of knowledge to aline the world with their ignorance. Whether you are for or against what the morons making the threats believe, you should be against their methods of proving it if you have any respect for the evolution of knowledge wherever it may take you.

[synchromesh]

Science is an ass.

[rahli]

Science is an ass.

 

Near so as your assumed understanding of it.

[tripsis]

Yes, thank you for your advise tripsis. From another who sits back and just throws a dig in every now and again from the side lines rather than contribute. You may think I'm wrong as the majority on this site do. I may be na "idiot" or any of those other terms I have been called. So fucking what. Do I loose any sleep because of it. No I don't. I do find the actions of you, HD and a couple of others to be like those of children. You don't really put anything up (with the exception of HD) you just like to hang shit from the sidelines with holier than thou attitudes. That pisses me off I'm sorry....likes kids in a school yard......one goes in the biff and the others eggs him on.....That is the work of juvenile brains...sorry!

There's really no need to put up evidence for you hutch. As I've said before, your mind is already closed as locked door with the key thrown out, thus no point in wasting my time arguing with you. There's a wealth of evidence out there to support that anthropogenic climate change is real and happening. But you 'contribute', like a man apparently (never seen any childish remarks coming from you, have we? ), by linking to an endless supply of pseudoscience denialist propaganda. You're a step away from a religious fundamentalist with your narrow-minded views, your decision that ACC is fake and that nothing that could happen will sway you from that view. Doesn't matter how much science there is to back up the claims, you'd rather believe pseudoscientific garbage.

Edited June 26, 2011 by tripsis

[hutch]

There's really no need to put up evidence for you hutch. As I've said before, your mind is already closed as locked door with the key thrown out, thus no point in wasting my time arguing with you. There's a wealth of evidence out there to support that anthropogenic climate change is real and happening. But you 'contribute', like a man apparently (never seen any childish remarks coming from you, have we? ), by linking to an endless supply of pseudoscience denialist propaganda. You're a step away from a religious fundamentalist with your narrow-minded views, your decision that ACC is fake and that nothing that could happen will sway you from that view. Doesn't matter how much science there is to back up the claims, you'd rather believe pseudoscientific garbage.

 

You never read anything I've put up so how would you know.

No one has mentioned the over 900 peer reviewed documents that I have put up elsewhere that refute what you say. Not even Woody! Pick out the crap bits and howl those down and in so doing howl down and shut down the rest. Works a treat doesn't it? Just call it pseudoscientific garbage make me look like a goose and shut me up. Sure there is a percentage of crap. I don't make this shit up I just present it for your enjoyment as I stumble over it. You say there is a wealth of evidence to support and I say there is a stack of evidence to reject.

By some of the reckoning here you are saying that unless you have researched and proven everything you have read about the subject you should not put it out there. Well fuck that! that don't sit too right with me. I will keep putting it up there for as long as I feel there is something not quit right. For as long as one dud alarmist prediction after the other fails to materialize. I don't feel comfortable walking around with my head up my arse believing everything the authorities would like me to believe. Half you guys are tools of that authority...

Example : "The science is in" "and its looking grim".........what absolute shit that has been disproven over and over again. If a scientist tells me or wishes me to believe that "the science is settled" then he is a fool and in the wrong profession.

Edited June 26, 2011 by hutch

[rahli]

By some of the reckoning here you are saying that unless you have researched and proven everything you have read about the subject you should not put it out there. Well fuck that! that don't sit too right with me.

 

Correct according to scientific inquiry. Why would you base your understanding of a subject on facts that you believe may be bullshit?

Why try to understand the depths of a knowledge field when you don't have the tools to interpret it? This is why in the modern world we have folks who devote their lives to furthering knowledge so we can take advice from them on their field of expertise.

If you discredit everything that you don't understand in detail you won't believe in much.

[hutch]

This is why in the modern world we have folks who devote their lives to furthering knowledge so we can take advice from them on their field of expertise.

 

And they are all right rahli? We should we just sit back and listen and agree with all they say cause they are supposedly much wiser than the rest of us. History continues to tell a different story. One driven by greed......What about those wonderful folk who brought you thalidomide?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/the-50-year-battle-for-the-love-of-lynny-rowe/story-e6freuzi-1226081605913

There are stacks of them so I wont bother dragging them out.....The problem with your modern world is by the morning it is outdated and science comes back and bites us in the arse.

Again, what about the 900 plus peer reviewed documents that speak a different story? There number keep growing daily. Science is settled...yeah right....

[Halcyon Daze]

I guess I should mention that Monckton has made some public apologies about his comments. Kinda surprised me to hear that, probably because he got so flamed over it.

Questioning the science is what scientists do on a regular basis. Scientists are the true skeptics, it forms the basis of the scientific method and hypothesis testing etc.

But eventually you get to the point where you can say you're 99% sure of this and one dodgy graph sponsored by an oil company ain't gonna change it.

There's 6.7 billion people on this planet, wiping out forests and pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Those who say that humans are not having any effect on the atmosphere are abandoning common sense and want to be owned by an oil company.

Is that what you want us to do Hutch? Abandon common sense and be OWNED? No way sucker!

[rahli]

And they are all right rahli? We should we just sit back and listen and agree with all they say cause they are supposedly much wiser than the rest of us. History continues to tell a different story. One driven by greed......What about those wonderful folk who brought you thalidomide?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/the-50-year-battle-for-the-love-of-lynny-rowe/story-e6freuzi-1226081605913

There are stacks of them so I wont bother dragging them out.....The problem with your modern world is by the morning it is outdated and science comes back and bites us in the arse.

Again, what about the 900 plus peer reviewed documents that speak a different story? There number keep growing daily. Science is settled...yeah right....

 

Hutch if you cease to believe an entire knowledge system because it has been misapplied on a number of occasions you will not believe in much either.

When science is proven to have been misapplied for ill gotten gain victims are compensated by the system in an attempt to right past wrongs. If we were to direct policies on the advice of the scientists that you reference, who will compensate the entire peoples of the world and with what, when they are proven wrong?

[tripsis]

Hutch, your stance appears to be one of generalist anti-science, yet here you sit, in front of a computer, built through technology brought about by science. If you have such a problem with science, abandon your life as you know it and go live naked in a cave.

Again, what about the 900 plus peer reviewed documents that speak a different story? There number keep growing daily. Science is settled...yeah right....

But wait, those peer reviewed articles are supposed to be science, right? Funny how you use science to try to back your argument when it suits you, yet discredit the science when it doesn't.

[The Dude]

When science is proven to have been misapplied for ill gotten gain victims are compensated by the system in an attempt to right past wrongs.

 

...Really? So much science and technology is used for malicious purposes all the time! Science is twisted for desired results and funding plays a key part. I guess we'll just have to wait until somebody proves H.A.A.R.P technology has been misapplied for ill gotten gain. What does the scientific consensus say on the possibility of weather manipulation?

We obviously gotta stop polluting this much and live more eco-friendly, fuck a carbon tax off for a joke though! As far as economic concerns dictate our personal survival in the system, this carbon tax may as well be a death threat for some. Maybe a bit dramatic but a great depression scenario doesn't sound fun.

So how's everyones veggie patch, solar panels and wind turbines going? Don't forget a rainwater tank with a nice filter to avoid them nasty heavy metal in our air... chemtrails, another imaginary conspiracy, don't worry about it, I'm sure we'll be compensated later.

Edited June 26, 2011 by The Dude

[synchromesh]

Humanity > Science

Near so as your assumed understanding of it.

 

Sorry, I should have said that it was a tit instead.

Edited June 26, 2011 by synchromesh

[woof woof woof]

Uhhh,... if Carbon taxed? what are the taxes used for? if they are used for stimmulating a green/ alternative energy solutions..... then there will be jobs,...

Apparently I dont understand the problem in OZ that well, but I do seem to pick up from you that Carbon Tax is not verly liked. How high are the taxes in OZ? In The Netherlands the taxes are among the highest in the world. I think it is a matter of addapting < and I know this is difficult,.. especially if you have a family to take care of and need to be re-schooled.

I would like to see Austrailia lead the way with green & clean energy.... you MATES have allot of desert in the backyard for all kinds of interesting projects. Solar energy,... desalinate water (perhaps even reclaim some of the salinated lands)....

Maybe I am just a naive guy who dreams of making parts of the sahara green again with solar power... hahaha... why not desalinate seawater and make the sahara a top crop producing area.... why not in the OZ outback?

[woof woof woof]

Btw,.. even if HAARP has been misapplied,... i think climate change is another and even bigger problem,..... here is an interesting report. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1831

a leading climate scientist's report.

[hutch]

Hutch, your stance appears to be one of generalist anti-science, yet here you sit, in front of a computer, built through technology brought about by science. If you have such a problem with science, abandon your life as you know it and go live naked in a cave.

But wait, those peer reviewed articles are supposed to be science, right? Funny how you use science to try to back your argument when it suits you, yet discredit the science when it doesn't.

 

Tripsis, you have no idea what my stance is on anything dude so back the fuck off....what a stupid fucking thing to say...are you a fucking kid too?

I'm not anti science... I am against blind acceptance of science because I'm told to do so by dicks like you.

Look at HD for an example of some one so keen to take it up the arse....and he does it with a smile on his face....Oh to be so young and stupid again...like when I was all for "global cooling" way back then...got me there...Oh and then they got me with Y2K... got me there again....and they keep trying to come up with new ways to stick their fucking hands in my pocket...well fuck that children.....

If I had the opportunity I would love to go live naked in a cave.....I would love the opportunity to drop out...I don't want to pay your wealth redistribution tax...I don't want to be part of your fucking corrupt system any more....You can take that tax and stick it where the sun don't shine...Still nothing on the 900 + docs...just an attack on me....

Bit surprised it's you tripsis but anyway. You would think there would be more people here up in arms over this crap but alas....As HD said SUCKERS! I know privately there are more here that disagree but they are not interested in getting trashed because they have given up believing in the booga booga....oh well......I'll take the heat......

Carbon tax is economic disarmament: US MP

AUSTRALIA will be embracing "unilateral economic disarmament" if it adopts a carbon tax, says the key US Republican congressman on climate change.

In a devastating judgment for the Gillard government's carbon tax plans, Jim Sensenbrenner told The Australian the US had turned its back on a carbon tax.

Mr Sensenbrenner said cap and trade - the US term for an emissions-trading scheme - was "dead in the US".

"Any kind of direct carbon tax is dead in the US," he said.

He said the Republicans, who oppose an ETS, had won every coal seat in congress in last year's election - seats the Democrats would need to win back if they were to regain a majority in the House of Representatives.

Mr Sensenbrenner believes climate change stopped former US vice-president Al Gore from becoming president in 2000.

 

More here http://www.theaustra...x-1226082386754

[hutch]

Uhhh,... if Carbon taxed? what are the taxes used for? if they are used for stimmulating a green/ alternative energy solutions..... then there will be jobs,...

Apparently I dont understand the problem in OZ that well, but I do seem to pick up from you that Carbon Tax is not verly liked. How high are the taxes in OZ? In The Netherlands the taxes are among the highest in the world. I think it is a matter of addapting < and I know this is difficult,.. especially if you have a family to take care of and need to be re-schooled.

I would like to see Austrailia lead the way with green & clean energy.... you MATES have allot of desert in the backyard for all kinds of interesting projects. Solar energy,... desalinate water (perhaps even reclaim some of the salinated lands)....

Maybe I am just a naive guy who dreams of making parts of the sahara green again with solar power... hahaha... why not desalinate seawater and make the sahara a top crop producing area.... why not in the OZ outback?

 

Mate, have we got a couple of desalination plants just for you....biggest white elephants in the history of this country....Can't even get them to work. Seems we were once told we would never receive drought breaking rains...now we are flooded continually....mmm can those guys get anything right?

I wonder which climate scientist it was who convinced our government to blow billions of dollars in on desalination plants? And you guys expect me to listen to him? How wrong does this guy (Tim Flannery) have to be before anyone here even acknowledges it. Oh that's right...he meant well he just forgot to carry the decimal point plus he is on the right side so it don't matter....

[hutch]

So how's everyones veggie patch, solar panels and wind turbines going? Don't forget a rainwater tank with a nice filter to avoid them nasty heavy metal in our air... chemtrails, another imaginary conspiracy, don't worry about it, I'm sure we'll be compensated later.

 

I do think when they implement this tax I will be better off....but not for too long. Once the tax is in place we are all fucked. Sales of PAL dog food are booming now as our poor are struggling to cope. You are right about the vegie garden, but you need to do much more. I grow my own everything(well as much as I can), right down to my meat. I am pretty self sufficient now but not all people are as fortunate as me nor are they as capable. They are the ones that are currently huddled under blankets using garden solar lights to read a book by cause they can't afford the power. It might be warm and fuzzy to the idealists, like HD, but you are talking about real people now going without the basics. PM Brown said on telly last night that the ultimate aim is to shut down all coal fired power plants and coal mines. Thats just great for Bob and his mates. Fuck the rest of us...

Tough times ahead as food costs soar

FAMILIES are paying $1300 a year more for the same groceries than two years ago, and it's about to get worse, with food inflation set to stretch household budgets to breaking point.

The price of an average basket of groceries at any Coles and Woolworths supermarket has jumped 16 per cent since 2009, adding as much as $26 a week to the average grocery bill.

Shoppers today buying an identical basket of groceries used in Choice's 2009 supermarket survey would be paying an average of more than $158 compared to $136 two years ago.

According to Commsec economist Craig James, the average household spends $185 a week on food.

Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn was not surprised by the results.

"We all know the cost of living is increasing and energy and food prices are driving that," Mr Zinn said.

"What we need to do is inform consumers as much as we can to get the best out of their food purchase."

 

More here: http://www.heraldsun...o-1226082374004

[hutch]

And its made the scientists "tense and nervous" be better to pop a pill....

Poor loves....maybe they should join the corroboree...they could feel right at home with the other elitists we seem to have collected here lately..

The warmies aren't winning and it's making them upset.

A couple of comments from government climate change adviser Ross Garnaut and government chief scientist Ian Chubb last week hint at the irritation felt by those on the climate change panic team, many of whom are beginning to lash out in angry and amusing ways.

This is entirely understandable. After all, it must be frustrating when you wade into a public debate armed only with the combined forces of the federal government, the United Nations, the European Union, thousands of activist groups, the vast majority of the media and general elite opinion worldwide, only to find your concerns broadly rejected.

As well, according to themselves, the warmie community also has on their side the very best scientific data and expertise. But still people aren't buying the big global warming fear – "buy" being the significant phrase.

One of the most interesting points to emerge from recent Nielsen polling is how quickly Australians turned against the idea of a carbon tax once it changed from a possibility to a probability. Granted, we weren't exactly lining up to throw our money at the government's climate donation bin in the first place, but it's noteworthy that support dropped from 46 per cent during the tax's possibility phase to just 35 per cent after Julia Gillard announced the forthcoming tax.

So how are Ross and Ian coping? Not all that well, evidently. Garnaut particularly seems to be in a state of – what's the word? – denial.

Speaking to the ABC, the ANU arts graduate said that "there is no reason why carbon pricing should be a matter of partisan political division in Australia and it wasn't only a few years ago … I haven't changed my position from the one that was supported by both political parties four years ago."

Garnaut is referring to the general agreement on climate change issues held by former Labor and Liberal leaders Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. This, to him, demonstrated an era of general political unity. Everybody was hand in hand, happily marching towards carbon tax land.

To claim this as evidence of harmony is ridiculous. Turnbull's stance masked resentment towards carbon taxing among people who don't figure much in Garnaut's calculations – that is to say, people.

The more important divide isn't between political parties, but between average Australians and the likes of Rudd, Turnbull and Garnaut, who given the chance would have us signed up to a full Gore-load of climate change legislation.

The level of political support for carbon pricing isn't best shown by Turnbull's leadership. It's shown by the fact he was driven out of the leadership by a grassroots Liberal party revolt. Garnaut's selective reading of recent political history shows how willfully blind are some in the climate change lobby to obvious points of view.

Chief scientist Chubb wishes that those points of view weren't so obvious. Speaking at the National Press Club last week, Chubb said that dissenters from climate change orthodoxy ought not to be given the same prominence as climate change believers and that the media was at fault for allowing dissenters to make their case.

He also threw in a generous dose of snobbery. "There are probably people now thinking I'm partisan for saying the science is in on climate change," said Chubb. "Well, I don't think that's partisan. I think I can read English."

Bully for you, chief scientific person! Maybe with your advanced English readin' abilities you can explain to the rest of us what Julia Gillard really meant when she said there would be no carbon tax under a government she led.

The lady herself seems to be having some difficulties. "When I said those words in the election campaign I didn't mean to mislead anybody," Gillard told the ABC on Friday. "I understand that people heard those words and they look at what's happening now and they perhaps say: `What's going on? What did she mean then? What does she mean now?'"

What she meant then was that there wouldn't be a carbon tax. What she means now is that there will be a carbon tax. At least that's how I read things, but then again I don't have Chubb-level language comprehension skills.

The real problem for Chubb and co isn't that climate change dissenters are given media space. It's that space is given to climate change believers. They do a better job of destroying their own cause than might any army of oil-funded planet-eating denialists.

Skip through any anti-warmie website and you'll find quote after quote after quote from various climate change fear merchants. The anti-carbon tax movement wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fuel provided by these screaming scarebabies, whose constant hysteria was beautifully mocked last week by Daily Telegraph online commentator Irobot's reworking of the Talking Heads tune Psycho Killer:

 

 

I can't seem to face up to the facts

 

I'm tense and nervous and I can't relax

 

I can't sleep 'cause the Earth's on fire

 

Don't touch me

 

You're a climate denier

Oops! Ian Chubb will be angry that I've given yet more media space to a climate hater. In the interests of journalistic balance, then, here's an online comment from someone called Marek Bage, who argues in favour of a carbon tax: "There are about 11.5 million people working in Australia. About 150,000 of them work in the mining sector. If half of the miners lost their jobs, Australia wouldn't notice a thing."

As a summary of the left's position on the carbon tax, that's hard to beat: it's a symbolic environmental gesture that will only destroy the jobs of 75,000 people they don't care about. Why all the fuss? Let's just get on with the firing.

Back in April, the ABC reported on a climate conference in Cairns attended by "600 of Australia's top climate scientists". Just think about that for a second. In Australia alone, there are 600 people employed to future-gaze about climate stuff – and that's just the top group, leaving out all the middle- and lower-ranking climate wonks.

Would Australia notice if half of them lost their jobs? It might be fun tofind out. At least they'd have something real to complain about.

From here: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/tense_and_nervous_and_they_cant_relax/

[hutch]

Well fuck me......

Look at the mast head of the paper that is running this story The bubbles bursting......

It's the "warmest daily digest"..A little old Fairfax publication called the Age. Your right HD...things are looking grim....

What a great read.....

An inconvenient fallacy

There is no need for a carbon tax because dangerous global warming is not occurring.

WELL, you have to admit that they've tried hard. Labor, that is. In April 2007 Kevin Rudd, prior to his election as prime minister, appointed distinguished social scientist Ross Garnaut to advise the party on global warming. A strange decision, that: ''Here's a scientific problem so let's appoint an economist to give us policy advice.''

Roll forward 18 months to September 2008 and the publication of the first Garnaut report, in which we find much esoteric economic advice on how to deal with an assumed global warming problem for which no independent scientific evidence was provided. Instead, Garnaut relied then, and still relies now, upon the alarmist and politicised ''science'' provided by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, the panel's reputation as a source of credible, impartial science advice was badly damaged by the leaked ''Climate-gate'' emails in November 2009, and has since continued to decline as evidence mounts for the controlling influence of environmental lobby groups on its activities.

Pass on again to February this year, past the final defeat of the emissions trading bill in the Senate in July 2009, the collapse of the Copenhagen climate talks in December 2009 and the rise of Julia Gillard to the prime ministership in June 2010. On February 10, Tim Flannery was appointed Climate Commissioner - presumably to provide a more friendly public face to the government's anti-global warming campaign. Unfortunately, Flannery's Gaia-esque style and his numerous failed climate prognostications undermine the credibility of the commission.

Advertisement: Story continues belowNow, just last week, we discover that the new Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, believes too that ''scientific consensus … provides the best guidance we have for decisions that are informed and rational'', and that ''the science is in on climate change''.

Wrong on both counts. Where a scientific issue is involved, the best way to approach the formulation of public policy is not to base it on a contrived consensus of self-interested parties, nor to ''ask the UN'', but to pay attention to the facts and keep an open mind.

Since 2007, then, the government's chosen climate communicators have failed to confront the real climate change issue (which is natural climate hazard). Second, and as opinion polls clearly show, they have failed to convince the public that a global warming crisis exists, or that a carbon dioxide tax will have any beneficial influence on future climate. Labor's woe-is-me moment has clearly arrived.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet announced the government's solution on June 16. It is to spend $12 million on ''informing'' the electorate about the need for a carbon dioxide tax.

It is certainly true that voters need to understand better the most important facts relevant to allegedly dangerous, human-related global warming. So let us list the five most salient facts the minister might try to communicate in his advertisements.

Fact 1. A mild warming of about 0.5 degrees Celsius (well within previous natural temperature variations) occurred between 1979 and 1998, and has been followed by slight global cooling over the past 10 years. Ergo, dangerous global warming is not occurring.

Fact 2. Between 2001 and 2010 global average temperature decreased by 0.05 degrees, over the same time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 5 per cent. Ergo, carbon dioxide emissions are not driving dangerous warming.

Fact 3. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial. In increasing quantity it causes mild though diminishing warming (useful at a time of a quiet sun and likely near-future planetary cooling) and acts as a valuable plant fertiliser. Extra carbon dioxide helps to shrink the Sahara Desert, green the planet and feed the world. Ergo, carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor dangerous, but an environmental benefit.

Fact 4. Closing down the whole Australian industrial economy might result in the prevention of about 0.02 degrees of warming. Reducing emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 (the government's target) will avert an even smaller warming of about 0.002 degrees. Ergo, cutting Australian emissions will make no measurable difference to global climate.

Fact 5. For an assumed tax rate of $25 a tonne of carbon dioxide, the costs passed down to an average family of four will exceed $2000 a year.

So the cost-benefit equation is this: ''Your family pays more than $2000 a year in extra tax in return for a possible cooling of the globe by two one-thousandths of a degree.'' Remember, too, that Garnaut's recommendation is that the tax rate should be increased at 4 per cent a year, which would result in a cost doubling in less than 20 years.

In the light of these facts, little wonder the government's four horsemen of the climate apocalypse have been unable to convince the public of the desirability of carbon dioxide taxation. Labor has indeed tried hard and valiantly, but it is time to admit failure and to adopt an alternative policy.

Voters now recognise that in the absence of an international agreement no action that Australia takes can ''stop global warming''. But natural climate hazard in Australia is so dangerous that nonetheless a need remains for a politically feasible, environmentally sensible and cost-effective climate policy. That policy should be to prepare for and adapt to all climatic hazards, as and when they occur and whatever their cause.

In the meantime, watch out for those ads that Minister Combet is going to run towards this end. After all, you're paying for them.

Professor Bob Carter is a geologist and the author of Climate: The Counter Consensus.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz1QQ2rfdi4

[rahli]

...Really? So much science and technology is used for malicious purposes all the time! Science is twisted for desired results and funding plays a key part. I guess we'll just have to wait until somebody proves H.A.A.R.P technology has been misapplied for ill gotten gain. What does the scientific consensus say on the possibility of weather manipulation?

We obviously gotta stop polluting this much and live more eco-friendly, fuck a carbon tax off for a joke though! As far as economic concerns dictate our personal survival in the system, this carbon tax may as well be a death threat for some. Maybe a bit dramatic but a great depression scenario doesn't sound fun.

So how's everyones veggie patch, solar panels and wind turbines going? Don't forget a rainwater tank with a nice filter to avoid them nasty heavy metal in our air... chemtrails, another imaginary conspiracy, don't worry about it, I'm sure we'll be compensated later.

 

Yes you are right that science and technology can be applied for malicious purposes but in a democracy if these gains are seen as outweighing the future fall out then the people generally vote for their own self intrest and wait until its too late and the proof is effecting them personally. I'm all for voting for a real cost pricing on our predicted impact on the future environment and our children. I believe that people are resilient and will adapt fairly easily especially when we have applied reductions rather then forced restrictions due to environmental degradation.

I believe that given the number of people now inhabiting the planet, realistically we must all take some type of unified approach to utilizing the use of the planets resouces. Pissing off and doing your own thing is not going to help you for long. The entire world surface would likely be cleared if we were all to take on a subsistence lifestyle. And if the system that you are ignoring collapses you veggies won't stay untrammeled for long, that much history can tell us. Whether you like to admit it or not we all have a huge investment (around 7billion people) in the current system no matter how fucked it is.

I think a real step forward is a globally unifiable method for real cost pricing. I'll leave the experts to figure out how though, I'll just vote for it.

[nothinghead]

Christopher "hatin' on eco-fascits" Monckton is a moron. How can a politician, someone who dedicates their life to politics, so severely misunderstand the political term "fascism"? God knows what Monckton thinks fascism means, but really, forming the portmanteau "eco-fascist" seems inherently oxymoronic just by a cursory consideration of the term ecology. The -ology suffix should give it away, since it indicates a STUDY not an ideology. Actually the only sense in which the term "eco-fascist" could make some kind of sense would derive from some kind of perverted social-Darwinist position which it is not difficult to infer that Monckton himself holds.

/semantix rant

[tripsis]

Tripsis, you have no idea what my stance is on anything dude so back the fuck off....what a stupid fucking thing to say...are you a fucking kid too?

I'm not anti science... I am against blind acceptance of science because I'm told to do so by dicks like you.

No, I don't know what your stance is on 'anything', but I can certainly tell what it appears to be and you come across with as anti-science.

Nah, I'm not going to fuck off Hutch. You're welcome to, but I'll stick around. I can respect your difference of opinion, but not your attitude. You cop shit because you act like dickhead, not because you disagree with people. If you stop telling people to fuck off, calling them things like 'childish little fuck' and then turning around and playing the victim when you are in turn attacked, perhaps you won't be attacked in return. You think we're all 'childish' and 'juvenile'? Take a look at yourself mate.

If I had the opportunity I would love to go live naked in a cave.....I would love the opportunity to drop out...I don't want to pay your wealth redistribution tax...I don't want to be part of your fucking corrupt system any more....You can take that tax and stick it where the sun don't shine...Still nothing on the 900 + docs...just an attack on me....

Bit surprised it's you tripsis but anyway. You would think there would be more people here up in arms over this crap but alas....As HD said SUCKERS! I know privately there are more here that disagree but they are not interested in getting trashed because they have given up believing in the booga booga....oh well......I'll take the heat......

No one likes taxes, you're not some outstanding, unique individual hutch. This carbon tax is not the only topic being discussed here. It's part of a much broader subject. Although, if fuel was four times as high as it is now, you can guarantee that people would be driving around far less.

Mate, have we got a couple of desalination plants just for you....biggest white elephants in the history of this country....Can't even get them to work. Seems we were once told we would never receive drought breaking rains...now we are flooded continually....mmm can those guys get anything right?

Fuck you're short-sighted hutch. While I disagree with desalinisation plants, to make the judgement that because we're suddenly experiencing flooding all over the country that all our water woes have suddenly evaporated, is ignorant to say the least. Australia has a long history of water troubles. If flooding was the norm, you can guarantee that dry schlerophyll forest would not dominate the wetter parts of our country, that desert would not dominate the interior. Droughts and floods are a normal part of the way this country's climate operates. Many of our waterways are what are called ephemeral streams, meaning they only flow directly after precipitation, i.e. it is normal for there to be periods without water and periods with water. But to assume that all our troubles are over while we're experiencing flooding is just plain stupid. Exercise a little foresight if you can. There are processes out there that take longer to cycle through than your lifetime hutch. Not everything can be neatly extrapolated from your limited world experience. This is why climate and environmental scientists, who study these cycles over geological periods of time, know more about it than you.