The first casualty!

[Adamy]

Went to uni to do an env sci deg as a mature student, walked out faintly embarrassed by my past concern, if john howard has got only one thing right during his reign (and I believed it is only one thing) he nailed it on global warming.
The evidence against the current histeria is a mile high, the evidence for is an ant hill, if the sensationalist in and gullibility of people mean we cannot see the mountain for the ant hills then only strong politics can save us, have yet to witness a politician that would put the people's well being before their own financial and egotistical comfort.

Howard is turning

You're right FNQ... Howard is turning... I'd prefer to see a man stick to his guns not follow the politically correct sheep.

I had this discussion with a federal treasury official a few weeks ago when being interviewed for an analyst position with them.

We talked about the economic impact of "climate change" - not the change itself - because the economic impact is quite small, because change if any, happens over decades - even centuries and man and business just adapts slowly - so the economic impact is negligible.

However we did discuss the economic impact of climate change intervention - the setting of emission targets and the effect that will have on the economy.

Labor, (Rudd and his midnight oil mate) arent telling us this - but every thing we do, everything we use... the price will increase - it will rise dramatically - the higher the target, the shorter the timeframe to reach those targets and the higher the economic cost to society.

For instance Petrol and electricity prices are set to skyrocket because once targets are implemented, production input costs increase and so have to be passed on to consumers. Increases in basic production inputs such as petrol and energy, increase the prices of all other goods and services produced within the economy. Which is why its so important that every manufacturing economy in the world have these targets in place (if we have to have them) - because if we have targets and say China doesnt - then we (consumers) simply substitute Australian made goods for cheaper imports and our country goes further down the gurgler.

The point of the discussion with him was the "evidence" of climate change - he said - now this is straight from a person pretty high up in the federal treasury, that they will use the precautionary principle - which means that on balance if there is a 50% chance that climate change is a factor then interventionist methods (emission targets, taxes etc.) will be used.

But I dont think he means 50% scientific evidence - I think he means if 50% of the public BELIEVE in the man made climate change hypothesis. so its all a perception thing... we could all suffer the economic effects of higher prices.. and for what?? What if its all CRAP? We are paying for it for NOTHING!!!

Thats what makes me mad about the whole thing.

So... whats the upshot?? Do your own homework dont believe every piece of garbage thrown at you by the media and the pollies - media need to sell stories - stories of "no change" dont sell newspapers or advertising space. Pollies want to get elected!

If we vote for someone who brings in targets and all that in a short time frame - guess who is going to pay for that?? Its not the pollies - and its not business because they pass the costs on... its the bottom line - its you and me!

Just something to think about.

Cheers,

Adam

[dogsbody]

You just have to wonder about the facts,what is real and what is BS. Everyone has a barrow to push to meet their own agendas. The world has had fluctuations since it began you only have to look at where sea levels used to be and where forests once stood.

Who is paying for the research and what do they want to sell us next it won't be long before some big arsed multinational comes up with a box for those that believe the hype and the instructions say turn on, set to the degree of global warming you want to eliminate.

For now i will be on the skeptical side because do we really know what our impact is going to do.


Dave.

[Blaster Bretty]

You just have to wonder about the facts,what is real and what is BS. Everyone has a barrow to push to meet their own agendas. The world has had fluctuations since it began you only have to look at where sea levels used to be and where forests once stood.

Who is paying for the research and what do they want to sell us next it won't be long before some big arsed multinational comes up with a box for those that believe the hype and the instructions say turn on, set to the degree of global warming you want to eliminate.

For now i will be on the skeptical side because do we really know what our impact is going to do.


Dave.

too true dave,,, im with you on this one for sure, lets just enjoy our time here!!!

[billfisher]

Its certainly taken on the form of a religion with some global warming proponents. Check this out:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Here's a quote:

The Royal Society, as a major part of the flowering of the tradition, was founded on the basis of scepticism. Its motto “On the word of no one” was a stout affirmation. Now suddenly, following their successful coup, the Greens have changed this motto of centuries to one that manages to be both banal and sinister – “Respect the facts.” When people start talking about “the facts” it is time to start looking for the fictions. Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.
The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. They were not, however, always so wise. In 1900, for example, the great Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Within a few years classical physics was shattered by Einstein and his contemporaries. Since then, in science, the debate is never closed.
The world might (or might not) have warmed by a fraction of a degree. This might (or might not) be all (or in part) due to the activities of mankind. It all depends on the quality of observations and the validity of various hypotheses. Science is at ease with this situation. It accepts various theories, such as gravitation or evolution, as the least bad available and of the most practical use, but it does not believe. Religion is different.

[Lovey80]

"What if its all CRAP? We are paying for it for NOTHING!!!"

Adamy, i think the massive support that is being generated is because of the alternative to the above statement. How much larger will the consequences be if the doomsdayers are right? Loss of more than dollars in our pockets. At the end of the day im 50/50 on the whole debate of "will" it happen but I don't think it's right to continue on the current path.

cheers Chris

P.S. This is how a heathy debate should be!

[Adamy]

"What if its all CRAP? We are paying for it for NOTHING!!!"

Adamy, i think the massive support that is being generated is because of the alternative to the above statement. How much larger will the consequences be if the doomsdayers are right? Loss of more than dollars in our pockets. At the end of the day im 50/50 on the whole debate of "will" it happen but I don't think it's right to continue on the current path.

cheers Chris

P.S. This is how a heathy debate should be!

Yes I agree with you here Chris - its a balance of probabilities type thing. But I also think Billfisher and others have hit the nail on the head. Its no longer science but a religion, people are accepting the "science" of global warming as fact and not questioning the "science' behind it. Politicians are using these "facts" to their own advantage.

Back when it was a "known fact" that the earth was flat what were the consequences of ignoring this "fact"? Loss of life and cargo. So on "balance of probabilities" no one tested the "fact"... dont go too near the boundaries of current science or else all is lost!

These are the types of "facts" we are being asked to swallow today! What the world really needs is a Pythagoras to challenge popular thought in theory and a Christopher Columbus to test it in practice.

Until we can fully debunk the green science of unverifiable fact, the environmental church will continue to grow in strength unabated.

Cheers,

Adam

[fishingjew]

Until we can fully debunk the green science of unverifiable fact, the environmental church will continue to grow in strength unabated.

And not to mention the big bucks that will be made in carbon trading!