From observing the political climate in Australia, one can only deduce that the Left has been so discredited that it needs a disguise to hide its true identity which it views as portraying an undesirable public image.
This is why many Australian socialists advocate for action on climate change. They see it as the best way in which to cover up their deeply held Marxist convictions which mainstream Australia sees as a radical, unreasonable assault on traditional values.
By now it is clear that Labor’s MRRT and the Carbon Tax are merely socialist policies that aim to redistribute income, clad in a deceptive green veneer so they can be sold to the public.
Consistent with this strategy, the Left tries to discredit the Coalition by attempting to alter its appearance. It sets out to do this by simply claiming that every Coalition policy is based on a conspiracy. Previous Coalition policies regarding immigration, IR and indigenous Australians saw such a response.
What seems strange though, is that the Australian Left subscribes to an environmental agenda that sets out to restructure the entire economy and substantially alter society, but its suspicions are in fact confirmed by a blatant conspiracy theory that forecasts the end of the world.
The Left’s arguments for action on climate change can be summed up by the following:
“If we don’t act on climate change the polar ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise and we will all drown to death. Scientists say this is true so therefore it is. If we don’t act now there won’t be a planet. Climate change is the greatest threat to humanity. The planet is getting hotter and it will turn into a molten ball of fiery death if we don’t do anything this instant.”
Did it ever occur to those on the Left, who evidently write off every Coalition policy as a conspiracy, that maybe, just maybe, the idea of the world as we know it plunging into a post-apocalyptic, flood-prone dystopia is merely an attempt to induce fear and promote climate alarmism?
Did it ever occur to the Youth Climate Coalition that maybe those sickening, albeit Photoshopped, images of coal-fired power plants emitting excessive quantities of smoke into an unusually murky atmosphere (e.g the cover of An Inconvenient Truth) are aimed at garnering support for green-socialism?
The Left is either lying or stupid. They seem to be able to identify the most farfetched conspiracies in any Liberal policy yet are so short-sighted that they cannot even begin to acknowledge that a theory anticipating the Earth’s catastrophic destruction could possibly be a hoax.
Robert Katsambis studies law and corporate finance at the University of Adelaide.
It's a shame that the socialist left don't have perceptive thinkers like Robert or are they really wise to the alarmists but are using the AGW debate as a vehicle to achieve their goal of wealth redistribution and the nanny state nirvanah.
Posted by: Garry Nosworthy | May 4, 2012 at 04:58 PM
The AGW subscribers happily accepted that glaciers would dis-appear before our very eyes, which was later dis-proved. They happily accepted Flannery's utterances that our dams would never be full again, amongst others, just before a very wet season that now sees the East coast of Australia with over flowing dams and a bit soggy underfoot.
Each time the AGW subscribers seek some credibility (or is it media time ?) they resort to scare - mongering on a quite shameful level.
And all we so called "deniers" do is ask questions ? yet we get criticised and shouted down in the process.
So yes, Robert, you are probably somewhere around the "truth" with the motivations behind all of this climate scare mongering and the lefts involvement.
Posted by: Grantley | May 4, 2012 at 05:53 PM
The left are NOT lying: In 1 billion years time the Earth through global warming will be too hot for humans to occupy.
Posted by: Dave | May 5, 2012 at 08:46 AM
Spot on, Robert, but alas this Labor/Greens socialist swill, along with its hypocritical independents nonsensical support is about ready to impose this insidious tax on us, and thus Australia becomes part of the greates psuedoscientific fraud known to mankind. The world at large can't believe it and neither can they stop laughing at the lunacy of it.
Posted by: Brian | May 5, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Even When You Take a Dump You’ll Pay Labor’s Carbon Tax
http://www.andysrant.com/2012/05/even-when-you-take-a-dump-youll-pay-labors-carbon-tax.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 5, 2012 at 03:38 PM
There will be companies who haven't made the list of who will pay the tax breathing a sigh of relief now. They will be left now with an incentive now not to grow their businesses.
We need an election now.
Posted by: Turtle | May 5, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Gillard has just punished our Council with the CT because the city is industry intensive. Home to Aluminum and Smelting, Cement and a massive LNG project at Curtis Island this is going to hit people ordinary folk in the city hard. All our service people who ate NOT on big wages and barely keeping their heads above water paying for home, food on the table, obscene power and water bills. Our city is now one of the dearest places in Qld to live - thanks Gillard. You and your flaky Green muppets wouldn't have a clue!
Posted by: bluebell | May 5, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Revised post:
Gillard has just punished our Council with the CT because the city is industry intensive. Home to Aluminum and Smelting, Cement & Lime, and a massive LNG project at Curtis Island. This is going to hit ordinary folk in the city hard. All our service people who are NOT on big wages, and barely keeping their heads above water paying for home, food on the table, obscene power and water bills, rates ect. Our city is now one of the dearest places in Qld to live - thanks Gillard. You and your flaky Green muppets wouldn't have a clue!
Posted by: bluebell | May 5, 2012 at 07:15 PM
No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
Organisations supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change:
32 national science academies, including countries not limited to; Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, South Africa, Mexico etc
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association[
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Opposing:
some individual scientists, internet bloggers
Posted by: Jimmy | May 5, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Jimmy - please direct me to the properly peer-reviewed proof that the human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic global warming.
No doubt an erudite gent such as yourself has already published this proof from your own empirical research.
Posted by: Mr T | May 5, 2012 at 10:47 PM
take your pick
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=0&q=climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5&as_ylo=2008&as_vis=1
Posted by: Jimmy | May 5, 2012 at 10:58 PM
It sounds as though Jimmy is one of the 'green socialists' that robert suggests are sucked in by the climate change scam
Posted by: Henry | May 5, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Jimmy - how about answering my question -and not one that you either imagined I asked or just made up.
I will ask it again "Jimmy - please direct me to the properly peer-reviewed proof that the human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic global warming."
And the list you gave above - just shows what a bunch of clowns have taken over these organisations.
I notice Engineers Australia is on your list - and this is why I did not renew my membership.
Posted by: Mr T | May 5, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Carbon Dioxide on it's own is NOT a pollutant Jimmy, it is essential to all plant life on earth - they even use it in Laparoscopic surgery.
The major forms of pollution are listed below along with the particular contaminant relevant to each of them:
Air pollution:- the release of chemicals and particulates into the atmosphere. Common gaseous pollutants include carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides produced by industry and motor vehicles. Photochemical ozone and smog are created as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons react to sunlight. Particulate matter, or fine dust is characterized by their micrometre size PM10 to PM2.5.
Light pollution:- includes light trespass, over-illumination and astronomical interference.
Littering:- the criminal throwing of inappropriate man-made objects, unremoved, onto public and private properties.
Noise pollution:- which encompasses roadway noise, aircraft noise, industrial noise as well as high-intensity sonar.
Soil contamination occurs when chemicals are released by spill or underground leakage. Among the most significant soil contaminants are hydrocarbons, heavy metals, MTBE,[10] herbicides, pesticides and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Radioactive contamination, resulting from 20th century activities in atomic physics, such as nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons research, manufacture and deployment. (See alpha emitters and actinides in the environment.)
Thermal pollution, is a temperature change in natural water bodies caused by human influence, such as use of water as coolant in a power plant.
Visual pollution, which can refer to the presence of overhead power lines, motorway billboards, scarred landforms (as from strip mining), open storage of trash, municipal solid waste or space debris.
Water pollution, by the discharge of wastewater from commercial and industrial waste (intentionally or through spills) into surface waters; discharges of untreated domestic sewage, and chemical contaminants, such as chlorine, from treated sewage; release of waste and contaminants into surface runoff flowing to surface waters (including urban runoff and agricultural runoff, which may contain chemical fertilizers and pesticides); waste disposal and leaching into groundwater; eutrophication and littering.
Of course most of these can be tackled by DIRECT ACTION and uses of less destructive ALTERNATIVES. We did it with fridges and air-conditioners.....and of course there is the BIGGER problem that NO politician dare mention it's name.
OUR MASSIVE INCREASE IN HUMAN NUMBERS SINCE 1900 - NEARLY FOURFOLD WITHIN 100 YEARS. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WILL BE IN ANOTHER 100 YEARS GIVEN THE CURRENT RATE OF BIRTHS...AND PEOPLE LIVING LONGER DUE TO MEDICAL ADVANCES? MMMMMMMMMMM????
Posted by: bluebell | May 5, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Bluebell - the thing you need to remember about population growth is that the more prosperous a nation is, the lower the birthrate - to the point of being negative.
To achieve this requires all nations to become prosperous - something the eco-fascists cannot abide.
Posted by: Mr T | May 6, 2012 at 12:07 AM
And Jimmy, science has also shown us that Volcanoes no longer produce noticeable amounts of Co2, hence why Climate Scientists have one of their key data centers on top of the largest volcano in the world.
Posted by: Dave | May 6, 2012 at 01:05 AM
Unfortunately, I do have a 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse view of the world. I think it will be too late by then - the earth is a living organism and it will protect herself from us, in the form of unleashing a very very nasty pandemic. She has done this many times throughout history, only this time it could have the capacity to swipe out most of humanity. The other thing that is never being discussed is the amount of interference we are doing to the Earths mantle. We are taking out oil, gas and drilling in the sea bed, and blasting. It's having an impact that could one day unleash terrible earthquakes and Tsunami's. Then we have the problem of ocean acidification and plummeting fish stocks. Our rivers are being poisoned, and soils contaminated. In a race against time we are genetically modifying crops and cloning animals in an effort to bolster yields - our scientists know what is coming, and it is the reason why they set up the seed bank in the frozen north. Our only hope for survival as a species is for human nature to change. However, I am not hopeful. GREED has always been the Achilles heel of humanity. GREED and the quest for MONEY. That is what will destroy us in the end....despite the intentions of well meaning people, it's the 7 deadly sins and our refusal to take heed of the 10 Commandments that always seem to win out. Call me cynical...but that is my view.
Posted by: bluebell | May 6, 2012 at 01:08 AM
Thers no such thing as climate change lol
Posted by: Henry | May 6, 2012 at 11:24 AM
All on the Green payroll?
Posted by: Nigel Hamley | May 6, 2012 at 01:05 PM
All of those organisations do not agree on the same thing. Furthermore, their membership is substantially more divided.
It's funny how we keep getting told the 'real' climate scientists are all agreed on 'the consensus', because it's the 'real' climate scientists that want further money and publicity spent on their field of research. Yet, in just about every scientific and professional body there is a large group, in most cases a majority, of members who don't agree with the apocalyptic versions of climate change being proffered.
And if you asked these groups what should be done about you'd get even more disagreement and divergence of opinion.
Posted by: John Mc | May 6, 2012 at 01:33 PM
What's more, how come people like you keep telling us the 'real' climate science bodies are all in agreement, then you produce a list including
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, The Wildlife Society, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Australian Medical Association, World Federation of Public Health Associations, International Association for Great Lakes Research, Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
when it's not exactly their area of expertise either.
What's more, I'm a member of Engineers Australia and there is absolutely no consensus in the membership. Last I read some people were still calling out for a formal position on AGW as so many people had disputed the last one put out about 5 years ago. I'm also not aware of Engineers Australia making another formal announcement since the last one was disputed. If that's what you call a technical body of experts supporting AGW, it makes me wonder how bad the other organisations are on your list.
Posted by: John Mc | May 6, 2012 at 01:42 PM
John MC - people like you frusterate me when u can see that our planet will be destroyed if we dont act on climate change now
we need to be a world leader for reducing C02 emmissions so we can keep this planet healthy for our children and there children.
i suggest you and all your conservaitve friends stop ignoring the science and keep our planet alive
Posted by: Lisa | May 6, 2012 at 02:22 PM
There's a hole in my bucket dear Lisa,dear Lisa dear Lisa there's a hole in my bucket dear Lisa a hole. There's a hole in your argument dear Lisa etc etc etc. Get a life and smell the coffee
Posted by: Nigel Hamley | May 6, 2012 at 02:57 PM
'Frusterate'? 'there children'? Maybe you should learn how to use the English language before you try and construct an extremely flawed argument.
Posted by: Henry | May 6, 2012 at 03:08 PM
John MC - people like you frusterate me when u can see that our planet will be destroyed if we dont act on climate change now
The moment you start saying we can't wait for the science to be proven or a majority of the population to agree because it will be too late, you're admitting you've lost the argument.
Posted by: John Mc | May 6, 2012 at 03:38 PM
With all due respect Lisa, CO2 is NOT a pollutant - ok? All plant life on earth RELIES on CO2 to survive. We should be far more concerned about carbon monoxide, sulfur, hyrdro -fluorocarbons, and dangerous chemical contamination etc, than CO2.
Also the medical profession use CO2 in surgery procedures like hysterectomies ect.
Posted by: bluebell | May 6, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Oh, I also forgot to say that all those things that I listed as a danger to the planet - they can be addressed by direct action protocols - something that Tony Abbott has been telling you for ages. No TAX is going to solve this problem. It is nothing but a clever wealth distribution scheme that is designed to fill government coffers, give a corrupt UN rivers of revenue (Australia will PAY the UN 600 million dollars in the first year of the Tax's operation and that will rise each and every year. You can thank that idiot Greg Combet for this. The fool signed us up at Cancun Mexico) and fatten international banks like Goldman-Sachs. Malcolm Turnbull worked for Goldman-Sachs before entering politics and that is why is all for a Carbon Emissions Scheme. Goldman- Sachs saved his arse over a collapsed company he was involved. He owes Goldman-Sachs a favor big time.
Direct action is what is needed and a HUGE reduction in human numbers on this planet.
Posted by: bluebell | May 6, 2012 at 07:09 PM
Lisa,
Ignore the mining and oil company shrills on this site. Do your own investigating and make up your own mind on GW. Check out how oil companies set the agenda according to their own needs:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/4/private_empire_author_steve_coll_on
Posted by: Oldman | May 6, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Yeah Lisa, listen to the Oldfool, it's the oil companies........in conduction with the Freemasons, the Jews, the Illuminati and the Koch brothers operating out of a secret bunker in Area 51 where they worship Ronald Reagan's revived corpse. Fight the power!!
Posted by: John Mc | May 6, 2012 at 08:25 PM
The Menzies House opinion of AGW = It's the 'Socialists'........in conduction with the Hollywood, the UN, the Greenies and Communists operating out of a secret bunker in Area 51 where they worship Karl Marx's revived corpse. Fight the power!!
fixed!!
Posted by: pk | May 6, 2012 at 08:48 PM
Posted by: John Mc | May 6, 2012 at 10:25 PM
Actually Pk there are 3 disparate groups pushing this entire GW scam.
The 1st & most obvious are socialists who now masquerade as environmentalists in order to shame The West into their Marxist wealth redistribution plans. These socialists have many (to coin a phrase of Joe Stalin) "useful idiots" who they use as foot-soldiers for their cause.
The 2nd group are the "Scientists" whose professional integrity can't compete with the grant money suddenly on offer.
The 3rd & final group are conmen like Gore who are making a God-damn fortune off this nonsense.
3 very different groups, with 3 different sorts of motivation. But one common goal, to perpetuate an economy-wrecking craziness that future generations will equate with the Tulip Mania of 17th century Europe.
Posted by: TassieRooster | May 7, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Are the MSM - journalists etc pushing this scam come under the "useful idiots" category, or are they really a separate category?
Posted by: Mr T | May 7, 2012 at 04:27 PM
pk said "fixed!!".
Does that mean pk has been for a trip to the vet???
Posted by: Mr T | May 7, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Ecotard “Scientists” claim Permanent Recession and World Socialism needed to tackle Threat of Global Warming
http://www.andysrant.com/2012/05/ecotard-scientists-claim-permanent-recession-and-world-socialism-needed-to-tackle-threat-of-global-w.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 7, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Mad Ecotard Scientist Blames Dinosoaur Farting For Causing Climate Change
http://www.andysrant.com/2012/05/mad-ecotard-scientist-blames-dinosoaur-farting-for-causing-climate-change.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 7, 2012 at 05:44 PM
Andy - what's wrong with our universities - they keep turning out f#@kwits?
Posted by: Mr T | May 7, 2012 at 06:04 PM
" But one common goal, to perpetuate an economy-wrecking craziness"
Yes that's exactly what i want when i subscribe to the idea of lessening our dependance on fossil fuels by using insulation and solar passive design in homes, saying no to plastic bags, promoting non-polluting power sources etc.... it's got nothing to do with being smarter, cleaner and less damaging to humans and the environment, no i just wanna see everyone living in caves.
Posted by: pk | May 7, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Coal not candles should be the symbol of Earth Hour.
It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion and open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh. Much of the third world still suffers choking fumes and smog because they do not have clean electric power and burn wood, cardboard, unwashed coal and cow dung for home heat.
It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters.
It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps.
It was coal that produced the steel that replaced shingles on the roof, timber props in the mines, wooden fence posts on the farms and the bark on the old bark hut.
In Australia today, coal provides at least 75% of our lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration, rail transport and steel. Without it, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure.
Coal is fossil sunshine as clean as the green plants it came from, and often less damaging to the environment than its green energy alternatives.
Earth Hour candles are green tokenism for rich status-seekers and nostalgic dreamers.
We should spend Earth Hour saluting the real people who produce the coal on which most people on earth depend.
For those who would like to read more:
Clearing the smog of Beijing with “Coal by Wire”:
http://carbon-sense.com/2008/08/04/clearing-the-smog/
Return to the caves:
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/05/06/earth-day-blackout-night/
Hail to Electricity:
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/04/01/hail-to-electricity/
The Road to more Blackout nights:
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/03/26/earth-hour-2010/
Earth Hour – a Dissent
http://carbon-sense.com/2011/03/25/mckitrick-earth-hour/
Posted by: bluebell | May 7, 2012 at 07:23 PM
PK, the problem is that idealists like you don't have any ideas on how to achieve these goals beyond banning or taxing the things you don't like. You don't know or care about who will pay the cost or go without (you'll justify it by saying the rich will pay), who will have lower living standards, or whether what you hope might happen will have any chance of success. You just demand other people suffer for your ideals (regardless of how nice they might be).
Progress didn't come from this type of behaviour. It came from using the resources we have to further human achievement and make things better. Your behaviour is more destructive than it is positive.
Posted by: John Mc | May 7, 2012 at 07:25 PM
The MSM fill the role of Useful Idiots admirably, sanctimonious cretins who have never stopped & actually questioned the rationale of the spurious pseudo-science pumped out by the IPCC (or indeed the qualifications of many of the IPCC's "Team Leaders").
If you don't look at the motivation for a person's argument, how can you judge the validity of that argument? The MSM has repeatedly failed to do this.
Posted by: TassieRooster | May 7, 2012 at 08:35 PM
What a reaction!Your learnin boy. Start readin, not listenin. Magnifisent, O yooth, I kinda feel, tremblin, in this magnificence of surety, I behold and tremble.
Posted by: Shane | May 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM
What on earth are you talking about?
Posted by: Henry | May 8, 2012 at 12:14 AM
The differences in this debate are many faceted and the chasms that seperate the opposing side growing wider...as is evidenced in this debate.
Let me give you this small example of how great those differences are; I recently had some people staying who are very quick to jump on the AGW band wagon, support the carbon tax and worship Al Gore (hey...we go back a long way and some friendships can stand the test of time).
When these guys showered, they ran excessive amounts of water, left the bathroom with all lights and exhaust fans going....at 10 am in the morning with the sun shining brightly (plenty of natural light). Every room they walked into they would turn on a light in the middle of the day...and leave it on.
But the prize went to my mate, who one cool morning turned on the airconditioner for heat. Yes, it was 11 outside...but he was also wearing shorts and T shirt.
I turned the aircon off, opened the curtains to the east facing windows to let the sun in and put on a pair of jeans and a jumper. In under an hour the house was toasty warm.
So, prey tell, which one of us is on the right track here. Me the "denier" who practices direct action or the AGW fanboy who thinks a carbon tax will excuse his excesses and has no intention of making any changes....?
Posted by: Grantley | May 8, 2012 at 09:49 AM
John Mc, you are an example of someone who prefers the status quo at the expense of better living-thanks goodness industries of innovation and tomorrow's future profits aren't in your hands. Your equivalent 120 years ago would be still pushing for steam trains, whaling and logging as the only way to move forward and create jobs.
Take electric cars- they'll be the norm in 10 years time - you against those too? (and yes you can power an electric car via renewable resources, but the main point is- as you like to so easily forget- that the power charge you get whilst in motion saves on fossil fuel, and is the main benefit).
Posted by: pk | May 8, 2012 at 02:10 PM
One way dear left loon to keep this planet alive is to rid it of oxygen thieves like you and PK and theoldFart who come here knowing what people here believe but insist on intruding.
Basicaly we dont give a damn about your new age green religion.
Your AGW theory has been challenged here again and again and you still fail to put up any proof.
Where are the drowning Polar Bears you screamed and ranted about.
Your rantings are not evidence...show some proof or piss off back to your caves green left scum.
Posted by: ThePhilosopher | May 8, 2012 at 03:02 PM
PK is :PinkoKlown who never has anything to contribute on any subject but loves a green rant.
Basicaly PK is a reinvented Marxist who wants us all to live in caves clad in bark dying early because of the unavailability of medicines etc dervided from Carbon Technology.
PK has a new god to worship, never mind the lkack of a coherent theology ! PK has suspended disbelief and all rational thinking so that he can be at the cutting edge of revolution.
None of the "warmers" fantasies have materialised ( where are these drowning bears ?? )but they just put it off for another ten years.
OLdFart continues to rant about conspiracies and oil companies as an old devotee of the anti capatilist anarcho- green alliance.
Liusten you warmer clowns put up or shut up OK ?
Evidence you fools...Evidence Its sorta simple even for halfwits like you green dopes.
Posted by: ThePhilosopher | May 8, 2012 at 03:09 PM
PINKOKLOWN you are an example of someone bereft of any intellectual gifts whatsoever.
What drove all those technologies was capital. Simply put the technology and the capital to produce came together. There had to be markets however. Whaling stopped mainly to alternate oil based products becoming available. Steam Trains although still in use in some parts of the world have been replaced by diesel/electric and electric. Like in ocean Shipping this was because oil is more convenient to preposition along shipping routes.
Electric cars are not yet at this point and may never be. The pure electric car has an extremely limited rang and still requires rechargeing from a 240V main and has a heavy Carbon footprint. It would take five days to drive from Sydney to Melbourne in optimum conditions and with no load. The latest cutting edge cars require only 200Km to run flat and then have to be recharged overnight. Now try shipping products interstate via a semi trailer that is electricaly powered and you get the idea. Basicaly it is a technology with a limited futur. Carbon is still king on the Highway.
Posted by: ThePhilosopher | May 8, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Everyone here should stop debating about the science and pay attention to the real issues on climate change. All the science points to the fact that the planet will be annihilated because the planet is warming up. The last decade was the hottest this planet has seen. If this cant convince the menzies house people than i suggest they take a hard look at themselves.
Posted by: Lisa | May 8, 2012 at 03:45 PM
Lisa - it only appears to you to be hotting up because your head is so far up your own fundamental orifice.
Pull your head out - most of the "warming" is from data manipulation (what normally is called "lying/fraud etc").
I know from having my head out of my own arse that the last few summers have been cooler than normal, as have been the winters.
But, I hear you say, "Global warming makes it cooler!!"
Unfortunately, though treatment is available for you, I am not going to pay for it.
Posted by: Mr T | May 8, 2012 at 06:01 PM
(and yes you can power an electric car via renewable resources, but the main point is- as you like to so easily forget- that the power charge you get whilst in motion saves on fossil fuel, and is the main benefit).
Are you trying to tell me the electric vehicle charges itself while it drives along?
Posted by: John Mc | May 8, 2012 at 06:49 PM
All the science points to the fact that the planet will be annihilated because the planet is warming up.
How long do you think we've got?
Posted by: John Mc | May 8, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Robert, and all the idiots that have commented in favour of the crap Robert wrote, prove that this Canadian study is correct, i.e. Right Wing supporters are less intelligent than the rest of us. Please read http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
Posted by: did you miss me? | May 9, 2012 at 06:04 PM
It's evident that you just don't get it. You want to dispute the findings of a long list of scientists. It shows how stupid you are. It's like if you questioned doctors that diagnose cancer. That a person has cancer is out of the question, what remains to be decided is how you treat it. Wasting time questioning the accuracy of the diagnose is just plainly stupid on 3 counts:
(1) If you have cancer and waste time debating if the diagnose is correct you may die of cancer before you start the cure;
(2) Even if the diagnose was wrong you may benefit from changes in your life style that would prolong your miserable life; and
(3) You should always manage risks, even those remote ones (eg you buy travel insurance even if you plan not to have an accident when traveling) because we humans can't bring back time.
Those like you that want to dispute the science should, first of all, obtain a PhD in climate science and then start debating. If you aren't qualified you can't have an opinion ... just as if you aren't a doctor you can't diagnose cancer.
Have you got it?? No? Read from the start again and again, you moron!!
Posted by: did you miss me? | May 9, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Dear Dickhead - I have spent a lifetime disputing what cockheads like you spew out of either end.
Cancer? I thought we were talking climate. In case you don't know, the incorrect cancer treatment can actually kill you - but that thought's probably a bit too deep for you. (I had cancer once that I diagonised - the doctor didn't think it was, but the biopsy I insisted on proved me right).
Risks? Yeah - management of risks is a good idea. But you're obviously not aware that the management level should match the risk level. I would say that you are incapable of doing a proper risk analysis - going by the piss-poor crap you just posted.
Ohh - and I shouldn't debate anything to do with the climate unless I have a PhD like Michael Mann or Jim Hansen?? You wanker!!
First of all, you TOOL, anyone who is affected by a decision should be consulted in the making of that decision - especially this alleged CAGW. Unless you are a closet totalitarian.
I presume you refuse to vote at elections because you don't have a PhD in political studies? Or you do have such a PhD - that would help explain your arrogance and ignorance.
Have you got it?? No? Read from the start again and again, you moron!!
Posted by: Mr T | May 9, 2012 at 07:16 PM
Geezus - in case you didn't get the point he posted it twice! *-*
Posted by: bluebell | May 9, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Careful bluebell. I do believe that blasphemy is a no no !
You were a ten commandments advocate on another thread.
Posted by: captain catholic | May 9, 2012 at 08:46 PM
I love it! Hahahahah too funny Miss me.....What qualification does Tim Flannery have? It isn't climate science.You guys are too easy to debate.....the tide is turning, and all your insults and bold statements will (and are already) prove to amount to nothing. Its ok though, we won't hold it against you. The mere fact you are all still here ranting away on this blog inappropriately speaks of your desperation to get some self esteem, it speaks of your blind devotion to a cause which day by day is more discredited and it speaks of your lack of understanding of target audience and delivery when it comes to prosecuting an argument. Keep going, please, you are only serving us by making yourselves look all the above.
Posted by: Mike | May 9, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Just listen to the totalitarian trolls...."Join us or die....."
Posted by: Mike | May 9, 2012 at 09:59 PM
did you miss me?
No. Most people think you're a fuckwit.
Posted by: John Mc | May 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Sorry - John Mc - I could have said what I said above to "did you miss me" in one line.
I shall aim for brevity next time...
Posted by: Mr T | May 9, 2012 at 10:53 PM
25 minutes!
Posted by: Lillith | May 10, 2012 at 12:34 AM
The historical record and the comparison of real data compared to the modelling (that the aforementioned supporters base their belief upon)prove that the AGW theory is a fraud. Much like gallileo, the individuals are right-the consensus is wrong. Nice try Jimmy but no proof, no cigar.
Posted by: kraka | May 10, 2012 at 03:42 AM
PK-one thing that you lot have steadfastly refused to do when talking about the likes of Ian Plimer and Bob Carter is disprove what they are saying and have written for all to see. Have you read their books-I have and they DESTROY the theory with evidence. Until you can clearly demonstate what they are saying is incorrect they will have easily won the argument and disproved the AGW flawed theory (for that is all it is until such time as indisputable evidence is provided-A THEORY!!!)
Posted by: kraka | May 10, 2012 at 03:50 AM
Incorrect Lisa-the hottest with instrumental records for the last 150 years or so. The world has been much much mcuh hotter as the geological records prove-and it survived.Please do look at all the evidence instead of quoting the propoganda spewed out by the vested interests like CSIRO and Tim Flummery.
Posted by: kraka | May 10, 2012 at 03:54 AM
I done a study did you miss me and concluded if you vote for the alp or the greens (THE LEFTIES) you are a complete moron.This proves that righties are way smarter than lefties and there are more of us at the moment. My study is worth about as much as that garbage you linked to.Though I would argue less controversial
Posted by: kraka | May 10, 2012 at 03:58 AM