Leo's latest missive - Silicon Chip editorial

[Trevor Wilson]

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine as I
am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed in his
editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as George W Bush,
John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at all.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine
as I am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed
in his editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as
George W Bush, John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at
all.

Now that's not entirely fair, nobody can be compared to Geoge.W!

I'm really enjoying reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason at the moment,
he gives GWB and the rest of his cronies a right royal flogging.

Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/

 

[L.A.T.]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jE0Tl.92529$9J5.90871@newsfe13.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine
as I am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed
in his editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as
George W Bush, John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at
all.

Now that's not entirely fair, nobody can be compared to Geoge.W!

I'm really enjoying reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason at the moment,
he gives GWB and the rest of his cronies a right royal flogging.

Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
I read the article minutes ago and logged on to express my horror,
confident I would be the first to do so. Not so, and I hope I'll not be the
last.
I wonder if Leo knows the difference between Chemistry and Physics?

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
<haven't purchased it for years>

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due to
global warming).

IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be classified
as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of climatologists, who
have carefully studied global warming for the last few decades.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2 (and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it cannot
be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven and
is doomed to failure.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jE0Tl.92529$9J5.90871@newsfe13.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine
as I am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed
in his editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as
George W Bush, John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at
all.

Now that's not entirely fair, nobody can be compared to Geoge.W!

**It seems that Leo Simpson can be. Like George W, he has:

* Managed to ignore real science and trust in religion instead.
* Managed to promulgate lies in place of fact.
* Refused to back his claims with facts.

I'm really enjoying reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason at the moment,
he gives GWB and the rest of his cronies a right royal flogging.

**Which exactly what he deserves.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"L.A.T." <tt92@ispdr.net.au> wrote in message
newsL1Tl.13866$y61.10709@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jE0Tl.92529$9J5.90871@newsfe13.iad...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine
as I am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed
in his editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as
George W Bush, John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at
all.

Now that's not entirely fair, nobody can be compared to Geoge.W!

I'm really enjoying reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason at the
moment, he gives GWB and the rest of his cronies a right royal flogging.

Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
I read the article minutes ago and logged on to express my horror,
confident I would be the first to do so. Not so, and I hope I'll not be
the last.
I wonder if Leo knows the difference between Chemistry and Physics?

**He certainly displays a staggering ignorance of science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[The Real Andy]

On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:49 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due to
global warming).

IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be classified
as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of climatologists, who
have carefully studied global warming for the last few decades.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2 (and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it cannot
be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven and
is doomed to failure.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.

I dont byt he rag, so did not read the article. Sounds like it may be
opinion?

I assume he is talking about global warming/climate change? I dont
subscribe to the theory either so perhaps I might share his opinion?

 

[KR]

On May 28, 12:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote in message

news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due to
global warming).

IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be classified
as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of climatologists, who
have carefully studied global warming for the last few decades.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2 (and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it cannot
be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven and
is doomed to failure.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise, I
first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part
about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he
needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a
ridiculous statement like that. I hope none of you are investing or
planning for the future based on beliefs like this.


While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it
always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also
very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW)
is rubbish .

I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over
his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt,
as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.


At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist,
these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a
few (proverbial) grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has
done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to
their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they
are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and
peer review of their "research".

Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently
proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price
increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable
and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This
would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.

At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie:
stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse
to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/
or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts
that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the
lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and
seemingly unlimited incompetence).
I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix"
AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the
government budget and now the national debt the current government has
given us.


The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels. By having a future with less people
around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention
the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their
lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.
Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and
using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to
kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted
money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.

It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause and
doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's
activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we
have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in
climate. We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall
for this stupidity.

As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able
to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then
his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.

On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.



I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an
improvement. A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks /
Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish
generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly
cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.

 

[David L. Jones]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

It should be up on the website in full on 1st June.

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to global warming).

IMO,

** Does not matter a hoot.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course.

** How strange you brought it up then.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it
cannot be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

** Shame it is perfecty correct logic.

CO2 is still a *very small* component of the atmosphere but IS the
substanvce responsible for all animal adn vegetable life on earth.

So CO2 ain't air pollution ( should be sung to the tune of Rock 'n Roll
Ain't Noise Plollution)

Problem is only the bad press dished out by a bunch of politically motivated
zealots.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point.

** How strange you brought it up then.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

** There is no such animal as a credible "climate scientist".

Cos the subject is still in its infancy and its promoter's predictions no
better than Voodoo.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.

** Easy to see which side of the fence TW is on.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"KR"

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels. By having a future with less people
around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention
the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their
lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.


** Comments like these would make one suspect that CO2 was *itself* a source
of heat energy inexhorably warming the globe. Hate to tell ya this pal -
it ain't !!!

The culprit is right up there in the sky every single day - albiet 92
million miles away ....

If ever a situation arose where the the human race was in peril from the
heat energy released by our long time stellar friend - it is far from
impossible to moderate the amount that warms god old planet earth.

Deliberate climate cooling would be far preferable to all the world's
nations going to the suicidal risks of a Plutonium energy ecomony.




...... Phil

 

[who where]

On Thu, 28 May 2009 01:27:27 -0700 (PDT), KR <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise, I
first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part
about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he
needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a
ridiculous statement like that. I hope none of you are investing or
planning for the future based on beliefs like this.

Agreed.

While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it
always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also
very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW)
is rubbish .

Indeed

I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over
his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt,
as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.

Indeed

At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist,
these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a
few (proverbial) grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has
done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to
their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they
are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and
peer review of their "research".

(more) indeed.

Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently
proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price
increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable
and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This
would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.

and he who embarks first on this fool's escapade of "carbon trading" is
consigning his country to a third world economic future unless/untill ALL
nations do so in lockstep. While it sounds ever so noble to be the first to do
the most, it is suicide for the nation.

At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie:
stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse
to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/
or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts
that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the
lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and
seemingly unlimited incompetence).
I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix"
AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the
government budget and now the national debt the current government has
given us.

Yes

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels. By having a future with less people
around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention
the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their
lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.
Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and
using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to
kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted
money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.

It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause and
doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's
activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we
have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in
climate. We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall
for this stupidity.

zackly

As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able
to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then
his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.

On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.

yes he did

I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an
improvement. A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks /
Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish
generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly
cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.

and IF we get oz out of debt by 2022 it'll be a miracle.

 

[mark krawczuk]

hi, did you know there is NO proof of global warming.



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:786c7gF1kjileU1@mid.individual.net...

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to global warming).

IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be
classified as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of
climatologists, who have carefully studied global warming for the last few
decades.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2 (and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it
cannot be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven
and is doomed to failure.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mauried]

On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:15:41 +0930, "mark krawczuk"
<krawczuk@adam.com.au> wrote:

hi, did you know there is NO proof of global warming.


Of course there is no proof as you cant prove future events today.

Global warming is essentially a hypothesis that states that unless we
do something now, then something terrible will happen at some future
date.
Only way to prove this is for someone to build a time machine.
As to whether you want to beleive the hypothesis, thats a differant
issue.

 

[John Tserkezis]

mark krawczuk wrote:

hi, did you know there is NO proof of global warming.

There is, it's just a question of WHO (or what) is causing it, and by how much.

Current consensus is the earth is in a phase where it's warming up anyway,
though it would be a reasonable guess that humans factor in somewhat too.

The question is HOW much are the humans actually effecting it. Blaming it
entirely on humans is incorrect, likewise, it would be a good guess that
blaming it on the earth doing it behind our backs entirely isn't quite right
either.

Cow flatulence factors significantly in some circles, but if you've ever met
my brother in law, his flatulence would probably account for a fair proportion
too.

My point being, hypothetically, if you were to remove ALL sources of animal,
human warming, and basically everything you have control over, then the earth
would STILL warm up. Surely not as quickly, but it would still warm anyway.

Personally, I think a diet change for my BIL would be a good start.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt? <haven't purchased it
for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to global warming).

Ignopring the colourful language, the problem with all this climate
change stuff is that a lot of it IS NOT science, but more correctly
mathematically projections, which can be very problematic.

The real problem is that a more and more data is re-analysed and
scientifically evaluated, it is changing and since some of this is base
data, oh dear.

My bottom line is that we are going to see some climate change, but
weather it is runaway, and what percentage anthromorphological (sp
stuffed) I don't know.

Since we do not fully understand Australia's weather, I am very sceptical
of climate change scare stories. Credibility is nt helped by the swine
flu scare story beat up doing the rounds.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:55:17 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

"KR"

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.

nope, you could offer to reduce your cnsumptive living to a more simple,
less resource consuming lifestyle. i.e sharing, rather than greed.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a713ded-6ede-4417-a4e2-367811cc7901@p21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 12:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote in message

news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to
global warming).

IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be
classified
as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of climatologists, who
have carefully studied global warming for the last few decades.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2 (and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it
cannot
be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven
and
is doomed to failure.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise, I
first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part
about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he
needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a
ridiculous statement like that. I hope none of you are investing or
planning for the future based on beliefs like this.


While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it
always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also
very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW)
is rubbish .


**Indeed. There are a large number of scientific illiterates who state just
that. Sadly, those people have either failed to read the IPCC reports, or
are financially tied to the fossil fuel industry. The facts are blindingly
simple: The vast majority of climatologists have carefully and succinctly
explained that global warming is occuring and that it is mostly due to
anthropogenic influence.

I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over
his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt,
as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.


**Sounds bogus to me. However, I'll be happy to read whatever evidence you
can provide to support your claim. If you cannot provide any evidence, your
claim will be dismissed as bullshit.


At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist,
these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a
few (proverbial) grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has
done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to
their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they
are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and
peer review of their "research".

**It HAS been peer-reviewed! Many times. The result is always the same. Read
the IPCC reports. They were peer-reviewed.


Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently
proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price
increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable
and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This
would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.

**Really? How much would it cost? Be precise. You're claiming that it will
result in "incredible price increases". Please feel free to present your
evidence.


At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie:
stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse
to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/
or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts
that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the
lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and
seemingly unlimited incompetence).

**All those things are (partly) the result of lack of investment in
infrastructure, caused (partly) by inadequate taxation.

I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix"
AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the
government budget and now the national debt the current government has
given us.

**Then we need to ensure that this does not occur. AGW is a serious problem
and requires serious solutions.


The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.

**Good idea. In theory. In practice, not so good. The economies of this
planet are predicated on continuous population increase. As soon as
population growth ceases, economies start falling over. It is, of course, a
giant 'Ponzi Scheme'. It was always doomed to failure.

By having a future with less people
around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention
the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their
lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.
Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and
using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to
kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted
money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.

**Why? So the taxpayer can buy bigger, more powerful 4WDs, or bigger, more
power hungry plasma TV sets, or bigger, more power hungry homes? Tough
taxation, although extremely unpopular, may just cause people to start
acting responsibly. There are some possible links between lightly taxed
nations (like the US and Australia) and the amount of energy used.


It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause

**Whoa there boy! You have to prove that all those climatologists have it
wrong, BEFORE you can claim that AGW is fictitious. Unfortunately, for you,
the data is already in. AGW is real and it is a serious problem. However,
feel free to present your proof.

and
doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's
activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we
have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in
climate. We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall
for this stupidity.

**And there is the real problem. This is a planetary problem. The entire
planet must work to sort it out. Australia must do it's part.


As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able
to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then
his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.

On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.

**No, he didn't. Leo has been sucked in by charlatans and liars. He, like
you, is just hoping that the climatologists don't know their business.
You're both wrong.


I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an
improvement.

**Nonsense. Bush place the US (and the rest of the world) into this mess.
Bush cut taxation for the very wealthy and INCREASED spending. It does not
take a genius to work out that when a nation spends more than it earns,
there'll be big problems further down the track. At least Obama has assessed
the situation and placed the facts in front of the public.

A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks /
Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish
generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly
cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.

**I'm not qualified to speak about serious economic matters. There are
credible arguments for doing nothing and credible arguments for bailing out
private businesses.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"mark krawczuk" <krawczuk@adam.com.au> wrote in message
news:4JednZNKwd365IPXnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@adnap.net.au...

hi, did you know there is NO proof of global warming.

**I guess it depends on what you call "proof". We have clear, undeniable
proof of the following:

* CO2 is a known GHG.
* In the past 600,000 years, CO2 levels and temperatures show a clear link.
CO2 sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes lags.
* Since the advent of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have increased
by around 30%.
* Since the advent of the industrial revolution, temperatures have
increased.
* Since the advent of the industrial revolution, temperatures and CO2 levels
have increased at a faster rate than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* The warmest 11 years on record have all occured in the last 13 years.

To disregard global warming and man's influence on climate merely
demonstrates a breath-taking lack of understanding of the science involved.
I suggest you read the IPCC reports and get back to us.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au