OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

[kreed]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366

 

[atec77]

On 13/07/2011 10:06 AM, kreed wrote:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366
Well the respondents hate juliar and the tax

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph readership is
below room temperature.

Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.

Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible to
answer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-...

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph
readership is below room temperature.


The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.

They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.

Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.


It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so readily.

Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible
to answer.


That is somewhat true.

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[atec77]

On 13/07/2011 11:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-...

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph
readership is below room temperature.


The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.


They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.



Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.


It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so readily.



Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible
to answer.


That is somewhat true.

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


You being a "people " certainly prove your claim

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/07/2011 10:06 AM, kreed wrote:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366

"Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal election?"

And 64% say yes.

The Daily Telegraph readership must be hugely dominated by marginal voters.

Either that, or people don't pay much attention to the question, and
just treat it as a vote on whether they like the carbon tax.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 13/07/2011 10:06 AM, kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366

"Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?"
And 64% say yes.

The Daily Telegraph readership must be hugely dominated by marginal
voters.
Either that, or people don't pay much attention to the question, and
just treat it as a vote on whether they like the carbon tax.

**A smart person once described the Daily Telegraph readership as possessing
an average IQ that is below room temperature.

And, as you previously commented, the questions are appallingly poorly
phrased.

And, as I previously noted, the responses to the last question prove,
conclusively, that the Daily Telegraph readership are mostly idiots.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-...

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph readership is
below room temperature.

The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.
I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.

It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves
It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible to
answer.

That is somewhat true.
for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science

** Since when is climatology a science ?

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made
successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at
by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists.


BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.


..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"


**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us
that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science


** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now. Here's a guy who seems to know a little about the
topic:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

Send a message to Dr Ayers explaining your POV. I'm certain he will most
interested in your well informed opinion.

Remind me: What is your experience in the area of atmospheric physics?

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,

**Are you certain about that? Got some proof?

have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More than
100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the planet would
rise, if humans increased CO2 emissions. He drew on works and experimental
data from guys like Fourier that has already established that CO2 was highly
resonant at several IR frequencies.

and

are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie. I do accept that Tony Abbott, George Pell and
Alan Jones dispute the science however. None of those guys understands
diddly about science though.

BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that has been
observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us
that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science


** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now.

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

** No science involved in either.

But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the driver.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,

**Are you certain about that?

** How absurd.

have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More than
100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the planet
would rise,

** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

What absurd Crapology.

The only " science " TW is familiar with.

are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie.

** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.

BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that has been
observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it?

** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement error,
statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go the other way
in the future.

THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide disaster
from Global Cooling !!!

THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate more CO2
to fix it !!!!!

The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are frightening.

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......



..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told
us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science


** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now.

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?


** No science involved in either.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?

But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the
driver.

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,

**Are you certain about that?

** How absurd.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More
than 100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the
planet would rise,

** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier

What absurd Crapology.

The only " science " TW is familiar with.

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

www.ipcc.ch

are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie.

** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

**Nup. Just the science and logic.

Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.

**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're
honest?

You're dreaming.

BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that
has been observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2,
then what is it?


** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement
error, statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go
the other way in the future.

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more
than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide
disaster from Global Cooling !!!

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.

THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate
more CO2 to fix it !!!!!

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............

The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are
frightening.

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......

**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=0112&ave_yr=10

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=1202&ave_yr=10.

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=0608&ave_yr=10

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
[NPD Phil:]

** No science involved in either.
**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?
....

That's right. More magical thinking.

Climates operate on magical principles and completely random factors that
are impossible to study.

--
[v^3 is Phil's notation for linear:]

On a bike with rider in tuck position air resistance with no wind
is something like .4 * v^3 Watts. If possible to get to 80 kph
that would be 4.3 kW.
** For Christ's sake - go learn some basic physics, dickhead.

The drag experienced by the solar car or a cyclist is almost entirely due to
AIR resistance.
And that is not a linear function of speed.
-- "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>, 9 Jan 2011 13:28 +1100

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"


** TWs idea of "science" is the same as my idea of witchcraft.

Nothing new there.

The guy is a notorious fake, charlatan and audiophool.




..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

<kym@kymhorsell.com


** Context shifting is not your game is it ??

Fuckwit.



.... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told
us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science


** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now.

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?


** No science involved in either.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?

But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the
driver.

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,

**Are you certain about that?

** How absurd.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More
than 100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the
planet would rise,

** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier

What absurd Crapology.

The only " science " TW is familiar with.

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

www.ipcc.ch

are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie.

** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

**Nup. Just the science and logic.

Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.

**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're
honest?

You're dreaming.

BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that
has been observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2,
then what is it?


** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement
error, statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go
the other way in the future.

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more
than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide
disaster from Global Cooling !!!

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.

THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate
more CO2 to fix it !!!!!

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............

The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are
frightening.

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......

**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=0112&ave_yr=10

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=1202&ave_yr=10.

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=0608&ave_yr=10

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:07:06 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"


**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science


** Since when is climatology a science ?

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made
successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at
by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists.

Just to barge in uninvited here...

I agree that the scientific opinion is very much divided on the cause
of the climate change that is obvious to all of us who have lived on
this planet for more than half a century. As you say it might be a
temporary variation to the statistical norm, but it is just as likely
to be something else.

The introduction of CO2 into an atmosphere is easy to do, and it is
easy to show a "greenhouse" effect when it is done. Try it - all you
need is a large plastic bag and a thermometer, and a tiny amount of
CO2 to introduce after the first temp reading after an hour in the
sun. For the second reading start from scratch then introduce the CO2
and take the second reading after an hour in the sun.

I say that reduction of carbon can only be a good thing, and the cost
is very reasonable if governments think the process through, as this
one has. If we do nothing, future generations are in a good position
to condemn this generation for its selfish attitude in the highly
likely event that climate change deniers are wrong.

 

[Phil Allison]

<samiam@hihat.com>


** Vote Green do we ??

Ride a bicycle ?

Drive a Prius ?





..... Phil

 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:28:24 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

samiam@hihat.com


** Vote Green do we ??

Ride a bicycle ?

Drive a Prius ?

No, no, and no.

--
Sam

 

[Trevor Wilson]

samiam@hihat.com wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:07:06 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:


"Trevor Wilson"


**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told
us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science


** Since when is climatology a science ?

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,
have never made successful predictions about the future climate and
are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

Just to barge in uninvited here...

**All are welcome.

I agree that the scientific opinion is very much divided on the cause
of the climate change that is obvious to all of us who have lived on
this planet for more than half a century.

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided. The science is settled. The
arguments now come from religious nutters, politicians, talk-back radio
hosts and fossil fuel apologists. Make no mistake: The guys who study the
climate of this planet are in agreement. The guys who deny it, do so for
other reasons, other than the science.

As you say it might be a

temporary variation to the statistical norm, but it is just as likely
to be something else.

**The IPCC was originally formed to uncover the reasons why the planet was
warming. Hence the 'CC' in the title. It was determined that CO2 was the
only possible reason that could be attributed to the present warming, since
all the other influences were taken into account. There is no 'statistical
variation'. There is a physical reason why the planet is warming. The
reasons could have been due to variations in Solar flux, orbital
puturbations, smog and a bunch of other stuff. CO2 was the only standout
difference. CO2 is the problem.

The introduction of CO2 into an atmosphere is easy to do, and it is
easy to show a "greenhouse" effect when it is done. Try it - all you
need is a large plastic bag and a thermometer, and a tiny amount of
CO2 to introduce after the first temp reading after an hour in the
sun. For the second reading start from scratch then introduce the CO2
and take the second reading after an hour in the sun.

**Of course. This experiment has been done many times, since the 19th
century, when the theory was first proposed. It has been well established
that oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR, whilst CO2, methane and
several other atmospheric gases are highly resonant at several IR
frequencies. Through this resonance, they acquire kinetic energy, which is,
in turn, transferred to the rest of the atmosphere, thus raising the kinetic
energy of the entire system.

I say that reduction of carbon can only be a good thing, and the cost
is very reasonable if governments think the process through, as this
one has. If we do nothing, future generations are in a good position
to condemn this generation for its selfish attitude in the highly
likely event that climate change deniers are wrong.

**Indeed. If the deniers are wrong, then inaction now, may lead to
irreversible damage to the planet.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au