That's really interesting. Thanks for posting.

Good summary of the madness currently coming from the Socialists in this country.
The usual suspects are due to chime in anytime... Logman???

so we have global warming or whatever alarmists and sceptics, both camps have big name people backing, both can produce all kinds of impressive scientific data, both have 'vested' interests.

who's right, whats the truth, who can we really trust?

^^^^
Big statement. Prove it Ados.

petermac33 said...

“There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788–1860)

Good quote. What you overlook is that he was talking about you lot.

Checked the link, no proof there...

Ados said...

ADS said...

^^^^
Big statement. Prove it Ados.

President of the Lavoisier Group - Hugh Morgan

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Morgan(businessman)

check the internets.

cisco said...

Seems to me the alarmists have the "Vested Interests" and if the alarmists had not come along blowing their trumpets, there would be no sceptics.

If you call a reluctance to surrender personal freedoms to an unelected global committee a "Vested Interest", then yes, I as a sceptic have an opposing view to the alarmists motivated by a "Vested Interest".

What is said in Cassa's link is quoting graphs and records that if false, would be easily debunked.

The global warming/climate change agenda has lost all credibility with the leaked emails etc.

As quoted:-“There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788–1860).......................or

Repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually accept it as truth.

as i see it, sceptics have come up with data facts etc to counter alarmists. after checking out this lavoisier group a bit, alarmists generally were saying they could set back the/their cause in australia by 10 years blah blah.
in this overall debate (including the breeze), i've seen no counter counter agruments using data,facts, etc to dispute the sceptics facts

just a lot of huffing and puffing, indignation,name calling, personal debasing.



where is the alarmists counter agruments backed up by scienctific data, facts etc?

if its there lets see it

lets play the ball,not the man

hew, i'll check it out.how about some links there

they are pacific counter agruments?yes no

SomeOtherGuy said...
You just keep saying that there's no such thing as climate change there cisco, pretty soon even the dinosaurs will believe it. Wonder where they're hiding, eh? D'ya think there could be a brontasaurus under my bed??

The climate's always changing. It's man's involvement that should be debated. Dinosaurs? Climate change? Really??

shear tip said...

SomeOtherGuy said...
You just keep saying that there's no such thing as climate change there cisco, pretty soon even the dinosaurs will believe it. Wonder where they're hiding, eh? D'ya think there could be a brontasaurus under my bed??

The climate's always changing. It's man's involvement that should be debated. Dinosaurs? Climate change? Really??

Sorry, I know a lot of people are hot on the topic of man's effects on climate. To me, I just see it as a distraction. As I'm sure I said to cisco here somewhere not too long ago - so what? What are we going to do about it? Basically my position is

(a) if it isn't us then it'd be the Sun heating up or God punishing us or aliens bombarding us with mind control rays.... whatever the cause, we need to deal with the effects and

(b) regardless of all the above, even IF the climate was NOT changing one iota - we still need to deal with the problem of finite resources. We're running out of oil, coal and even uranium for nuke power. So dealing with THAT is all about reducing dependancy on carbon.

By the way, I notice cisco (and others) blithely ignore all this and just go banging on about conspiracies and how somehow their right to **** in their own bed is being taken away by "them". I also said somewhere hereabouts that these same people couldn't spot a conspiracy if it smacked them in the head.

I refer you to the above exchange between ADS and Ados as proof.

SomeOtherGuy said...

.... We're running out of oil, coal and even uranium for nuke power. So dealing with THAT is all about reducing dependancy on carbon.

No it isn't.

Fusion of uranium has no dependance on carbon (except for finding, it, extracting it, constructing something to heat it in and transmitting the electricity from it - but then anything has that in an equal manner)

And the 'carbon tax' or ETS, or climate change has nothing to do with reducing dependancy on carbon, it is about cutting the volume of emitted CO2 (well - so they say)

And the running out of these things has nothing to do with any government intervention. If you believe an ETS will force the market to reduce emissions you can't also argue that government intervention needs to be made into a market that has a dwindling supply side and a growing demand side.

Reducing emissions has nothing to do with reducing dependancy.

King Leopold must be laughing though. If he sorts it out right he will be able to sell an almost infinite amount of Hutt River internationally certified carbon credits to Australian businesses.

...carbon taxes offer some near-term economic, and thus political, advantages that may have been underestimated.

In particular, carbon taxes bring in government revenues that can be deployed for various purposes: investing in clean-energy infrastructure and (politically popular) job creation; stimulating the economy and reducing government deficits

reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government deficits reducing government





A carbon tax that corrects prices today to avoid a future welfare loss, where we do not want today's generation to be worse off,

Carantoc said...

SomeOtherGuy said...

.... We're running out of oil, coal and even uranium for nuke power. So dealing with THAT is all about reducing dependancy on carbon.

No it isn't.

Fusion of uranium has no dependance on carbon (except for finding, it, extracting it, constructing something to heat it in and transmitting the electricity from it - but then anything has that in an equal manner)

Thanks, you make my point for me. You can have endless supplies of uranium in the ground but it's all useless unless it can be mined, refined and transported. Once the oil runs out then all reserves of just about anything are useless.

ADS said...

kiteboy dave said...

The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.

President: Peter Walsh, former Finance Minister
Vice President: Ian Webber, Director of WMC Resources
Secretary: Ray Evans, President of the HR Nicholls Society, ex-WMC [3]
Treasurer: Harold Clough AO, IPA board member and Director of Clough Group, a mining and resource service company.
Robert Foster
Bruce Kean, Chairman of Committee for Economic Development of Australia [4]
Peter Murray, coal industry consultant

A very small Dad's Army of rich old miners who go round talking up the climate skeptic line to oldies at rotary and probus clubs.

Do you think they are in the same ballpark as the scientific consensus of hundreds of peak scientific bodies around the world?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Yep, they have a budget of $10,000 wow that's Big industry money!
There is an avalanche of Govt. money flowing into the industry of climate change science. Hypocrisy much?

"The annual subscription fee is 50 dollars, and the annual budget is 10,000 dollars."

SomeOtherGuy said...

I also said somewhere hereabouts that these same people couldn't spot a conspiracy if it smacked them in the head.

I refer you to the above exchange between ADS and Ados as proof.

Merchants of Doubt. an interesting read!