OT GW

Google "climategate" and take your pick. It'll turn up about 3 and a half million hits.

I think it's been on a steady & sad decline for a while.

Nice.

I have no doubt that the US brought a lot of 9/11 on themselves thanks largely to their ridiculous foreign policy, but I don't buy for a second that any part of 9/11 was an internally organised event.

It's certainly a strange place, and the sad reality is that a lot of it's stupidity seems to be heading here.

I know I would.

**I see no proof. Just wild speculation. **I did say: "...the LIKES of Alan jones."

as I'm in Victoria, but if you put

**Type Alan Jones and you get 12.9 million hits. **Maybe.

**And it the scientists who know what they're talking about. **Ah, I see your problem. You have failed to read the science. It's easy to condemn something you have no knowledge of.

I ignore religious nutbags for exactly the same reason.

**I said: "...the LIKES of Alan Jones." **No. Anyone who suggests the science is bunk, but has failed to read that science is, well, I think you know the answer to that. **Of course you don't.

and that's the point. *no one* does,

**Have you read the IPCC reports?

**And again, you seem to be imagining that because Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott claim that the tax is crap, then it must be crap. It doesn't work that way. All the economists have stated that the carbon tax is the best way to address the issue. The shock-jocks and anyone employed by News Limited disputes this. Of course, they're not economists either. **Yes, probably.

**They, would include these guys:

**Irrelevant and bogus. And you know it. AUSTRALIA'S carbon tax is designed to reduce AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's carbon tax is designed to reduce Germany's CO2 emissions. And so on. **Of course. You are citing bogus arguments, as espoused by that pop-eyed liar, Monckton. **Economists. **So? How much was the total GST take? $30 billion? More? The carbon tax can be massaged to acheive it's stated aim. **Economists.

**You need to think about Abbott's plan, if you reject the government's one, since that is what you'll be stuck with. Abbott plans to take money from taxpayers and hand it to big business. Explain the logic of that to me, if you can. **Only by Tony Abbott, Alan Jones and the Murdock press. The people who know their stuff reckon it should work well. **Then you need to read up on the crbon tax. Ignorance is not excuse. Read it, before speaking any more on the issue:

**[SIGH] You claimed that NO ONE wanted the carbon tax. I cited one very large company that did. I'll find more if you wish. **The guys who study this stuff know what they're talking about. Shock-jocks don't. **And again: Not the point. Most people accept religion as if it makes sense. **OK, I accept your opinion. What are your economic credentials to make that claim? **So? Irrelevant.

The *only* reason we have a carbon tax today is

**Duh.

**Yes, you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?

**Good. Have you read the IPCC reports?

, and

**OK. I accept that. Have you read the IPCC reports?

**Fine. Have you read the IPCC reports?

**Asked and answered. The companies that can reduce their costs, through low CO2 emission strategies, can reduce their costs. BTW: That need not require an investment of millions of Dollars. **Yes, let's.

**Which was always going to be bollocks. Governments can afford to sell stuff at cost. Companies MUST make a profit.

Yet power prices have

**Of course.

**When do you imagine they did that? **Indeed. However, the amount we will pay is utterly insignificant. **They do not necessarily have to invest any capital. And those that can sell stuff at a lower price, due to lower costs, will either do so, or pocket the extra profit.

How much do you think it'd cost a power

**Less than the cost of a nuke and slightly more than the cost of a coal fired power station. The carbon tax will suddenly make geo-thermal power a lot more interesting to a number of companies. **Some will. Some will play a much longer game. **Bollocks. The total extra tax was in the order of several tens of Billions of Dollars. **Walking. Solar power, hydro power, wind power, riding a bicycle, driving an automobile, etc. **You are entitled to your opinion. What you don't seem to be providing is much in the way of proof. **And I know that to provide a balanced opinion on a topic, one should read both sides of the argument. Have you read the IPCC documents yet?

-- Trevor Wilson

My point made.

Blink, we have had both camps; warming and cooling finding data.

It was totally true. where do you think the boom in education services came from?

Unfortunately, had mixed experience. I guess that also illustrates my point.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

e.

in

ne

There are no "tories" in Australia. Your ignorance is showing.

I've seen and read a fair bit on this topic, and I agree with your assessment on Von Braun. His sole motivation seems to have been to do the science itself, at any cost.

My experience wasn't so much like that, more to do with backstabbing/politics and securing their own financial well being often at the expense of scientific accuracy. Seen plenty of sloppy technique as well. The bloke I worked for (who will remain nameless for now) was regarded as the world authority in his field, he also had quite an ego and was jealous of most any/all competitors in his field (excepting those in his own little faction).

I know of two GPs in Brisbane's southside:

One didn't know what an MRI was when I suggested it may be a good idea for my then GF's pinched nerve.

The other swears by putting caster oil around your mid-section, then wrapping it in glad wrap - for any complaint.

They are both qualified and practicing GPs in Australia.

Ok , best you fickoff

Oh yeah ... the fossil fuel funding... which happens to be about

20:1 in favour of the CAGW alarmist organizations.

It's about money for research. Money to maintain power. No science.

You don't understand the concept of a rational argument. Which is why you're such an excellent example of how NOT to argue when trying to make a point.

SO, keep doing it.

• A bureaucracy of public and publically-funded corporations that suck up about half the total workforce to reduce GDP.
• First-class travel for senior public servants.
• Business class travel for public servants.
• Free travel for current and past MP.
• Huge grants for "scientific research" that supports CAGW alarmism
• A whole department based on CAGW alarmism.
• Subsidies to install insulation to burn down your house.
• Subsidies to build school halls; to be torn down a year later.
• Subsidies to install PV solar so that you can rip off the electricity company by making them buy electricity at 4 times the market rate.
• Handouts to purchase plasma TVs so that you can watch them float away at the next flood
• Money for the ABC to spruik propaganda in all media at not just every opportunity, but to generate opportunities.
• Handouts to SBS to fragment Australian culture

Relevant to aus.cars:

• Funding Police so that they can buy stupid machines to "police" speed limits to within 1 km/h where speed limits are sometimes well below the 50th percentile.

While Antarctica gets colder.

Who are you going to believe? The guy who spent decades researching polar climate, or some has-been "journalist" whose claim to fame is decades of molesting wildlife on TV?

You do realize that the BBC got not only their scripts from WWF and Greenpeace via UEA CRU; but also a huge part of their funding, don't you? Effectively acting as a publically-subsidises propaganda arm of those organizations. That to fuel the alarmism to rake in the donations so that their executives can live the high life.

Or haven't you read the emails and the "BBC-gateau" reports?

Other CAGW activists are of the same ilk.

Fallacy: Appeal to authority.

Hypothecised. And others showed the flaws in his experiment.

Mounting evidence? Steaming piles of manure. Pure Gedankenexperiments and soothsaying akin to reading the entrails of chickens.

The theory has been falsified because the MEASUREMENTS in the REAL WORLD prove it to be wrong.

CO2 levels have risen steadily for more than a decade ... but no global temperature increase. Even a slight cooling. Pronounced cooling is you look at the temperature of the oceans; the climate system's most-significant store of heat.

Nice bunch of strawmen. And you can line up beside them and nobody will be able to tell the difference.

You, like so many others, are too lazy or afraid to do your own thinking. To go back to first principles and to tackle the underlying physics and biological cycles that make the climate what it is.

Or tune into SBS late at night, if its anything like it was when I last watched a couple of years back its a safe bet that at least one of the movies you see will feature at least a graphic sex scene, someone throwing up, or using a toilet.

Sometimes all 3.

He won't of course. Same goes for the mining tax and pokie regulations. What his replacement will almost certainly do is amend Julia's workplace legislation! :)

I don't expect he will, but I can live in hope.

Lol :)

It does :)

Of course, the worst (for me at least) is that I always seem to fluke flicking over whilst channel surfing *just* in time to see some bloke sticking his tongue down the throat of another bloke.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but *f*ck* it makes me want to heave :)

Infrastructure cost? It (2) is the straight cost of what the carbon tax does to their balance sheet at $23/tonne.

(3) is the current (pre-CT) figure.

**How the f*ck would you know? You have not read the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports are the premier documents in this area. You cannot claim that there are qualified comments on both sides, if you have not bothered reading one of those sides.

-- Trevor Wilson