If you are reading this, thank a Teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a Soldier
The Real Debate
Over at Kae’s website I came across this link to the The Skeptic’s Handbook
Even if you are a died in the wool Chicken Little and member of the Church of the Latter Day Alarmists you should read it. Nothing like an alternative opinion sprinkled with facts to get you thinking.
Another good read is posted at the Climate Skeptics “By locking in a low target now, Australia will effectively undermine the Copenhagen UN climate process in December, betraying not only the Australian people in its duty of care, but also people and nations across the globe,” the letter from Climate Action Groups states.It’ll be line ball about now as to how many Australian people will feel betrayed if Penny Wrong does keep up her ideological stand on Climate Change and how many will be happy if she doesn’t. Me? I think the Government’s approach to Climate Change needs to be revisited in light of conflicting information from reliable sources and given the current state of the economy. Lets save Australia now and sort out the world when we have time to really consider all of our options. Googling Climate Action Groups comes up with a huge mob of radical Chicken Little advocates who will take no prisoners and will only be happy when Industry is crushed and our economy stalled. Of course Nuclear power is not up for debate and some are busy drumming up support to close down Newcastle in a People’s Blockade of the World’s Biggest Coal Port on 21 March 2009. Close down a major port for a day – there that should do it! Idiots!
Dear Senator McCain, Sir, YOU CHOSE a visit to a wind-farm in early summer 2008 to devote an entire campaign speech to the reassertion of your belief in the apocalyptic vision of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – a lurid and fanciful account of imagined future events that was always baseless, was briefly exciting among the less thoughtful species of news commentators and politicians, but is now scientifically discredited. With every respect, there is no rational basis for your declared intention that your great nation should inflict upon her own working people and upon the starving masses of the Third World the extravagantly-pointless, climatically-irrelevant, strategically-fatal economic wounds that the arrogant advocates of atmospheric alarmism admit they aim to achieve.You should read it regularly, particularly after contact with any “AGW is a fact type” media. Hat tip Kae
Hardest hit could be stocks of Tasmanian salmon, estimated to be worth $221million in 2005-06 and representing 30 per cent of the total national aquaculture production. The report says projected ocean warming of 2-3 degrees by 2070 could render salmon farming unviable, leaving open the possibility of salmon farmers having to shift their operations offshore to deeper, cooler waters.That’s assuming the industry place their respective heads in the sand and ignore any climate change over the next 50 odd years. It also assumes no one will google Salmon farming+optimal temperatures. and find as I did that 2-3 degrees variation over 50 years is totally irrelevant when the current industry norms say optimal temperatures for salmon/trout farming currently works on a temperature range of +- 8 degrees. In addition to this genetic research and development is looking for stock that can be grown commercially in 3 to 21 degree range as stated in the Australian Fish Farmer
Although selective breeding for a genotype that displays Upper and Lower Critical Tolerance (UCL & LCL) should enable growers to farm the species in regions that would otherwise be marginal, The UCL for cold water species would be something like 21 degrees C and the LCL would be 3 degrees C.Panic, you bastards and join the Church of the Latter Day Alarmists but don’t, whatever you do, question our gospel.
In some cases, a grant of up to $6000 may be available. It is expected this would cover the installation of gas systems or air conditioning in some disadvantaged suburbs and regional or remote areas.I’ve always considered these items a personal matter. For example, my wife and I couldn’t even consider airconditioning the house until the kids had left home and we had some spare cash. That took 30 years and now I find some do-good mob are suggesting my taxes pay for someone else to get it free in the name of global warming. That’s not alright, that’s Insane!
We should judge our climate-change policies by this simple test: Will we leave the Great Barrier Reef for our children? At present the answer is “no”. We are all responsible for changing the answer to “yes”.We should judge all such comments by this simple test: Is it alarmist and if so what is the originators agenda? In the on-line link Chris is just Chris McGrath. In the newspaper he is Dr Chris McGrath, a Barrister specializing in environmental law. Could I suggest the article would have been better placed in the classified section of the paper under “Barristers, Environmental Law”.
Tabloid TV, SBS and the ABC have rolled over and we can’t view a scene of nature or animals cavorting without a sombre voice-over mentioning global warming. Films of icebergs melting, as they do very summer, cannot be shown without a mention of the impending doom for all mankind, Polar bears and penguins.This is all summarised by Tony Brown in a letter to the Australian today
When the last polar bear has died, the last glacier melted, and the last alpine ski lodge closed, will the climate change sceptics (Cut & Paste, 28/7) still claim that global warming was all a mirage conjured up by the misuse of dodgy greenhouse statistics?Possibly Tony, but by then, hundreds if not thousands of years in the future, we may well know more about our climate and just how much us puny humans affect it. Dodgy greenhouse statistics will have been rationalized and we might, just might, have accepted science over religion. I doubt if people like you will have changed though- religious zealots seldom revert. I guess Tony really believes everything he sees on tabloid TV – such conversion to a religion is bankable but I think it would be fair guess that Tony has always been in the front pew. No one can claim the Liberals are playing populist politics when they demand more detail on Rudd’s plans. In view of todays polls one could easily define their stand as suicidal but it is a stand they must make. Someone has to ask questions about the ALPs headlong push into the unknown. From todays editorial in the Australian;
The real message from today’s Newspoll is that the politics of ecological catastrophe being pursued by Labor has much greater traction than the politics of economic responsibility being prosecuted by Dr Nelson.This is stark evidence that we need a debate about the matter and the Libs are the only ones likely to start it. The voters don’t know what the cost of any ALP plan is and Rudd is trying to force the Libs, Greens and assorted anti Poker Machine addicts and anyone else who believes they hold the balance of power, to roll over and pass their bills through the House and the Senate before costs are detailed. Once the punters are aware of the likely costs and the fact that those increased personal costs and increased pressure on industry and commerce will lead to inflation for no discernible benefit to the hypothetical problem they will balk. The opinion polls will change.
Asked what he intended to do about the problem, Mr Voelte said: “We have booked a lot of plane tickets to Canberra.”Good luck – it’s always hard to get zealots to see reason. QANTAS is expected to announce today that it will axe between 2000 and 3000 jobs and cut more routes as it restructures to cope with high fuel prices. Get used to it. Not because the price of fuel will go up due to supply but because the Government are under pressure to raise the price to comply with it’s global warming lie. From David Evans in todays Australian I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”You elected them now wear it. The country is being held to ransom by a bunch of alarmists and where are the Liberals in our moment of danger – can’t hear ’em. Surely they should be questioning the basic tenet that says mere humans having more impact on global climate that the sun. We need someone with sufficient testosterone and wit to start educating the public. Tabloid TV, SBS and the ABC have rolled over and we can’t view a scene of nature or animals cavorting without a sombre voice-over mentioning global warming. Films of icebergs melting, as they do very summer, cannot be shown without a mention of the impending doom for all mankind, Polar bears and penguins. All of this is based on shaky evidence that theorizes that we humans are causing these calamities. God forbid that the Sun should have some part to play. The trouble is, you can’t make a religion out of the sun being to blame when it is just a part of a natural cycle. It needs to be caused by mankind so that the High Priests can agitate for change – force those filthy capitalists, petrol consuming V8 4WD owners (me) and other non-believers to see the light and convert. Evans again;
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.and;
Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.…they are just theory has been my point since Stern’s IPCC report and yet we are about to commit effort, money, profits, jobs and livelihoods on the alter of a false God. It would be OK if we spent money on R & D for alternative energy, forced companies to clean up their act and individuals to think smarter but to arbitrarily force big business to pay for carbon produced seems pointless. What happens to that income? Is it given back to the poor to compensate for price increases and if so what have we achieved. Rudd, Swan Song and Princess Penny say with all of their interfering with our economy, the impact on inflation will only be in the order of .09%. Well, excuse me, they would say that wouldn’t they? Go back to first line of this post to see how believable any estimation of the impact on inflation will be.
Facebook
Twitter
