Off topic post - removed

Original referred to post removed

So we should just continue to sit back and be entertained by this nonsense, whilst the real causes of poverty, conflict and exploitation continue to heat towards boiling point. This is the real global warming. Imperialism has only changed its stripes. It's as relevant today as 250 years ago when the power broker families took over the direction of world trade with the East India Company.
I wonder how much carbon the Miltary Industrial Complex emits?

Probabaly not a good time for me to be posting this on this particular thread but I think it fits here and is of particular relevance to what is happening in the world of global warming politics as well as other environmental politics.
The radical environmentalists have been at the forefront of promulgating the most bizarre and extreme predictions of the supposed global catastrophes arising from any supposed global warming, forecasts that are far outside of and in excess of any of the more science based projections by even of the most radical of the more science based researchers.
Although the no base in reality propaganda pieces from the radical environmental groups fitted closely to the propaganda aims of the IPCC and which body adopted many of the non science, radical opinion writers outputs from these radical environmental groups as supposedly peer reviewed papers and which the IPCC was eventually very badly caught out over,
Himalayan Glacier melts and disappearance by 2035 plus the destruction of the Amazon rainforest from drought in a few years for just a couple of IPCC examples of these totally non reality based reports out of many published by the IPCC.

As I have been often accused of being way over the top in my criticisms of the radical environmental movement although I can easily live with the more pragmatic and socially responsive and sensible section of the greens, I simply see the radical greens as little more than an earth worshipping cult that wants to destroy all of our modern economies and social systems to satisfy their radical ideology and dogma.
In their simplistic world view they seem to have no conception of what will be the consequences for others plus of course themselves if they were ever to achieve their cult like aims of global domination and control.
They seem to assume with utter and unbelievable naivety and ignorance that they will just continue to enjoy their current western based and salubrious lifestyle.

So here is a view of the increasingly radical environmental movement by one of it's very own, one of the founders of Green Peace, Dr. Patrick Moore.

Following is a review of his book,
Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist

And for a preliminary quote from that review

Bandt reckons we can 'learn to love' the Carbon Tax

Let's say, NO WAY!!!

Julia Gillard clearly BROKE A PROMISE!! and SHE KNOWS IT!!!! She and her greenie puppeteers just don't get the basic idea that carbon pollution reduction will NOT STOP THE CYCLONES/HEATWAVES/ABOVE-AVERAGE TEMPERATURES etc.!!!!!

We have to really rise up against this obscene new tax! because she seems DETERMINED to push this through against the people's wishes!!!!!

Agreed wholeheartedly!!!... Also, is it just me or do others also gag when they see carbon referred to as pollution?

co2 is NOT a pollutant!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

In a worrying late development Abbott is refusing to guarantee that he would revoke a carbon tax.

No doubt because like the government, the opposition will calculate the electoral pluses and minuses of the various scenarios (oppose a tax, support a tax, delay a tax, kill an existing tax, and bribe this section or that) before making a move.

Neither major party has a commitment to anything in this debate but retaining or gaining government.

Well goodbye Julia and hello Bill! Last time the ALP dug this up they started to pong amongst the electorate and with help from the union right faction of NSW they stabbed their leader in the back (yes we all know that this tactic is a favourite amongst NSW Labor). Don't be surprised if we end up with a new PM and possibly another election over this. With a minority government in power, this could get very messy.

I would look at the carbon tax from other point of wiew
Electricity and gas prices are raising at 20% at this moment anyway , so regulated the poor will be compensated .
As a cynic I took advantage of the almost free LPG conversion , as well of solar subsidies .
The only problem I have right now is . I brain washed my kids about the none existant global warming that much , that they dont plan to have a family !!!!! . GRRRRRRRRRRR

None of them ever have any motive except retaining or gaining government, whether its this issue or any other. It's the same all over the world. The protagonists each try to tell us they are the best. But not this current bunch in Canberra. And disillusioned voters somehow thought Senator Brown's team was going to save the day. Mr Speaker, there are dinosaurs in the Chamber.

No thank you, we've had an inelegant sufficiency of enoughness.

And we've been brainwashed into the so called virtues of 'natural gas' whilst 'free trade' will ensure our land is turned into a leaky gas field. Now we are set for maybe the biggest protest in our history.
In politics, economic imperative is the only game. A carbon tax is fraud. There's no other way of looking at because the science is not settled. Whatever the spin it is big business that will clean up financially, and we will to clean up their mess once they've made their millions and left the farmer with a farm he can't sell.

This link is to an ABC report of what Abbott said. If it's indeed true it is a worry, because Abbott's using the same vaguespeak they all use when they say 'we haven't had a meeting yet'. Starting to sound like a popular Michael Buble song!

Apart from that, the pollies also conveniently have contrived as precedent very vague and seemingly unwritten definitions of a 'mandate'.

On the face of it Gillard has no mandate for this tax because she ruled it out (and yes I know Howard did something similar with GST though I don't recall all the facts). But then they cover this discrepancy by reiterating the broader policies which apparently require the tax to be law in order to make them work. The voter is left guessing. Gillard is now saying the electorate knew beforehand what her government's policy on the tax was.

So how are we supposed to reconcile that (presumption that policy required the carbon tax) with her expressed promise that there wouldn't be any?

As far as politics and climate change goes, I usually look at it like this.

Libs - listen to the economy first, churches second and then claim all scientists must be hippies, thus dismissing them.

Labs - listens to the economy first, science second, then do nothing anyway (although I may have to revise this opinion in light of recent developments.)

Greens - listen to scientists first, then has a bunch of hippies turn the science into overly emotional arguments. (Not dismissing all the actual scientists who are/vote Green, I just think that generally the party could do better in communicating more scientifically, and less emotionally.)

One thing I find very interesting about this thread is that so many "weather freaks" are perfectly happy to trust the BOM for radar, rainfall, storm warnings, cyclone tracks and river flood levels, yet somehow can dismiss those very same scientists on the topic of climate change.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
I recommend working through their range of climate data graphs and images.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi

Perhaps my favourite quote on climate generally comes from the BOM
"If weather is the watch then climate is the calendar."
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/index.htm
We all know that the time is ticking, and sooner or later we'll be flipping the page on the weather calendar - I'm not convinced it's going to be a pretty picture.


PS
SGB, did you mean to link to a page that confirms CO2 is a pollutant? skepticalscience.com is a science page, not a climate skeptic's page.
Re: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

Breaking News...

Climate change is still happening — Scientists still doing good science

In other news...

Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists


Report is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information

Another day, another independent review finds that emails of climate science do nothing to undermine the overwhelming data-driven understanding that humans are changing the climate

At the request of U.S. Sen. Inhofe, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails stolen in November 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and found no evidence of impropriety or reason to doubt NOAA’s handling of its climate data. The Inspector General was asked to look into how NOAA reacted to the leak and to determine if there was evidence of improper manipulation of data, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with Information Quality Act and Freedom of Information Act guidelines.

“We welcome the Inspector General’s report, which is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information,” said Mary Glackin, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science.”

The Inspector General’s report states specifically:

“We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.”

“We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.”

“We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA.”

“We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.”

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html

.

I turned over my weather calender page to the next one(as directed by Jocelyn) which has a picture of a pool topped with ice srystals at Cradle Mountain.......is that the sign of what is coming...that would not at all be pretty for agriculture, etc...ice and global cooling!!!

Washington, D.C.–Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released the following findings from the investigation by the Commerce Department’s Inspector General on emails from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) related to the “climategate” scandal.

“I want to thank the Inspector General for conducting a thorough, objective, and balanced investigation,” Inhofe said. “NOAA is one of the nation’s leading scientific organizations. Unfortunately, in reading past the executive summary, this report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation. It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze. Her justification for blocking the release was contradicted by two career attorneys in the Office of General Counsel. This is no doubt a serious matter that deserves further investigation.“Also, the IG recommended that certain NOAA-related emails ‘warrant further investigation,’ so I will be following up to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent according to federal law, and that the public will get access to the science NOAA produces.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...n_id=&Issue_id=
“We found eight emails which, in our judgment, warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data. As a result, we conducted interviews with the relevant NOAA scientists regarding these eight emails, and have summarized their responses and explanations in the enclosure.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/24/in...ion/#more-34736

Meanwhile thru all the debate, the reality is we are plundering the earth in a unsustainable way, and global warming or not, all the real damage to the environment goes on mostly unnoticed outside cities where most people live. But this is changing as the miners move onto our food bowl and literally into cities and towns.
It is set to become such a big issue that carbon tax will become quickly normalised in the economy, and most people will adapt accordingly.
But, and this is a big but. We have no control of all the likely events in the near future that will add pressure to already increasing energy costs.
Carbon tax will do nothing more than continue to put the squeeze on the working class, and resources of third world countries will be pillaged by the highest carbon credit bidders.

heheh. Nice one BD. I did meant the metaphorical weather calendar, but I appreciate skeptics do like to look for "signs" rather than data.

The actual weather calendar always has pretty pictures.

Spatch - loved your "scientists still doing science" routine. I've always been entertained by the implication that all of this will blow over and those damn scientists will get back to their "proper" jobs of hairdressing, shoe shining... or something.

For those of us (hello, anyone .....) who believe that persistent fossil carbon release is an important but voidable contribution to global warming, and thus want to lower if not eliminate fossil carbon accumulation there are two broad choices on offer as far as taking any action is concerned.

That is, by way of a tax. And a great big tax, or, by way of energy innovation.

I'd vote for energy innovation, but at the moment, that means I have no-one to vote for.

Technically, Inhofe may be correct about the data manipulation

Here’s one definition I found of the verb “manipulate”:

“to handle or use, esp with some skill, in a process or action: to manipulate a pair of scissors”

So yeah, I guess the climate scientists were handling the data with some skill. Inhofe is absolutely correct.

That’s probably exactly what he meant, too.