Australians reject their own carbon caps
July 14, 2009 · By Charles Anthony
More people are rejecting man-made global warming as a basis for cap-and-trade policy:
As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
— SNIP —
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling.
The bullying tactics of Al Gore and the environmental socialists are failing.
Great news! Let’s bury this climate change relic before it buries us. Only the very naive still believe in the anthropogenic global warming farce. Gore and Suzuki can screech all they like, their audience is leaving the auditorium in droves. Only the fools left.
hmmmmm….number of skeptics is swelling. WELL all i can say is
YEAHHHHHHHHHHHH ITS ABOUT &**&%*^$*^ing TIME!!!!!!!
question, does anyone know if obama is illiterate or something cause i would have thought that him being a supposedly well read and educated individual he would have come out by now and rescinded that poor excuse for an environmental bill by now?
just asking.
Come on Brad, Obama is an “Idea Man”. He doesn’t bother himself with the petty details.
Haven’t you heard? Obama and Company DO NOT EVEN READ THE BILLS they are passing. That is no joke or exaggeration. They have admitted it themselves.
Any good scientific debate will have scientists on both sides, but at some point you have to accept that the best data we have shows we are headed for catastrophe. There is a (very) small possibility that the forecasts are incorrect, and the climate will not undergo drastic changes. The best science we have, however, all points to a temperature change heading our way between 2 and 8 degrees C.
Think of it as a version of Pascal’s wager. We can do nothing, or we can do something. If we do something, and we’re wrong, we will have spent a lot of money unnecessarily. We will over-conserve, the economy will suffer more than required, etc.
On the other hand, if we do nothing, and we’re wrong, we will have environmental catastrophe on a global scale. We’re talking desertification of current agricultural heartlands, billions without access to fresh water, and of course flooding of coastal areas, not to mention massive extinction, famine, and most definitely lots and lots of war.
If we’re to do nothing, we ought to be DAMN sure that this is just a farce. Not “we’re not sure” or “we’re not convinced”, or even “probably not”. No finger-pointing, conspiracy theories, FUD-spreading, politics as usual crap. We have to be 100%, totally convinced that there is no danger. We need a silver-bullet level proof. The alternative is too grim to risk.
Can anyone honestly say that they believe there is absolutely, positively, 100% no possibility of this occurring? If so, I suggest you think it over again.
I can honestly say that I believe there is absolutely, positively, 100% no possibility of global warming catastrophe occurring.
However, I have a better question: Are you willing to coerce people like me, who do not share your fears, in order to achieve your goals?
Am I willing to ignore a vocal, ignorant minority to avert a global catastrophe? Unquestionably, absolutely, yes.
But I did not ask you if you would ignore people. I asked if you would coerce them.
If you would coerce otherwise peaceful people rather than convince them to rally behind your cause, you are no better than any other war-mongerer of which this world does not need any more.
the more evidence that comes to light showing anthropogenic climate change to be false, the more vocal the leftists become.
i dont understand how these people can support something that is so obviously a call to protectionism and the coup de grace; the starvation of the poorest on the planet whom those on the left supposedly support. but then again, no one can ever explain to the followers of karl marx or his great grandchild, the obamessiah that left wing feel good policies tend to have the opposite effect of their original intention. just what kind of school could possibly allow such teachings in modern society? and what moron would pay good money to learn it?
Charles, I meant ‘ignore’ in the political sense, as in to take action and implement policy. On any policy issue you will have people who disagree, and the government must decide which way the country must go. If you consider that coercion, then yes I would coerce you.
Brad, I have yet to see any serious evidence that ‘proves’ that anthropogenic climate change is false, and I follow the subject regularly. Just because some scientist somewhere disagrees with someone else’s theory, or has an alternate theory, this does not constitute proof. This is healthy scientific debate, which many interpret (incorrectly) as doubt or ambiguity.
Also, don’t conflate environmentalism with communism – just because you disagree with both of these things does not mean they are the same.
Abattoir, you said earlier that “Any good scientific debate will have scientists on both sides, but at some point you have to accept that the best data we have shows we are headed for catastrophe.”
The problem that most people have with the “best data we have” is that the data models being used exclude several elements that might sway the models towards an “unfavorable” conclusion that doesn’t support their position. Basically, there’s essential data missing or being deliberately ignored. As such, it’s hard for someone, such as myself and obviously a great many others, that the “science” is sound. In fact, it looks downright disingenuous, which leads to accusations of bias or manipulated data.
As such, when you say to Brad “I have yet to see any serious evidence that ‘proves’ that anthropogenic climate change is false” the exact opposite also becomes true and the response “I have yet to see any serious evidence that ‘proves’ that anthropogenic climate change is true” is fairly predictable. And absence of evidence to the contrary is not necessarily evidence of truth in this matter.
Unstoppable Force, meet Immovable Object.
Although there are serious and credible scientists on both sides, it therefore comes down to the science, and as I said earlier, there are serious and valid questions about the integrity of the models being used.
to abbatoir,
a global agenda based on so called scientific consensus when there is no such consensus screams economic manipulation by the two largest economies in the world attempting to “protect” their economies from global competition. europe and the US are the worst offenders when it comes to protectionist tariffs and subsidies to satisfy a population filled with unionist radicals and leftist idealogues.
a timeline of temperature trends versus CO2 atmospheric content has shown in ice core samples that CO2 has consistantly TRAILED temp changes by as much as 700 years!!!! obviously its not a driver but an effect. the problem with important environmental initiatives such as clean water and soil is that there is there is no money to be made off it nor would it produce the type of planned economy that the countries in favour of cap and tax want. lets not forget that this agenda is being driven by the UN, the ultimate organization responsible for redistribution of wealth.
i dont know about you but i’ll take my chances with a POSSIBILITY of odd weather patterns with climate change versus the CERTAINTY of starvation and poverty under the guise of helping gaia.
to abbatoir or anyone else, some interesting reading here which will make you wonder if we are heading into another ice age, forget warming!!!!! and one article is NASA of all things.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.g.....8061927064
also this article coincides with a book by Richard Alley called The Two Mile TIme Machine. both articles show that greenland ice cores reveal a VERY dramatic climate shift that took place as fast as 3 years.
nothing like some light reading at midnight on a friday. at least i’m not in my parents basement i guess, that would really be pathetic.
Brad,
Thanks for the article from NASA. Unfortunately, it is actually arguing the precise opposite from what you seem to have gleaned from it. I suggest you go over it again.
They are reporting how the atmospheric currents reorganized as a direct result of a rapid increase in global temperatures, as the Earth was coming out of an ice age. This is very important for understanding climate change, as weather patterns may change worldwide very quickly.
If anyone has any actual reputable papers supporting this significant controversy that is allegedly brewing in academic circles, throwing doubt on the whole theory, I’d love to see them.
Yes, it might be pathetic if you were in your parents’ basement, Brad, depending on how old you are. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything, though.