Climate Change

[snappy]

Originally Posted by flappist

If that extreme right wing agenda is to combat extreme left wing nutcases making emotional unfounded statements then I cannot see a problem with it.

In fact I suspect the only people who they would upset are extreme left wing nutcases who would try to debunk it as right wing agenda.

The rest of the world tend to look at all sides realising that they all bias their data toward their agenda and tell lies so therefore judge for themselves.

Of course that tends to upset the nutcases too as they don't want people to believe anything other they what they tell them to.......

Funny because its true . An why people think opinion pieces are anything but opinions amazes me .
An on a separate note i also find it funny that people that criticise andrew bolt for being right wing . Always think the Age and abc is unbiased .

[Turbo6FG]

Originally Posted by Scott

Real data has been collated for around 150 years. Scientists tell us that the world is 4,540,000,000 years old (that's 4.54 billion).

You tell me colinl, how reliable do you think a test sampling of 0.00000330% is, particularly when the people funding all this science have a bonafide interest in propagating the fear. Be it in cash, power or both.

For some perspective, if you wanted to ply the same maths identifying commonalities of every person on the face of the earth.

You could go to my local pub on a Thursday night where you will find 0.00000330% of the worlds population (227 people). You could accurately determine that the entire population of the earth is drunk and likes to pee alot.

The most sensible argument I've heard yet on 'climate change'

But wait! To all you fearful people who are worried about being swallowed up in clouds of cO2, I have news which I feel bound to pass on to you. A few weeks ago during a heavy drinking session friendly aliens came to me & told me climate change is an evil alien plot to distract us while they plan to take over Earth.
Go hide under your beds ecotards & let the sensible people deal with the issues. I'll tell you when it's safe to come out.

[Work Horse]

So the message we take from this thread is to not worry about facts as much as bias?

What is fact will be dependent on your bias?

There is no middle ground, just for us or against us?

Nothing is grey, everything is black or white?

You have to wonder why these threads never go anywhere, and are a complete waste of time.

Come to think of it, I want my 10 minutes back.....

[colinl]

I don't think I've sen a left wing chain email, but if I did I would treat it with the same scepticism. The point being chain emails are designed by organisations to try and create support for whatever agenda they are pushing. They are often misleading and make many unsupported claims. This type of PR campaign is called Astro Turfing and is illegal in the US, I'm not sure about here.

Newspaper stories go either way. I was only suggesting that no matter which stance they take, they are written with a bias for selling media not accuracy in reporting.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by colinl

I don't think I've sen a left wing chain email, but if I did I would treat it with the same scepticism. The point being chain emails are designed by organisations to try and create support for whatever agenda they are pushing. They are often misleading and make many unsupported claims. This type of PR campaign is called Astro Turfing and is illegal in the US, I'm not sure about here.

Newspaper stories go either way. I was only suggesting that no matter which stance they take, they are written with a bias for selling media not accuracy in reporting.

Yeh Holden bogans never see any commodores being driven in a stupid or dangerous manor either so there can't be any can there?

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by colinl

I don't think I've sen a left wing chain email, but if I did I would treat it with the same scepticism. The point being chain emails are designed by organisations to try and create support for whatever agenda they are pushing. They are often misleading and make many unsupported claims. This type of PR campaign is called Astro Turfing and is illegal in the US, I'm not sure about here.

Newspaper stories go either way. I was only suggesting that no matter which stance they take, they are written with a bias for selling media not accuracy in reporting.

right wing people get thier noses out of joint at any mention of politics and blame the left wing for all the problems and shortfalls of humanity . be it natural or not . in fact they would happily see the left wing diminished in an evolutionary phase . the only problem then would be . how can the world work with everyone working behind a desk , uselessness would suddenly be realised and there would be no one left to blame .

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

So the message we take from this thread is to not worry about facts as much as bias?

What is fact will be dependent on your bias?

There is no middle ground, just for us or against us?

Nothing is grey, everything is black or white?

You have to wonder why these threads never go anywhere, and are a complete waste of time.

Come to think of it, I want my 10 minutes back.....

Facts are facts. They can be interpreted with bias, and this what happens in most media today. This is why I say you need to look further than popular media if you want accurate information.

As it stands the majority of international scientists working on climate change believe that we are contributing to it. This is true despite a diverse source of funding. I'm in no position to agree with their science, I don't understand enough of it. I do accept that science is very critically examined by wide range of other scientists who are only too willing to poke holes in procedure our conclusions.

I don't buy into whole paranoia of all the governments funding research with some diabolical plan to do whatever. It makes as much sense as the Americans faking the moon landing.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by colinl

Facts are facts. They can be interpreted with bias, and this what happens in most media today. This is why I say you need to look further than popular media if you want accurate information.

As it stands the majority of international scientists working on climate change believe that we are contributing to it. This is true despite a diverse source of funding. I'm in no position to agree with their science, I don't understand enough of it. I do accept that science is very critically examined by wide range of other scientists who are only too willing to poke holes in procedure our conclusions.

I don't buy into whole paranoia of all the governments funding research with some diabolical plan to do whatever. It makes as much sense as the Americans faking the moon landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm-xLKIqp9Q&feature=related

[colinl]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm-xLKIqp9Q&feature=related

You have to love youtube

[snappy]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

right wing people get thier noses out of joint at any mention of politics and blame the left wing for all the problems and shortfalls of humanity . be it natural or not . in fact they would happily see the left wing diminished in an evolutionary phase . the only problem then would be . how can the world work with everyone working behind a desk , uselessness would suddenly be realised and there would be no one left to blame .

Your right people from the Left dont think like that at all .
Oops this photo was taken in melbourne 2 days fter Mr bob brown blamed the floods on the coal miners .

[flappist]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

right wing people get thier noses out of joint at any mention of politics and blame the left wing for all the problems and shortfalls of humanity . be it natural or not . in fact they would happily see the left wing diminished in an evolutionary phase . the only problem then would be . how can the world work with everyone working behind a desk , uselessness would suddenly be realised and there would be no one left to blame .

Do you think that right wing are office workers and left wing are physical workers?

Seriously?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by colinl

Facts are facts. They can be interpreted with bias, and this what happens in most media today. This is why I say you need to look further than popular media if you want accurate information.

As it stands the majority of international scientists working on climate change believe that we are contributing to it. This is true despite a diverse source of funding. I'm in no position to agree with their science, I don't understand enough of it. I do accept that science is very critically examined by wide range of other scientists who are only too willing to poke holes in procedure our conclusions.

I don't buy into whole paranoia of all the governments funding research with some diabolical plan to do whatever. It makes as much sense as the Americans faking the moon landing.

It is a fact that when I look out my window I can see the sky intersect with the land.

For many years the smartest and most powerful scientists in the world KNEW that the world was flat. The evidence was obvious and overwhelming. Only an idiot would not understand this.

People who disagreed were ridiculed and often jailed tortured or murdered because if all of a sudden people started to believe them then the smartest and most powerful scientists in the world were wrong.....and that can not happen.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed....
It is impossible to go faster than sound......
Time is fixed not variable.....

Facts are not facts, never have been never will be.....the more we learn the more we realise we have been so wrong so many times.

The one thing that has proven itself to be true for millenia is the the best way to control people is to keep them afraid of something.

It is important that this thing must be overwhelming and not disprovable.

It the beginning it was "life after death", if you did not do what the "powerful" wanted you would burn in hell. This era, known as the dark ages retarded advancement by a thousand years.
More recently we have had the nazis, the communists, Y2K, terrorists and the most recent "climate change".

No one can prove either way so we are afraid.

It is interesting to note that ALL of these problems have been solved the same way.....MONEY.

Pay the church, go to heaven....
Pay taxes, defeat the bad guys....
Pay taxes, protect against Y2K....
Pay taxes, defeat the terrorists.....
Pay taxes, fix climate change.....

And those are FACTS........

[colinl]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yeh Holden bogans never see any commodores being driven in a stupid or dangerous manor either so there can't be any can there?

No doubt that expectations effect perception. If you re-read the post you will notice that I mentioned that I would treat all such emails with scepticism.

This is one of my favourite exercises on how perceptions distort the evidence you see. Just read the instructions then click on the link if you are interested in having a go at it. gorilla and basketball

I also like the "count the F's exercise". A lot of you guys have probably done this one if you ever did process improvement or total quality management courses.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is a fact that when I look out my window I can see the sky intersect with the land.

For many years the smartest and most powerful scientists in the world KNEW that the world was flat. The evidence was obvious and overwhelming. Only an idiot would not understand this.

People who disagreed were ridiculed and often jailed tortured or murdered because if all of a sudden people started to believe them then the smartest and most powerful scientists in the world were wrong.....and that can not happen.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed....
It is impossible to go faster than sound......
Time is fixed not variable.....

Facts are not facts, never have been never will be.....the more we learn the more we realise we have been so wrong so many times.

The one thing that has proven itself to be true for millenia is the the best way to control people is to keep them afraid of something.

It is important that this thing must be overwhelming and not disprovable.

It the beginning it was "life after death", if you did not do what the "powerful" wanted you would burn in hell. This era, known as the dark ages retarded advancement by a thousand years.
More recently we have had the nazis, the communists, Y2K, terrorists and the most recent "climate change".

No one can prove either way so we are afraid.

It is interesting to note that ALL of these problems have been solved the same way.....MONEY.

Pay the church, go to heaven....
Pay taxes, defeat the bad guys....
Pay taxes, protect against Y2K....
Pay taxes, defeat the terrorists.....
Pay taxes, fix climate change.....

And those are FACTS........

No they aren't, they are a mixture of theories and superstitions.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by colinl

No they aren't, they are a mixture of theories and superstitions.

Yep, just like climate change.........

[colinl]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep, just like climate change.........

Very true, but it has widespread credibility by people that know a lot more than me about the study of climates. If I went to see a lawyer, accountant, doctor; I would be mad to ignore their advise.

As for government conspiracies; they can't even decide what side of the road we should drive on, yet alone agree on something so complicated as some sort of international master plan to subjugate the entire human race.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by colinl

Very true, but it has widespread credibility by people that know a lot more than me about the study of climates. If I went to see a lawyer, accountant, doctor; I would be mad to ignore their advise.

As for government conspiracies; they can't even decide what side of the road we should drive on, yet alone agree on something so complicated as some sort of international master plan to subjugate the entire human race.

All of the tings mentioned in my above post had widespread credibility by the noted scientists of the time......they were all wrong and the people who believed them were also wrong.

The simple fact is regardless of whether there is or is not man made climate change the proposed solutions always involves taking money from people and giving it to governments.
Solutions that involve spending money are never popular.

e.g.

Dangerous section of road.

Plan A) fix road costing money
Plan B) speed camera making money

Which one of these happens most of the time.......
Which one solves the problem.....

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by colinl

Very true, but it has widespread credibility by people that know a lot more than me about the study of climates. If I went to see a lawyer, accountant, doctor; I would be mad to ignore their advise.

........ and you would be mad if the prognosis is serious and you didn't seek a second or third or fourth opinion, gather the information and make a decision based on absolute fact. It could be a life or death decision after all. As yet, there is no fact at all, just conjecture and debate muddied by g'ment spouting new tax's ........ Climate change based on 150 years of information is not fact. Decisions on CC are being made with no basis of absolute fact and as stated above already ...... the higher beings have been wrong before just a few too many times.

There's definitely climate change ..... over 150 years its been up and down like a (you know the rest) and will continue to do so. The cause? Ask 1000 scientists and you'll get close to that many different answers. Every time there seems to be an event of biblical proportions be it a flood, earthquake, or what ever ...... amazes me that they say "Worse one since 1932 ...... " ''Hottest day since 1972" "Third warmest night on record .... " So it was hot and cold back in the ol' days.

Its guess work at best. No one can give to much credence to the notion that we are just so powerful, we can turn climates on and off at a flick of a switch ...... we are not that clever ..... and do not confuse environmental vandalism with all this crock thats being spouted by the highly paid.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

........ and you would be mad if the prognosis is serious and you didn't seek a second or third or fourth opinion, gather the information and make a decision based on absolute fact. It could be a life or death decision after all. As yet, there is no fact at all, just conjecture and debate muddied by g'ment spouting new tax's ........ Climate change based on 150 years of information is not fact. Decisions on CC are being made with no basis of absolute fact and as stated above already ...... the higher beings have been wrong before just a few too many times.

There's definitely climate change ..... over 150 years its been up and down like a (you know the rest) and will continue to do so. The cause? Ask 1000 scientists and you'll get close to that many different answers. Every time there seems to be an event of biblical proportions be it a flood, earthquake, or what ever ...... amazes me that they say "Worse one since 1932 ...... " ''Hottest day since 1972" "Third warmest night on record .... " So it was hot and cold back in the ol' days.

Its guess work at best. No one can give to much credence to the notion that we are just so powerful, we can turn climates on and off at a flick of a switch ...... we are not that clever ..... and do not confuse environmental vandalism with all this crock thats being spouted by the highly paid.

I think we have sought second opinions. It's not like climate change is just one scientists theory. Most of what we do is based on theory. We can only make a choice as to what is the more likely. In the case of climate change most of the experts believe in it. Sure there are examples of science gone wrong, but in the end they are more often right than wrong.

In cases of hottest days, coldest days, or wettest days, these are simply products of media looking for a story. Scientists don't use these as evidence, they use trends based on an understanding of weather cycles.

I find it a bit naive to think that we can modify and pollute to the level we have over recent decades without this having some effect on the world.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by colinl

I think we have sought second opinions. It's not like climate change is just one scientists theory.

2 opinions are sought and they differ so we pick the one that suits. No its not like its just one scientist ..... there are many on both sides. Who do you believe? If there wasn't such a think as a tax associated with one and many many countries and invidiuals who can actually make an industry out of it .... and a damn good one at that ..... it would be easier to be a little bit less cynical?

Most of what we do is based on theory. We can only make a choice as to what is the more likely. In the case of climate change most of the experts believe in it. Sure there are examples of science gone wrong, but in the end they are more often right than wrong.

Theory is just that .... not a fact but an un proven theory. And no, not all 'experts' believe in it. Experts is about as wonderful a word as scientists. I can be an expert if someone pays me? .... and scientists are paid by who? There is a bit of vested interest in there for some and many never ever need to prove anything with facts but theories and discussion papers that are only that .... discussions. Love the term scientists .... such a random term used to describe anyone who has a paid opinion.

In cases of hottest days, coldest days, or wettest days, these are simply products of media looking for a story. Scientists don't use these as evidence, they use trends based on an understanding of weather cycles.

UM ..... no ...... these are clear fact. Today is 30 degrees .... same time 20 years ago was 28 degrees. Thats a fact and and how can they be minipulated by the media as a beat up? 'Scientists', to put it simply, use guess work and do not ever never ever need to produce proof. A good theory will get them another grant, especially if it suits the power brokers, something that has gone on for donkeys. Studying trends and making predictions is fine ... has been done successfully for years but to spin it to say we control climate is really just damn silly.

I find it a bit naive to think that we can modify and pollute to the level we have over recent decades without this having some effect on the world.

Bit naive to believe the sky is falling because the government told you .... By me giving them money to turn the climate around .... what, do they need to buy a new thermostat? If they can do this, that lot sitting up there are a damn site cleverer than anyone could ever imagine .... boarding on magical. Again you are confusing Environmental Destructions ( Simply: rivers being polluted, wind farms, etc) to man controlling climate.

[Turbo6FG]

It's the politics beind this issue that beggar belief. Australia's emissions are a very tiny percentage of what China, India etc put out, so if we are all going to frizzle & burn up or drown from melting ice like some scientists want us to believe, what good is putting a tax on Australians going to do? China & India don't give a flying **** about any emissions so even if Australia didn't exist it would make virtually no difference to climate change & whatever scaremongering stories they sell us.

& this is the basis that some Australians would vote a government in - because they've acted on climate change. It all started with that ******** Rudd & carried on with his Bulldogs full foward Joolya, backed up by the biggest ****** ever to grace the halls of parliament, that weirdo Bog Brown.

FACT: If climate change is real or not, what Australia does makes no difference. So why is it such a massive issue in politics at the moment? Is it because some incompetent ******* can't run a country & need to impose another tax on us to meet their budget? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but I for one am decidedly ****ed off about it.

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA YOU'RE BEING SCREWED!

[Dr Jekkyl]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

......and scientists are paid by who?

Indeed. Who does pay these scientists?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

........ and you would be mad if the prognosis is serious and you didn't seek a second or third or fourth opinion, gather the information and make a decision based on absolute fact. It could be a life or death decision after all. As yet, there is no fact at all, just conjecture and debate muddied by g'ment spouting new tax's ........ Climate change based on 150 years of information is not fact. Decisions on CC are being made with no basis of absolute fact and as stated above already ...... the higher beings have been wrong before just a few too many times.

There's definitely climate change ..... over 150 years its been up and down like a (you know the rest) and will continue to do so. The cause? Ask 1000 scientists and you'll get close to that many different answers. Every time there seems to be an event of biblical proportions be it a flood, earthquake, or what ever ...... amazes me that they say "Worse one since 1932 ...... " ''Hottest day since 1972" "Third warmest night on record .... " So it was hot and cold back in the ol' days.

Its guess work at best. No one can give to much credence to the notion that we are just so powerful, we can turn climates on and off at a flick of a switch ...... we are not that clever ..... and do not confuse environmental vandalism with all this crock thats being spouted by the highly paid.

Exactly, that is what I said earlier. We are responsible for the environmental vandalism that has been carried out over the last 200 odd years; animal extinction, deforestation, salinity problems etc.

Climate change has been occuring since the beginning of time, including atmospheric heating and cooling (think ice ages) long before we started burning fossil fuels. A carbon tax wouldn't have made a difference then and won't make a difference now.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

2 opinions are sought and they differ so we pick the one that suits. No its not like its just one scientist ..... there are many on both sides. Who do you believe? If there wasn't such a think as a tax associated with one and many many countries and invidiuals who can actually make an industry out of it .... and a damn good one at that ..... it would be easier to be a little bit less cynical?



Theory is just that .... not a fact but an un proven theory. And no, not all 'experts' believe in it. Experts is about as wonderful a word as scientists. I can be an expert if someone pays me? .... and scientists are paid by who? There is a bit of vested interest in there for some and many never ever need to prove anything with facts but theories and discussion papers that are only that .... discussions. Love the term scientists .... such a random term used to describe anyone who has a paid opinion.



UM ..... no ...... these are clear fact. Today is 30 degrees .... same time 20 years ago was 28 degrees. Thats a fact and and how can they be minipulated by the media as a beat up? 'Scientists', to put it simply, use guess work and do not ever never ever need to produce proof. A good theory will get them another grant, especially if it suits the power brokers, something that has gone on for donkeys. Studying trends and making predictions is fine ... has been done successfully for years but to spin it to say we control climate is really just damn silly.


Bit naive to believe the sky is falling because the government told you .... By me giving them money to turn the climate around .... what, do they need to buy a new thermostat? If they can do this, that lot sitting up there are a damn site cleverer than anyone could ever imagine .... boarding on magical. Again you are confusing Environmental Destructions ( Simply: rivers being polluted, wind farms, etc) to man controlling climate.

It isn't like the climate change debate is close. The scientist that don't believe it are very few, so in that respect it is a fairly easy decision of support.

The tax is just a way of dealing with the problem. No matter how the problem is attacked it will cost money. For a business to bring a product to the market with less emissions it will no doubt be more expensive. But all that is happening is that we are realising the true cost of the product.

Theory is just theory, yes. We use theory to manage all sorts decisions. Solid theories do have a wide range of supportive evidence to back them, Darwin's theory of evolution, Newtons theory of relativity, ect. In the case of climate change the weight of evidence and scientific opinion is in favour those advocating human activity is having an impact on climate change.

They are random facts. Temperature changes on a daily and seasonal basis. When you see a random fact like these in media stories they are only used as a hook to get you to read the story. They aren't part of climate change study. Media work in cycles. One week they will do pro climate change, the next week or month they might feel a negative climate change article will sell better. They just pick some isolated event to hang the premise of the story on. This should never be confused with proper scientific research. Oh, and just to clear this up. Climate change theory doesn't say we control the climate. All it says is that our activity has an effect on it.

Research funding is largely grant based, which is a little better than paid employment based. In the end, this model of funding has historically worked very well with science being one of the most critically examined professional models. I still see a lot more evidence to support the majority of researchers views than to disagree with them.

If It was government telling me this I would be highly sceptical. However until recently governments were not supporting it. The only reason they support it now is because they are worried that their economies will suffer greatly if they don't address the issue. Countries like China see things a little differently and they want to make that jump into an industrialised country and are willing to sacrifice a lot to do this. Their view is that we in the west used cheap dirty technology to make that jump, they feel they should be allowed to do this too.

In the end it will be like any improvement and it will cost money, just like pollution control on cars cost us money, just like safe work practises cost us money, just like medicare cost us money. All these sorts of things cost money, and we just deal with it and don't get too caught up against it because in the end we do see the benefits.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Turbo6FG

It's the politics beind this issue that beggar belief. Australia's emissions are a very tiny percentage of what China, India etc put out, so if we are all going to frizzle & burn up or drown from melting ice like some scientists want us to believe, what good is putting a tax on Australians going to do? China & India don't give a flying **** about any emissions so even if Australia didn't exist it would make virtually no difference to climate change & whatever scaremongering stories they sell us.

& this is the basis that some Australians would vote a government in - because they've acted on climate change. It all started with that ******** Rudd & carried on with his Bulldogs full foward Joolya, backed up by the biggest ****** ever to grace the halls of parliament, that weirdo Bog Brown.

FACT: If climate change is real or not, what Australia does makes no difference. So why is it such a massive issue in politics at the moment? Is it because some incompetent ******* can't run a country & need to impose another tax on us to meet their budget? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but I for one am decidedly ****ed off about it.

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA YOU'RE BEING SCREWED!

We are targeted only for the reason that we are one of the largest emitters per capita in the world, even though, as you stated, our total population sees us emitting a small amount by national standards.

As for politics. Poorer countries see this legislation as an economic weapon that the industrialised countries are using against them to keep them from developing and challenging the richer more industrialised nations. Despite the wide spread of acceptance of climate change, no one wants to be the first to move on it. Everyone wants someones hand to hold and make take steps together. Ever been with your mates discussing what you want to do that night, and everyone is saying "oh, I don't know, what do you want to do"? I've seen this go round in circles for ages. Sometimes it is just a matter of someone just say, "let's do this" and off everyone goes, decision made.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by colinl

It isn't like the climate change debate is close. The scientist that don't believe it are very few, so in that respect it is a fairly easy decision of support.

The tax is just a way of dealing with the problem. No matter how the problem is attacked it will cost money. For a business to bring a product to the market with less emissions it will no doubt be more expensive. But all that is happening is that we are realising the true cost of the product.

Theory is just theory, yes. We use theory to manage all sorts decisions. Solid theories do have a wide range of supportive evidence to back them, Darwin's theory of evolution, Newtons theory of relativity, ect. In the case of climate change the weight of evidence and scientific opinion is in favour those advocating human activity is having an impact on climate change.

They are random facts. Temperature changes on a daily and seasonal basis. When you see a random fact like these in media stories they are only used as a hook to get you to read the story. They aren't part of climate change study. Media work in cycles. One week they will do pro climate change, the next week or month they might feel a negative climate change article will sell better. They just pick some isolated event to hang the premise of the story on. This should never be confused with proper scientific research. Oh, and just to clear this up. Climate change theory doesn't say we control the climate. All it says is that our activity has an effect on it.

Research funding is largely grant based, which is a little better than paid employment based. In the end, this model of funding has historically worked very well with science being one of the most critically examined professional models. I still see a lot more evidence to support the majority of researchers views than to disagree with them.

If It was government telling me this I would be highly sceptical. However until recently governments were not supporting it. The only reason they support it now is because they are worried that their economies will suffer greatly if they don't address the issue. Countries like China see things a little differently and they want to make that jump into an industrialised country and are willing to sacrifice a lot to do this. Their view is that we in the west used cheap dirty technology to make that jump, they feel they should be allowed to do this too.

In the end it will be like any improvement and it will cost money, just like pollution control on cars cost us money, just like safe work practises cost us money, just like medicare cost us money. All these sorts of things cost money, and we just deal with it and don't get too caught up against it because in the end we do see the benefits.

Another ecotard commie rant.
Don't like the facts? Change them. "The scientist that don't believe it are very few" - BS. The number of scientists not entrenched with funding and tenure who discredit the whole climate chang fiasco is exponentially growing.
Here's a fact for you, the momentum of the climate change cult is diminishing, and desperate ecotards like Bob (and his mate Neil) Brown are resorting to desperate measures. Further, comments like Bob's about the coal miners only serves to enrage the public and do damage to the cause.
Tell me this though Mr Science; if man is causing Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption, how is the planet Mars mirroring our temperature fluctuations?

A couple of pages ago, I accused you of being a troll. I can't help but feel a sense of vindication. Have you commented on anything other than this topic? Want some Cool-aide for the other ****ologists?

[colinl]

You can rant and attack me personally as much as you like, that doesn't change the fact that climate change is more widely supported by those that have studied it. It is a personal choice you make to accept that or not. Or you can continue basing your belief on minor factoids that you cling to to help justify your stance.

As for contributions, they will come. This was just one thread I read early on that interested me, and I thought I could make some meaningful comment on. As for Ford specific content, I just don't have that knowledge, I've only had a Ford for a few days and it is the first that I've owned. When I have had a chance to read threads and make some contributions or ask questions I will. I have made comment in other threads, and I have introduced myself.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by colinl

We are targeted only for the reason that we are one of the largest emitters per capita in the world, even though, as you stated, our total population sees us emitting a small amount by national standards.

We are the largest emmiter per capita in the world. We are also the most sparsely populated country on the plannet. That means goods are transported a long way. We also have a big livestock market that is exported all over the world. Livestock emmit methane which is three times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. These are issues that simply cannot be over come.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by irish2

We are the largest emmiter per capita in the world. We are also the most sparsely populated country on the plannet. That means goods are transported a long way. We also have a big livestock market that is exported all over the world. Livestock emmit methane which is three times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. These are issues that simply cannot be over come.

I wasn't trying to justify the statement, only drawing attention to it. Politics draws wide ranging views, much of the time they are truths, but more than often they are viewed from disjointed perspectives. If we look at a house from the road or the air, the truth that it is a house is still valid; but the way we see the house will change because of our perspective or viewing point.

[WMD351]

Is there any way to mesure the carbon footprint of this thread?