Wong totally WRONG on climate change

Quote;

This is the first time recently that a member of a western parliament has released a public document that makes an independent science assessment of the danger of human-caused global warming (as promulgated by the IPCC), thereby demonstrating (i) the lack of empirical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are damaging to the environment, and (ii) that ETS are unnecessary.

More about this here:

http://icecap.us/

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/the-w...

Quote;

The independent 48 page report explores the Commonwealth’s beliefs that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous warming.

The major conclusions of the science audit team were:

Global temperatures have remained steady since 1998, despite a 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide

No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous warming on top of natural trends

No scientific consensus exists

theworldasweknowit wrote:

No scientific consensus exists

Your claim has no basis or significance. You are NOT in charge of scientific consensus because no one is.

The temperature increases are steady.. unfortunately. AGW is REAL. We must reduce CO2 emissions for our own SECURITY.

Why does an american like you feel the need to comment in Australian rooms?

If you took the time to read what was posted and notice I wrote 'quote' is that the result of due diligence on the governments reports by top scientists was that;

1. Global temperatures have remained steady since 1998, despite a 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide

2. No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous warming on top of natural trends

3. No scientific consensus exists

Additionally the world is cooling. Did you notice the global temps for June are out and guess what the result is - a big fat ZERO - in other words NO warming

Consensus is a word that's bandied around by those who want doubters to become convinced they're wrong to be sceptical.
There is no general consensus as such, except that which has been invented to satisfy a band of brother believers.

theworldasweknowit wrote:

Why does an american like you feel the need to comment in Australian rooms?
.....

good question.

Tom just can't help himself and infects many other forums as well.

I get the feeling bout some of these overseas posters that they are paid to get on the net - look at the guy no registered profile etc - seems like someones money is being wasted

back to the topic - lets see which politicians sacrifice their careers and their party to the lies of AGW - when people have to choose to eat or heat there wont be a happy populace out there

Carbon Emission Trading will simply end up as another financial bubble - a new money making vehicle lead and orchestrated by the global investment banks. Pull in all the suckers with complex financial instruments, make billions and watch the real economy collapse via enormous debt liabilities and additional costs. Might make the mortgage fiasco look like a tea party.

The irony is that there is no definitive understanding of what combination of factors contribute to the historical cycle of global warming and changes in the composition of atmospheric gases - it is far too simplistic to believe that only one factor (CO2) is involved.

Agreed - it has nothing to do with the environment or humanity and everything to do with greed

Nexus wrote:

Carbon Emission Trading will simply end up as another financial bubble -....

It could play out a bit like the 90's .com bubble burst.

There is no evidence

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stor...

"Especially difficult for the CO2 theory is how to explain the counter evidence that is accumulating, which shows that the feedbacks are dampening not amplifying and that the climate sensitivity is a fraction of that assumed by the IPCC. It appears at this point that the CO2 theory is doomed, and it is only a matter of time before its bubble bursts."

theworldasweknowit wrote:

Quote;
This is the first time recently that a member of a western parliament has released a public document that makes an independent science assessment of the danger of human-caused global warming (as promulgated by the IPCC), thereby demonstrating (i) the lack of empirical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are damaging to the environment, and (ii) that ETS are unnecessary.

Because the government really would prefer to keep the status quo - they are only making a play at addressing this serious issue to keep favour with the public. Their real agenda is to protect the coal industry at all costs.

theworldasweknowit wrote:

Agreed - it has nothing to do with the environment or humanity and everything to do with greed

The greed element is those who deny global warming or who come up with absurd and convoluted schemes which are designed only to appear to be a solution.

theworldasweknowit wrote:

I get the feeling bout some of these overseas posters that they are paid to get on the net - look at the guy no registered profile etc - seems like someones money is being wasted
back to the topic - lets see which politicians sacrifice their careers and their party to the lies of AGW - when people have to choose to eat or heat there wont be a happy populace out there

How malodramatic! If we could put a man on the moon, why can't we develop new clean technologies (and that does not include hazardous nuclear and "clean" coal - which the government would like)? Funding for the development of actually clean technologies is wanting because such technologies don't offer the entrenched interests an opportunity for making the most money.

let me reiterate wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the government really would prefer to keep the status quo - they are only making a play at addressing this serious issue to keep favour with the public. Their real agenda is to protect the coal industry at all costs.

so bankrupting the coal industry is protecting them - did you get your brains out of a cornflake packet - the earth is COOLING and has been doing so for 10 years

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June...

funny thing is seems like a media blitz beginning today in all the papers about copenhagen - no surprise you paid lemmings turn up at the same time as well - guess the grant money keeps you in jobs

let me reiterate wrote:

<quoted text>
The greed element is those who deny global warming or who come up with absurd and convoluted schemes which are designed only to appear to be a solution.

Its called green greed - the trillions wasted on having a non existent solution to the non existent AGW problem - whilst the hungry poor and cold of this world perish. You have no conscience as you push a lie whilst those who need government assistance perish!

let me reiterate wrote:

<quoted text>
How malodramatic! If we could put a man on the moon, why can't we develop new clean technologies (and that does not include hazardous nuclear and "clean" coal - which the government would like)? Funding for the development of actually clean technologies is wanting because such technologies don't offer the entrenched interests an opportunity for making the most money.

Did you notice another one of the men who was on the moon has stood up and said AGW is a fraud

http://climatedepot.com/a/1792/Another-Moonwa...

let me reiterate wrote:

<quoted text>
The greed element is those who deny global warming or who come up with absurd and convoluted schemes which are designed only to appear to be a solution.

are you saying that anyone who questions global warming is doing so based on greed?

I do not think this is so.

I agree that solar and wind need to be promoted, but for many reasons. The most important is the nationalisation of energy security. This shift in the control of our energy seems to work best when driven by the social democrats such as in scandinavia.

Now unless a government to ready to 'go the whole way' and move to renewables it is just tinkering about on the edge.
The debate needs to shift from the science waffle on climate change and move to energy security and the hopeful prevention of future resource wars.

At the risk of going off topic, Nazi germany would not have gone into the USSR to capture the Baku Oil fields if they had energy security...and it follows if they did not poke the russian bear then they could/would have won WW2.

Security is more important than polar bears - although I hear the polar bears are doing just fine.

:)

that's my energy rant for the day over with.

American agency found to be apologetically unaccountable for ideology instead of science

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1246576552355...

when insiders speak up - the smear campaigns begun (just like mattj and crowd do on here)

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew --, led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science.(The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.)

theworldasweknowit wrote:

Why does an american like you feel the need to comment in Australian rooms?
If you took the time to read what was posted and notice I wrote 'quote' is that the result of due diligence on the governments reports by top scientists was that;
1. Global temperatures have remained steady since 1998, despite a 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
2. No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous warming on top of natural trends
3. No scientific consensus exists
Additionally the world is cooling. Did you notice the global temps for June are out and guess what the result is - a big fat ZERO - in other words NO warming

Nahhh.. why do you comment in the American forums?? lol