**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.
Leo claimed:
1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to
global warming).
IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be
classified
as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of climatologists, who
have carefully studied global warming for the last few decades.
2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.
He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2 (and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.
3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it
cannot
be a polutant.
Anyone can see the failure of this logic.
4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.
I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven
and
is doomed to failure.
5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".
This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.
Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.
Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise, I
first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part
about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he
needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a
ridiculous statement like that. I hope none of you are investing or
planning for the future based on beliefs like this.
While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it
always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also
very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW)
is rubbish .
**Indeed. There are a large number of scientific illiterates who state just
that. Sadly, those people have either failed to read the IPCC reports, or
are financially tied to the fossil fuel industry. The facts are blindingly
simple: The vast majority of climatologists have carefully and succinctly
explained that global warming is occuring and that it is mostly due to
anthropogenic influence.
I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over
his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt,
as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.
**Sounds bogus to me. However, I'll be happy to read whatever evidence you
can provide to support your claim. If you cannot provide any evidence, your
claim will be dismissed as bullshit.
At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist,
these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a
few (proverbial) grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has
done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to
their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they
are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and
peer review of their "research".
**It HAS been peer-reviewed! Many times. The result is always the same. Read
the IPCC reports. They were peer-reviewed.
Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently
proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price
increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable
and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This
would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.
**Really? How much would it cost? Be precise. You're claiming that it will
result in "incredible price increases". Please feel free to present your
evidence.
At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie:
stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse
to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/
or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts
that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the
lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and
seemingly unlimited incompetence).
**All those things are (partly) the result of lack of investment in
infrastructure, caused (partly) by inadequate taxation.
I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix"
AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the
government budget and now the national debt the current government has
given us.
**Then we need to ensure that this does not occur. AGW is a serious problem
and requires serious solutions.
The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.
**Good idea. In theory. In practice, not so good. The economies of this
planet are predicated on continuous population increase. As soon as
population growth ceases, economies start falling over. It is, of course, a
giant 'Ponzi Scheme'. It was always doomed to failure.
By having a future with less people
around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention
the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their
lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.
Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and
using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to
kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted
money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.
**Why? So the taxpayer can buy bigger, more powerful 4WDs, or bigger, more
power hungry plasma TV sets, or bigger, more power hungry homes? Tough
taxation, although extremely unpopular, may just cause people to start
acting responsibly. There are some possible links between lightly taxed
nations (like the US and Australia) and the amount of energy used.
It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause
**Whoa there boy! You have to prove that all those climatologists have it
wrong, BEFORE you can claim that AGW is fictitious. Unfortunately, for you,
the data is already in. AGW is real and it is a serious problem. However,
feel free to present your proof.
and
doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's
activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we
have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in
climate. We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall
for this stupidity.
**And there is the real problem. This is a planetary problem. The entire
planet must work to sort it out. Australia must do it's part.
As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able
to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then
his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.
On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.
**No, he didn't. Leo has been sucked in by charlatans and liars. He, like
you, is just hoping that the climatologists don't know their business.
You're both wrong.
I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an
improvement.
**Nonsense. Bush place the US (and the rest of the world) into this mess.
Bush cut taxation for the very wealthy and INCREASED spending. It does not
take a genius to work out that when a nation spends more than it earns,
there'll be big problems further down the track. At least Obama has assessed
the situation and placed the facts in front of the public.
A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks /
Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish
generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly
cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.
**I'm not qualified to speak about serious economic matters. There are
credible arguments for doing nothing and credible arguments for bailing out
private businesses.
