Senator Steve Fielding - Leader of Family First

It is that simple.

here’s an article from the highly reputable Science Daily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htm

Even if there were doubts, wouldn’t we be doing our best to minimise the risk of biggest threat to our species that we have ever faced?

Sylvie - 11 August 2009 08:30 AM

It is that simple.

here’s an article from the highly reputable Science Daily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htm

Even if there were doubts, wouldn’t we be doing our best to minimise the risk of biggest threat to our species that we have ever faced?

Only if it were fact and everybody agreed of course ..............but they don’t and it is a theory and many highly qualified people including ex- IPCC scientists reject it also.

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/17/guest-weblog-by-dr-kiminori-itoh-of-yokohama-national-university/

http://www.petitionproject.org/
 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6-

—————————

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htm  The above article is dated…...........Feb. 2, 2007

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html    This article is dated…...............March 14, 2009

In part…...............

When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, “the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report”.

—————————

You can put anything together to form a theory…..?  or at least a graph  

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/editorials/4516-shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges

——————————
Many are not denying that there is “Global Change” it is as natural as time in memoriam, it is the lack of evidence that manmade CO2 is the driving cause is the issue, it is a theory !

If the science is supposed to be so crystal clear and the evidence is so over whelming why can’t anyone direct us to the absolute proof that manmade CO2 is driving the climate into an unbelievable series of massive catastrophes and therfore by reducing the miniscule droplets of manmade CO2 will without doub’t prevent such things from happening.

and if the answer is

*  “But the world climate has many vairables and mechanisims not fully understood or able to be modelled in any accurate fashion”

The argument that Co2 is the cause is already debunked due to the complexity of it, end of story.

If we (man) were able to predict the weather to a 90 to 100 percent accuracy over a six month peroid year in year out there would be some credibility to some of the AGW claims. So how can anyone even begin to beleive claims of 10, 20 and 100 years.
The use by date of those predictors will be over before it could possibly happen.

It amazes me, about all the claims that have been made of what “a manmade induced CO2 climate change” is going to cause and the only prominent single solution to the theory (guess) is a CO2 commodity market does that really make sense even if you do believe in AGW ?

Please list 10 positive things that an ETS will bring to Australia !

Oh, and here’s just one more example of how we will be poorer if we continue to deny the facts of human caused Global warming:

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/38bn-warning-on-great-barrier-reef-bleaching-20090809-ee9t.html

Please please please read investigative journalist Ian Wishart’s ‘Air Con - the Seriously Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming’  before making any decisions about AGW and government legislation that will affect everyone of us. The book is available from your local library or may be purchased on-line. UN IPCC reviewer has described it as ‘brilliant’ and anyone interested in the theory of AGW,  will find it an eye-opener.

kristan; try reading OVERSHOOT ( William CATTON)

published 1st in 1980 so you would probably have to
order it but well worth it

not recommended for those of a tender disposition
or religious people

Kristin of Brisbane - 11 August 2009 10:20 AM

Please please please read investigative journalist Ian Wishart’s ‘Air Con - the Seriously Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming’  before making any decisions about AGW and government legislation that will affect everyone of us. The book is available from your local library or may be purchased on-line. UN IPCC reviewer has described it as ‘brilliant’ and anyone interested in the theory of AGW,  will find it an eye-opener.

Dear Kristen

I’m afraid that Ian Wishart is no more than a New Zealand radio “shock jock”, mostly on “Radio Windy”. He is known for his very right wing, religious fundamentalist views. For example, apart from being anti-Climate Change, he also debunks the Theory of Evolution, claims that ex-Prime Minister Helen Clark is a Marxist (he wrote a book about that too), and also has some sort of conspiracy theory about Western Civilisation is being undermined by social engineering.

He is as much a Scientist as I am, and no free-thinking person could ever believe a word he writes, but of course, it is a free society and he can write whatever he likes. Oh, except that he does currently have a defamation case or two to answer in the courts of New Zealand.

Read this:  by the UK parliament.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvaud/memo/carbonmarkets/et1002.htm

and see that the public’s manipulation by the money marketeers is unequivical.

Peggyb - 11 August 2009 11:47 AM

Read this:  by the UK parliament.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvaud/memo/carbonmarkets/et1002.htm

and see that the public’s manipulation by the money marketeers is unequivical.

Dear Peggy (AKA Senator Fielding)

Not seeing the relevance here, I am afraid. This is written by a company set up to deal in carbon credits. It throws no light, for or against,  the fact that Global Warming is human induced.

Sylvie - 11 August 2009 11:54 AM

Peggyb - 11 August 2009 11:47 AM

Read this:  by the UK parliament.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvaud/memo/carbonmarkets/et1002.htm

and see that the public’s manipulation by the money marketeers is unequivical.

Dear Peggy (AKA Senator Fielding)

Not seeing the relevance here, I am afraid. This is written by a company set up to deal in carbon credits. It throws no light, for or against,  the fact that Global Warming is human induced.

By the way a theory is not fact…..... massive difference !

Ps Theory (being) The theory of Co2 driving climate change

I think you mean it is difficult for you to follow my logic when provided with YOUR factual information, don’t you CR?

The truth is (inconvenient or not), that we are disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that, except you opinions, supported by links to biased articles, are not “facts”.

Sylvie - 11 August 2009 12:06 PM

I think you mean it is difficult for you to follow my logic when provided with YOUR factual information, don’t you CR?

The truth is (inconvenient or not), that we are disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that, except you opinions, supported by links to biased articles, are not “facts”.

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/17/guest-weblog-by-dr-kiminori-itoh-of-yokohama-national-university/

http://www.petitionproject.org/
 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6-

So are these not fact ?

Firstly I am more than willing to recieve and consider both sides of the argument and not take the word of such people as Al gore and Tim Flannery as thier bread and butter is dependant on convincing us and it has been proven that thier predictions have not been forth coming.

There is more than enough evidence that does not agree with the theory (not fact) that manmade co2 is not the singular driving force of temperature rises. 

You seem to have made up your mind, so could you please provide the information that helped you come to your conclusion ?

CR - 11 August 2009 12:09 PM

Sylvie - 11 August 2009 12:06 PM

I think you mean it is difficult for you to follow my logic when provided with YOUR factual information, don’t you CR?

The truth is (inconvenient or not), that we are disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that, except you opinions, supported by links to biased articles, are not “facts”.

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/17/guest-weblog-by-dr-kiminori-itoh-of-yokohama-national-university/

http://www.petitionproject.org/
 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6-

So are these not fact ?

ABSOLUTELY NOT FACT:-  One is webblog from a physicist (not a relevant science), one is a public petition, and one is from a Senate Commiittee (and we all know about those on here, don’t we!).
NO well considered, unbiased climatology evidence here at all!!!!!

Sylvie - 11 August 2009 12:15 PM

CR - 11 August 2009 12:09 PM

Sylvie - 11 August 2009 12:06 PM

I think you mean it is difficult for you to follow my logic when provided with YOUR factual information, don’t you CR?

The truth is (inconvenient or not), that we are disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that, except you opinions, supported by links to biased articles, are not “facts”.

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/17/guest-weblog-by-dr-kiminori-itoh-of-yokohama-national-university/

http://www.petitionproject.org/
 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6-

So are these not fact ?

ABSOLUTELY NOT FACT:-  One is webblog from a physicist (not a relevant science), one is a public petition, and one is from a Senate Commiittee (and we all know about those on here, don’t we!).

NO well considered, unbiased climatology evidence here at all!!!!!

On one hand you want a senate investigation (re Turnbull) and on the other you dismiss a senate enquiry ( of a different country) as irrelevant, contradiction don’t you think? 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Your bias is showing as well, it is allowed as we all can have opinions, and it is clear that you are not open to the alternative view of many knowlegable scientists, the links provided are sound particularly Dr. Kiminori Itoh who worked for the IPCC.

You seem to have made up your mind, so could you please provide the information that helped you come to your conclusion ?

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910887/posts

Snippet:
Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters—and that’s almost everyone—to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.

CR: Politicians - Senate or otherwise - are not scientists. They can certainly hold inquiries about the conduct of their own Senators - but they cannot ever prove or disprove scientific argument.

Peggy (AKA Senator Fielding): you do seem to have lost your way. This blog is about scientific evidence of human created Global Warming, not about business (or other) response to it. The fact that your thinking is so muddled really does make me suspect that you ARE Senator Fielding in a frock.

Sylvie - 11 August 2009 01:28 PM

CR: Politicians - Senate or otherwise - are not scientists. They can certainly hold inquiries about the conduct of their own Senators - but they cannot ever prove or disprove scientific argument.

Peggy (AKA Senator Fielding): you do seem to have lost your way. This blog is about scientific evidence of human created Global Warming, not about business (or other) response to it. The fact that your thinking is so muddled really does make me suspect that you ARE Senator Fielding in a frock.

So declaring as you have done so that politicians are not scientists !  Therefore the IPCC being the “Intergovernmental panel on climate change” and being a government institution, financed by governments, all reports scrutinized by associated governments before release, by your definition “cannot ever prove or disprove scientific argument”   as they are not scientists.  So in simple terms, the IPCC who in essence is a political body is not valid, by using your argument

By the way…..Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is the chairman of the IPCC, he himself was a former railway engineer, who has no qualifications in climate science.

In regards to Peggyb,  she has defiantly not lost her way as you put it, she will no doubt speak for herself.