Global Warming

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

so anyone that disagrees is a redneck ? nice.

[/URL]

No, just people that claim its all a conspiracy based on that there might be some people that make a living out of providing "green" initiatives and other illogical rantings to claim that GW is bunk, all apparently based on their immediate self serving needs of having cheap energy.

[balthazarr]

Ignoring any potential climate change issue, the reality is that oil is a finite resource and will run out eventually. Many may not realise it but oil is the lifeblood of modern society - even ignoring transportation and fuels - oil is used in the production of almost everything from electronics to fertilisers (without which industrial-scale farming would not be possible).

If you ignore the doomsday dramatics, http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ is a very sobering read.

Anything we can do to reduce our reliance on oil is a good thing. If we can find an alternative for transportation, then what's left will last a lot longer for all the other things oil is required for.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by ltd

OK, we've all heard alot about it, now who believes/disbelieves it.

This is not at all political and should not reference any political party or leaning.

I myself, don't believe it to be real.

I'm a non believer at this stage. I take Steve Fielding's position on climate change until further notice.

[McLovin']

Chemistry is an exact science and measurements of past and present C02 levels can be obtained and are numerous and accurate enough that these measurements are not disputed within the scientific community.

So it is scientific fact that C02 levels in our atmosphere are far above normal compared to the previous 50,000 years at least.

What this will cause exactly is what this entire debate is over. Global climate systems are so incredibly complex and intricate with such a staggering number of factors involved that there are thousands of theories, models and opinions (from the extremely positive to the extremely negative) on what the effect of all this extra C02 will have.

But IMO this is where the debate has become unproductive and unhelpful. It should be assumed that such a change in the composition of the atmosphere will affect it adversely.

[calais]

Originally Posted by McLovin'

It should be assumed that such a change in the composition of the atmosphere will affect it adversely.

That is an all too convenient cop out. Which chooses to ignore science to the contrary. I fail to see how the argument for the affirmative has become so well accepted that anything to negative is now viewed as dissent.

[onfire]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

No, just people that claim its all a conspiracy based on that there might be some people that make a living out of providing "green" initiatives and other illogical rantings to claim that GW is bunk, all apparently based on their immediate self serving needs of having cheap energy.

I'll just assume all those who believe whole heartedly, are nieve and gullible. Watch out chicken little, the sky is falling.

Very few people dispute ' climate change '... ' global warming ' however, and that its caused primarily by human influence maybe. In fact, I dare say 90% of people here are all for greener initiatives and the development of greener, safer and cleaner infrustrature. Shock Docs, guilt trips, flashing lingo adopted by MTV and indie rock bands.. at the end of the day, average joe arguing about it with Billy from down the street isnt going to change a thing, the goverments, the corporations are the ones with the power to make real change... but then again, climate change must be so high on their list of things to tackle, because in 5 or so years since the debate, no pun intended.. heated up thanks to a little doco.. no body has done anything outside of entertain the idea and use urbandictionary.com to make sure Gen Y is listening.

[snappy]

The facts of the matter , are quite simple if its real or not australian's cant do a thing unless a aussie convinces india,china and the u.s.a to do there part.
The whole point is to make the planet a better place for future generations now if we go ahead with this carbon trading scheme future generations daily commute to work maybe to china,india or over countries that did nothing and we will still feel the effects of what ever whether that we will have .
Personally i dont want to suffer just because some pollie can feel special.
The carbon trading scheme will destroy australia and or way of life and will not change a thing for the planet - That is a fact

Good article in the paper today
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...000117,00.html

[anto]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

As i warned people earlier on, research the people you want to climb on board with;

have a read of:
http://www.onepennysheet.com/?p=25274


Ian Pilmer: rofl, his qualifications to comment on the climate? A great example of someone trying to make money out of it, because people will pay good money not to believe it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...003900,00.html

Wow, Im glad you had a laugh about that. So Ian Palmer is trying to make money out of it ? fair enough, Al Gore certainly isnt though is he, neither are all the left wing Govt's with their carbon trading schemes....gimmee a break. So his title of Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences are completely invalid ? Do geologists have no role in the debate ? Shall I find a Geologost thats support the theory and see what you think of him ?
Gotta love you leftwingers, you warned me about doing research did you,? So you point me to a left wing blog as youre "gotcha" ? wow slam dunk !!! LMAO. Meanwhile my link was to a U.S senate commite on Environment and public works web site. Hey it works both ways doesnt it.
........and if Im a redneck with my head in the sand I guess youre a sheeple and part of the head in the clouds brigade.

No comment on the Mars story either ? no...?

whatever, you believe what you want to believe, Im glad there are enough people questioning it to cause a debate.

..and for the record I still have an open mind on the matter and in actual fact I am more of a fence sitter.

[MRJUCY]

I've read lots from both sides of the coin & still don't believe humans have any significant control of the weather.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

wing Govt's with their carbon trading schemes....gimmee a break. So his title of Professor of Mining Geology at .

Yes, its all in the title, especially if you probe deeper into his role in that area. How does a mining professor suddenly become someone worth listening to offering rubbish like sunspot activity etc.
What are Ian Pilmer's ulterior motives, business as usual in the mining industry, whether it be coal, bauxite....whatever, did he reveal his share portfolio in his book?.

Governments rolling with GW to make money? Yeh, like ours and the US? they have done everything to deny it up to the past year or so. That is why johnny howard ignored the CSIRO advice to act on GW. Get real, GW is the last thing western governments want to tackle, all the nonsense atm in our parliament, just a smoke screen to do nothing.

[Work Horse]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-scepticism
Professor Ian Plimer has agreed to answer specific criticisms of his book.

This will be interesting for both sides of the debate.

[snappy]

Wasn't al gore sued because his movie was proven false
(edit)
type this in to google an pick the article you wish to read
al gore sued by over 30.000 scientists for fraud

all the nonsense atm in our parliament, just a smoke screen to do nothing.

we can only hope

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Wasn't al gore sued because his movie was proven false
(edit)
type this in to google an pick the article you wish to read
al gore sued by over 30.000 scientists for fraud

Dont think it happened, they wanted to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Wasn't al gore sued because his movie was proven false
(edit)
type this in to google an pick the article you wish to read
al gore sued by over 30.000 scientists for fraud

30.000 scientists,why not just say 30?, is it a deliberate ploy, seems to be in all other references on the net too.

those that debate the issue based on what the believe Al Gore says? Tells us how much they have bothered to do serious research on the issue.

Start reading scientific publications journals etc, yes, they are available at any public library. CO2s role in trapping and redirecting the energy from infra red radiation is not theory(greenhouse effect), its fact as is the increased energy that is trappped when the CO2 levels are increased, this was established ~30 years ago.

[anto]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Yes, its all in the title, especially if you probe deeper into his role in that area. How does a mining professor suddenly become someone worth listening to offering rubbish like sunspot activity etc.
What are Ian Pilmer's ulterior motives, business as usual in the mining industry, whether it be coal, bauxite....whatever, did he reveal his share portfolio in his book?.

Governments rolling with GW to make money? Yeh, like ours and the US? they have done everything to deny it up to the past year or so. That is why johnny howard ignored the CSIRO advice to act on GW. Get real, GW is the last thing western governments want to tackle, all the nonsense atm in our parliament, just a smoke screen to do nothing.

so a mining Geologist is automaticly disqualified of an opinion then. I like how you convieniently ignored his other title too. Please enlighten us all about his portfolio and all the evidence you have to discredit him and his alterior motives...honestly if you have information feel free.

still no retort on the nat geo article about mars heating up .... just a coincidence right ?

[snappy]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

30.000 scientists,why not just say 30?, is that a deliberate decimal point you have used or dont you and the other 30 000 people that link to the same nonsense know the difference?

those that debate the issue based on what the believe Al Gore says? Tells us how much they have bothered to do serious research on the issue.

Start reading scientific publications journals etc, yes, they are available at any public library. CO2s role in trapping and redirecting the energy from infra red radiation is not theory(greenhouse effect), its fact as is the increased energy that is trappped when the CO2 levels are increased, this was established ~30 years ago.

Actually i typed al gore in to google and thats the first thing google provided.
I dont know what to think . Im not sure if global warming is true or false .
I just know if the carbon trading scheme will cripple the country anyway.
An the other thing that bothers me is the year green party got so large was the same year they said they would legalise pot and eccies .

Hard to believe when one minute it was global warming - then proof the world is cooling , all of a sudden it now called climate change . Oh and we are going to tax you for it. But we are not actually going to do anything to stop it we are just going to charge you more so it will make you think twice about turning on the light switch.
An the majority of people are all for it . the ignorance is over welming.
Future generations are going to look back at us and laugh .

[futura97]

I personally don't believe in global warming. I think its a massive scam so that someone can make a crap load of money.

All you have to do is look at past temps, and you can see that it appears to be a natural cycle. Also, isn't it true that the earth does not rotate in the same spot years after years, and the distance between the earth and sun is always changing - hence the change in temps.

I've seen alot of diagrams and pictures with good stats on them that show CO is not having the impact that al gore makes it out to.

I'll see if I can find them and post em up.

Cheers

[Ohio XB]

I came a little late to read all of this but I read the first page anyways.


Between the 1500's and 1700's were three Little Ice Ages. I capitalize the words Little Ice Ages because that is how it is in history books. Man did not cause these. The Earth warmed again as well. Man didn't cause that then either.

Some co-workers told me about learning of Global Cooling when they were in college in the 1970's. Man-made Global Cooling was going to shorten the growing seasons around the world creating a food shortage, blah, blah, blah and the evidence of Global Cooling was overwhelming. By 1990 things would be really bad.

Here is an article from a very popular and respected magazine, Newsweek, from April of 1975 about Global Cooling...

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

www.denisdutton.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.

We invite interested readers to vist our new website: Climate Debate Daily. — D.D.



There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

At minimum, it shows a possibility that the "experts" can be wrong. At maximum it shows that this crap has been perpetuated before.


Last year I was only able to go swimming in my pool 3 times because the weather did not warrant it, nor warm my pool enough, to do so. Back in 1998-99 (can't remember) when we got the pool our temperature here in Ohio shot up into the 90's (F) in MAY!! This is usually still our Spring time. It was like someone flipped a switch and turned on summer.

Ninety degree temps are not unusual for this area. They are normal, just not in May. This summer we got our first 90 degree day on this past Sunday, August 9. THIS is unusual. July was a record low with temperatures in the 60's and 70's, with 50's overnight. It was the coolest July I ever remember (I'm 45). Meteorologists in the area stated we were in a Spring/Fall weather pattern in the middle of Summer.


Is there pollution? Of course. Does this mostly ground level pollution affect the global climate as it is being perpetuated? I really do NOT believe so.

We are told the ice caps are melting. Recent articles show that while the eastern ice shelf in Antarctica has decreased in size the western shelf has grown. Is the ice in Antarctica the same now as it was 150 years ago? No. Was it the same 50 years ago as it was 150 years ago? No. So why does anyone expect it to stay the same? It is an ever changing region, just like the rest of the world.

We are told Polar Bears are endangered because of the Arctic ice melting away. The WWF shows a video of a mother bear and her cub on a small piece of ice and then swimming off in the water to try to illustrate that there isn't enough ice for them. The footage that was used was shot in August which would be about the warmest period for the region. There are 9 groups of bears and only 2 are in decline in numbers, according to a scientist that had been studying Polar Bears for 30 years, who was incidently barred from a meeting of scientists which he had attended for 27 years because he was told his findings were "counter productive" to the bear's plight. Yeah, can't let facts get in the way of the ruse.

By the way, the polar ice was the thickest it had been in years this past winter.

The Earth has never stayed the same, why does anyone expect it to stay the same now?



I am going to capitalize on this. I am going to buy a building, big one, and get a license for a foundry business. That is pretty dirty and so that I can produce products that will help improve the economy I would be alloted a good amount of carbon emmissions.

So I will NOT make a thing. I will leave my building empty, and with my Foundry License I will instead SELL MY CARBON CREDITS to companies that need to put more pollution into the air. The fact that my credits will be unused (I am not making pollution) means I can sell every credit and amount of volume I am permitted to emit to companies that really are emitting a lot of pollution. This way they get to keep polluting, I make LOTS OF MONEY for doing nothing, and the world becomes a better place.......isn't that how that goes?


Cabon credits, not worth the paper they are written on. It is only an "idea".


Now, carbon dioxide, a NATURALLY OCCURING ELEMENT, has been deemed in the US as a "Pollutant!" Everyone needs a license to breathe now, I guess.

Want to read something funny? Find out how much carbon dioxide is emitted from belching when drinking soda pop/carbonated drinks. On a country-wide or global scale it is emmense!!!!!! But that is ok too.

If there was a real concern they would stop the production of soda-pop. Hasn't happened so there must be no real concern.

3 or 4 years ago we had about 10 hurricanes make land in the US (usually have 3-4). The Global Warming people went nuts!!!! "SEE THAT!!! IT'S GLOBAL WARMING!"

The following year there was 1, I think, if any. The silence from the Global Warming crowd was deafening.


In the end, those that promote Climate Change (since the Global Warming thing isn't working out anymore) the most and are the most concerned about it should stop breathing and exhaling carbon dioxide, which is destroying the Earth, so that the rest of us can go on with our lives.



Steve

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by futura97

I personally don't believe in global warming.

Originally Posted by futura97

Also, isn't it true that the earth does not rotate in the same spot years after years, and the distance between the earth and sun is always changing - hence the change in temps.

Sort of typical of the deniers camp, dont know whether to deny that warming exists or claim it does exist but then deny its not due to man adding to the CO2 level. They will cluster like moths to a light to any lame denial theory on offer.

Originally Posted by futura97

I've seen alot of diagrams and pictures with good stats on them that show CO is not having the impact that al gore makes it out to.

CO does have serious global warming impact, but even without having seen Al's production I think he was probably talking about CO2.

[anto]

you offer nothing but attacks on people that disagree with you... its people like you that make me more skeptical

[Ohio XB]

Sort of typical of the deniers camp, dont know whether to deny that warming exists or claim it does exist but then deny its not due to man adding to the CO2 level. They will cluster like moths to a light to any lame denial theory on offer.

The sun's sunspot activity has 11 year cycles of increasing and decreasing. Look into it right now. Last year had the least number of sunspots in a loonng time. This year is on record of being the same or even less. It is measured in days with or without sunspot activity.

Sunspots are the cause of solar flares and the amount of radiation spewed into the solar system. With the reduced activity of the last two years particularly the scientists that study them are hesitant to say that this is the reason for the cooling of the Earth now, probably due to ridicule and not being "on the bandwagon" if they were to say so.

As far as the Earth's elliptical travel around the sun (increasing/decreasing distance), perhaps that is why the Earth's climate always changes as well through out history, or at least has some affect? I don't know but I am sure it is at least as possible as cow belching having an affect on climate change.


Personally, when it is a hotter year than the year or years before I say it is hot. When it is cooler than the years before (like last year and this year) I say it is cooler. I admit the temperature has been higher, and I am saying right now that it IS cooler.......only a couple days in July with 80 degree temps, no 90's, and a lot of 70's.....REALLY cool for summer in Ohio.

Do I think this means that the Earth's climate has forever detrimentally changed by man? No. I say this with conviction, no doubt as to whether I belive in the former Global Warming/now more convenient Climate Change when the first idea didn't work out because temperatures reversed and not enough money was made off of it yet.



Steve

[CAT600]

Steve, your example of the "global cooling" has got me wondering........

Is it possible that people are riding on the back of global warming for their own ends?



Daniel

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

so a mining Geologist is automaticly disqualified of an opinion then.

Unless his intimate knowledge of mining has got to something to do with drilling for ice cores and CO2 levels within, then what he has to say is hardly at the expert level.

Originally Posted by anto

I like how you convieniently ignored his other title too. ?

Which title would that be?

Perhaps being on the board of directors of several mining companies? or did you miss that one?

[anto]

does that disqualify him of presenting facts...?
do we all have to be members of the green party do we ?

Even if he was count Dracula it still doesnt change any of the facts does it. After all, it is about the facts . Discredit the facts...

Seriously....its the usual left wing style, go after someone and discredit them instead of countering his arguments.

and for the 4th time, the nat geo article ?

from here on in I think I will defer to ohioXb as he seems to be able to articulate it more clearly if you're willing to listen.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

does that disqualify him of presenting facts...?
.

No, but being a mining company director and heavily involved in the industry it makes his motives very clear and with the utmost potential for bias.

he has just presented his opinion with nothing to back it up. I dont have to discredit "his facts" because as I understand it he hasnt presented any.

Why not read this link presented earlier:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-scepticism

he has been already taken to task on the errors/lies in his book and he has failed to respond.

i did warn people to carefully check out the background of any gw skeptic they want to ride with, but you ignored that advice and now you are crying foul that you're being exposed for backing a dud.
Get over it!

[anto]

Wow what a surprise, another BLOG !! and a journalist no less asking questions of him, a scientist. The same scientist that you so quickly dismiss but a journalist, no he has more credibility.
Fair enough, why did you forget to mention he doesnt want to debate him until his questions are answered first, why not just debate him face to face ? Oh thats right he needs his google search enging to find a counter fact. Have you watched any of the Pilmer videos.. is it all 100% lies ?
This means nothing, its just a journalist with obvious leanings but of course to you this is slam dunk.

and yes I would be interested in him answering some of those questions too, because I am open minded !!! but id imagine even if he did have answers it still wouldnt be enough for you.

edit...and this guy is credible is he. He's a friggin far left nitwit

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/category/war-afghanistan/

[anto]

wow and hes making money out of a book too,..go figure

Monbiot purchased a Renault Clio (diesel) after moving to a small town in mid-Wales in 2007, leading to charges of hypocrisy.[29] Similarly he has also travelled through Canada and the United States, campaigning on climate change and promoting his book. He contends that this travel was justifiable as it sought to boost the case for much greater carbon cuts there.[30][31]

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Some co-workers told me about learning of Global Cooling when they were in college in the 1970's. Man-made Global Cooling was going to shorten the growing seasons around the world creating a food shortage, blah, blah, blah and the evidence of Global Cooling was overwhelming. By 1990 things would be really bad.

This is when the whole climate change stuff started. There was Footage by the ABC (Australian tax payer funded TV) showed an expert showing the polar ice caps and saying how the earth was going to get colder and we were gonna be in trouble. Funny enough the reporter asked the expert how could we stop this and his answer was to produce more CO2. Strange, seeing as the modern experts are telling us that we have been doing damage since the industrial revolution.

.....................

Actually for all the people that believe we are causing climate change.

Would people agree to changing our dirty coal power station (50% of Australia's emissions or about 0.8% of the worlds) to Nuclear power, remember Australia stores other countries waste so that isn't a problem?

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by anto

The same scientist that you so quickly dismiss but a journalist, no he has more credibility.
Fair enough, why did you forget to mention he doesnt want to debate him until his questions are answered first, why not just debate him face to face ?

As far as I know, the journalist isnt the one making claims.
His credibility isnt the question here, he has asked very straight forward questions(which you can view) to which he has not got any answers.

Pilmer's obvious tactics are to create a confrontation, an area where he excels(he is a first class public speaker) and create other distortions, that will stop disguise his dodging of the issues.

That is why the journalist insists on receiving answers to the questions first. He, like myself, likes to see the cold hard issues in writing, rather than the theatrical abilities of people in debating, where some people can convince others and belittle the opposing speaker no matter how pathetic their won case is, ie Paul Keating style.

If Pilmer thinks the journalist is being deceptive, hiding something, he can ask for a list of questions to be answered too.

Would you have any trouble with a doctor who is a member of the board of a cigarette company writing a book telling us how smoking can not cause cancer?
But You seem intent on backing this guy to the end of the earth?

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by vztrt

This is when the whole climate change stuff started. There was Footage by the ABC (Australian tax payer funded TV) showed an expert showing the polar ice caps and saying how the earth was going to get colder and we were gonna be in trouble. Funny enough the reporter asked the expert how could we stop this and his answer was to produce more CO2. Strange, seeing as the modern experts are telling us that we have been doing damage since the industrial revolution.
?

So you only want to hold on to ideas of the past, or are you pointing out that scientists are all dimwits and we should only listen to people with no education.

Once upon a time, doctors thought there was medicinal benefit in people smoking, do you want to hang on to that idea too? Or you dont wont to believe anything modern medicine now tells you and completely disregard the medical advice given today based on how someone didnt get it completely right 50 years ago, why should I believe them today logic.