Quote:
Anyone with any brains knows that "man made" global warming is a scam,Just read "the club of romes-first global revolution- in it they state why the super rich agreed on it ,for their purposes.It is for the mass idiot,and scientists who don't do their own research! I can't believe how so many people can get sucked into this.It prob wasn't discussed because they all know the report is totally flawed & tampered with.They only talk about it when they are trying to sell you(the mass idiot) some bullshit enviromental policy.

Common Myths About Climate Chnage

The world has been cooling since 1998.
Temperatures have been going up and down slightly, but the clear trend is upwards. Since regular temperature records began in 1850, 12 of the past

13 years have been the hottest on record. Air samples from bubbles trapped in ancient ice, and cross-checked with other samples, show temperatures are rising faster than at any time since modern humans appeared.


The world is getting warmer but we don't know the real cause.
The causes of global warming are not absolutely certain, but the overwhelming majority of researchers, working independently in different parts of the world and using different models, have been coming to the same conclusions for two decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reached the conclusion that it is "very likely" that human activity is the main cause of climate change; that is, there is a certainty "greater than 90 per cent". Few scientific theories approach that level of certainty.


Climate change is caused by solar activity.
Changes in radiation from the sun affect Earth's climate, as do oscillations in the Earth's orbit. But since the 1970s, when temperatures increasingly rose beyond norms, both the sun's energy output and the Earth's orbit have been stable. In any case, solar activity is included in climate models.


There is no consensus among scientists.
There is clear and growing consensus in the world scientific community, and in Australia, that human activity is the main driver of climate change, and that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the only way of slowing it. This is now the view of all the world's leading national science academies and institutes. This does not constitute a unanimous view, however, with a small minority of scientists in relevant fields believing it is too early to be sure.


Why believe long-term predictions when meteorologists cannot even say if it will rain next week?
Climatology takes a step back from day-to-day weather prediction and looks at longer-term patterns. Numerous independent studies have concluded that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases put into the atmosphere by humans are the new variable causing climate change. Climate models have been repeatedly tested and shown to accurately simulate climate scenarios.


Human emissions are smaller than natural emissions, so cannot be blamed for climate change.
Rotting vegetation releases far more greenhouse gases than does human activity, but those emissions are absorbed by an equal amount of growing vegetation and by the oceans. The new element in this closed system is the extra carbon humans are removing from underground coal, oil and gas reserves and putting into the atmosphere.

....

The full SMH article here

"The aim was not to prove tobacco [climate change] harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue."

Therefore, there is no need to provide huge funding to debunk climate change science - only enough for them to mutter their favourite phrase, "some experts disagree" or "there isn't a concensus on the data".

pjb05 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 11:10pm:


I'll give my opinion here. I'd say no. Most 'scientists' in this category are more than a little bit eccentric, including the 'odd' rocket scientist    There are some who are obviously being paid, not by the fossil fuel industry, but by the very conservative business lobby. Interestingly enough, the fossil fuel industry doesn't fund them any more. Exxon made that decision a couple of years ago. Anglo Coal even provides public sessions on the dangers of Climate Change.

You don't have to be a 'rocket scientist' to see that some very conservative groups see climate change as a threat to their economic survival, and will stop at nothing to derail the debate. I can understand their rationale, but it's for short term gain. Unfortunately mainstream economists have a myopic view on anything beyond 10 years. 

Here's one of the groups I'm talking about:

http://www.ipa.org.au/

I would point out though that everyone has a stake in the economy. Those of lefty-green bent seem to forget (or don't care) that the ordinary worker cops it in the neck first when the economy turns pear shaped.

As the remaining denialists shrink in number, they will start to look more and more like nutcases and greedy whores. There will not be 100% consensus until the last of them die out. Witch is the way with almost all scientific theories.

This flow of money depends on keeping the AGW threat alive.

That doesn't mean that it impacts on the net results. Individual scientsts would still get far more money if they disproved AGW. It would take an absurd global conspiracy to do what you imply. Given that it is difficult enough to get even two scientists to agree on a new idea you would have to have a slim grasp on reality to take this seriously. Furthermore scientists would get more money if there were greater uncertainty. They would talk up the uncertainty, rather than talking it down as they have been (with the exception of Exxon funded scientsts). The money does not depend on keeping the risk alive as you claim. It depends on keeping it unknown. The skeptic camps are the ones keeping the money pouring into this field of research.

Australia should be leading the way in fighting climate change and can influence other countries to join in, according to the head of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Angel Gurria, who is in Melbourne for meetings, said Australia had a particular responsibility to face up to climate change.

"Australia is also a very big exporter of raw materials including coal, and therefore it has to set the example," he told ABC Television.

"Australia has a lot to contribute to this process so keep at it."

Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal which, when burned for energy, releases carbon dioxide.

Mr Gurria noted Australia produced more carbon emissions than most other countries.

The OECD represents the 30 mostly wealthy nations who have embraced democracy and the market economy. Members include Australia, the US, Japan and the UK.

Mr Gurria, the OECD's secretary-general, praised the federal government's proposed emissions trading scheme, and said the world was watching.

He said Australia's efforts to reduce greenhouse pollution would "absolutely" influence other nations to follow suit.

"Australia is already leading, it's an example, we're all looking at it."

Mr Gurria denied that moving to cut emissions would hurt Australia's big exporters.

He said a whole new industry of "green" businesses would spring up and there were attractive "first mover opportunities" for the nations who embraced the concept of reducing emissions.

Mr Gurria is in Melbourne for Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation group (APEC) meetings dedicated to removing international market barriers.

© 2008 AAP

Copied from SMH website

http://news.smh.com.au/national/oecd-wants-australia-to-lead-on-climate-20080805...