Tell me Longy are you still going to complain about Australia taking action to reduce its use of greenhouse gases when the Libs eventually get back in because as you know they have the same reduction targets as Labor has or will it all be ok then?

Swagman wrote on Jan 16^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:


So, you really gained  that impression, from what I said?

From the full text, of what I said?

Gee, that's incredible OR should I say, UNBELIEVABLE!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:


I've told you this before: pretty much all of it.  Take your pick.  Is your memory failing you too?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:


Why?  I'm not the one pushing a hypothesis.  I've got nothing to prove.

If you want people to be convinced by the AGW hypothesis, you're the one who needs to be specific.

Hitler, gravity, and lies just isn't gonna cut it Bunny.

Sorry   

adelcrow wrote on Jan 16^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

   

    There is a consensus that man made CO2 emissions are mainly responsible for increasing the concentration level of CO2 in the atmosphere however there is less consensus that this is the actual catalyst for global warming.

It is therefore

prudent

to think about reducing CO2 emmissions but not at the expense of your nation's competitive advantage and certainly not at the expense of your nation's enterprises without similar action from your nation's major competitors.
Eco-socialists like the Green party don't give a rat's rectum about enterprise or maintaining competitive advantage as they are ideologically opposed to free enterprise and capitalism.

They use (have hijacked) the anthropogenic global warming theory as a political tool for their political ends (which is anti-capitalism)

The carbon tax is just a string in the bow of the eco-socialist's political agenda.  Another spanner in the works for capitalism, a means to redistribute wealth and you guys are sucking it up because they've convinced you that the sky is falling.

If the sky was indeed falling, and CO2 emissions / concentrations was the culprit then Governments (and Scientific community) would be pulling out all stops to restrict CO2 emissions.  They would be advocating the building of many more nuclear power generating facilities as they are the most efficient and effective means of reducing CO2 concentrations in the short term.

Eco-socialists (like the Greens Party) are totally against nuclear power even to reduce CO2 concentrations that will save the world, which just exposes their insincerity about global warming and emphasises the fact that they are conning everyone. 

Tell me Longy are you still going to complain about Australia taking action to reduce its use of greenhouse gases when the Libs eventually get back in because as you know they have the same reduction targets as Labor has or will it all be ok then?

Swagman wrote on Jan 16^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:



Sorry for the delay, things have been a little busy!

The full quote of my words, as you say, were -
"In respect of whether anything can/could/would/should or is going to be done, I would suggest that the can/could/would & should parts are possible,

BUT I agree with your assertion that they are unlikely, as it would require the sort of co-operation that usually only becomes apparent in the human race, once the problems become obvious & in this instance, THAT WILL HAPPEN TOO LATE FOR ANY MEANINGFUL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN!

"

In fact, I was saying that there should be actions taken to mitigate the Risks & the worst outcomes of Climate Change, BUT irrespective of what some are trying to promote, I suspect that nothing will happen, because of those trying to maintain a Status Quo that can not be maintained.

So, despite some people trying to promote Climate Change mitigation, for very good & logical reasons, nothing is likely to happen, because of those wanting to maintain what they see as their own advantages!

Political agendas may well be involved, but they would come from Left, Right, Centre, Free Enterprise or Communists, take your pick!   

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 6:13am:


http://watchingthedeniers.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/oz_correction.jpg

MOTR wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 11:41pm:

Like I said, he cant have it both ways. Sea level rise in the 21st century is actually smaller than the 20th century. They had it right the first time.