Comments on: Scientists call for Royal Commission* into climate change science

By: Letter from Steve Fielding « TWAWKI

Letter from Steve Fielding « TWAWKI — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:43:57 +0000

[...] Previous calls for Royal Commission here [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Mattb

Mattb — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:36:34 +0000

Adrian #23 I think you will find concerns of over population are harboured by those on the left and right. I think it is simply NIMBYism… wanting others to not live so that they can maintain their precious living standards.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: wilbert robichaud

wilbert robichaud — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:19:21 +0000

Alfred… Wow! 3 Myths in one sentence.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Alfred

Alfred — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:04:35 +0000

I do agreee on the point Mr. Tel has mentioned. It is not only green house gas. It is the over population and over consumption which generates Green house gases.

Like or Dislike: 0 1

By: Anne-Kit Littler

Anne-Kit Littler — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:21:41 +0000

Adrian, #23: “What do your readers think about skeptic advocates augmenting their case by saying that the world’s real problem is not CO2, it is over population and over consumption?”

Well, this reader and skeptic would think that such advocates would be doing nothing more than promoting another lie, namely that overpopulation is a problem. Au contraire, in the not too distant future DECLINING and AGEING populations will be the major crisis facing humanity. I didn’t pick this out of a hat, it comes straight from the statistics of the hallowed United Nations.

Check it out, I haven’t got time to google it right now.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Joanne Nova

Joanne Nova — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:57:31 +0000

Charles, there is no scientific principle called The Precautionary Principle. It’s so meaningless -it works in reverse too. We could say we should use the Precautionary Principle to protect the masses from unnecessary damage to economies – especially third world ones where any extra cost in energy will slow or stop them getting access to cheap food and clean water.

Paying more for energy is what this is all about. It will hurt us rich countries a bit, but it will hurt the poor the most. For those on the poverty line, extra energy costs will ensure that some people will die because we divert money from other uses like sanitation/food/medicine to more expensive technologies.

The more useful principle is a cost-benefit analysis. How much will it cost and what benefit will we get? Every billion dollars spent rewarding renewable energy companies, carbon traders, banks, and bureaucrats is a billion dollars not spent curing blindness, protein deficiency or dysentry in children.

How many people are you willing to kill just in case?

Don’t assume that sceptics are any less concerned than you are about forests, fish and the starving poor. We think a different approach will help them more than harnessing thousands of our best and brightest to fight a foe that doesn’t pose a problem.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:24:53 +0000

Peter McKenna said “The chance it may hit them in the hip pocket might change their views somewhat.”
You’re projecting there Peter, ’skeptics’ own the argument about loss of money/jobs/economy/plasma screens in their efforts so sow fear and postpone the adoption of the precautionary principle.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:20:08 +0000

This so called ’skepticism’ is the real damaging feature in the whole global warming politicisation.

Setting aside the ’skeptics’ argumentation just for a second: what if AGW is occurring? I hear no precautionary principles, no desire for conservatism, no realisation of the potential devastation wrought by AGW.

The ’skeptics’ have one dimension only it seems and that is to create a sense of doubt about AGW, much like 911 conspiracy theorists do so in their efforts to augment the social dislocation of many naive people on the sidelines of society.

Like or Dislike: 0 1

By: Tel

Tel — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:33:08 +0000

What do your readers think about skeptic advocates augmenting their case by saying that the world’s real problem is not CO2, it is over population and over consumption?

This particular skeptic would ask you to define what it means for the world to have a problem. I’ve met people with problems, but as I understand it, the world spins in space, oblivious and uncaring.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Lionell Griffith

Lionell Griffith — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:20:29 +0000

Adrian @ 23,

What makes you think your plan will work? I find it no more persuasive than the arguments from either the left or right. If you seduce someone to support your position by projecting a falsehood, how can that support be helpful?

However, it gets worse. The right and the left are two sides of the same coin. There is no place for a center. Both the left and right argue for sacrifice. They argue over who is to be sacrificed, to whom, for what reason, to what extent, and how fast. The critical thing is that both sides agree that the individual is to be sacrificed and must be forced to do so. One who stands in the middle agrees with both sides and also argues for the sacrifice of all to all. He just doesn’t want to be thought of going to extremes doing it.

The concept of individual rights has been lost. Liberty is only a word given lip service in The Pledge of Allegiance. Individualism is almost a crime. Diversity is the golden goal only if everyone thinks and says the same things. The Constitution has been set aside as irrelevant. The entire focus of government has been perverted to a condition worse that that of the government of King George when The Declaration of Independence was written. There is no center on which to stand.

Like or Dislike: 0 0