He gets around this bloke. He was on Letterman last night or the night before.
He still has not established a conclusive link of global warming to human activity.
When the natural cycle of warming peaks and it starts cooling again they will all cry out "There you see. We were right. It warmed up so we taxed you out of existance and now it is cooling down. You can trust and believe us. We are just working on what is going to be the next global crisis."
The one thing he talks about that makes sense is that taxing the hell out of the end consumer will not reduce carbon emmissions.
I'm with "Supertramp"-Crisis! What Crisis??
IN THE END WE WILL ALL PAY AND BEING OUT OF POCKET IS GOING TO BE THE LEST OF YOU WORRYS
IT MAY NOT BE TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY OR EVEN 40 YEARS FROM NOW.....
It is always the average guy and gal that gets stuck with paying for everything.
The product and service providers always say that they have to pass on the costs otherwise they would lose their profit margin and no longer be able to stay in business to provide the product or service for which there is a demand.
We just have to conveniently forget the fact that they created the demand for the item for which there was no previous need, through the multimedia mind control tool.
Weeeeeeeelll I dont Know ! 
take a ride back to basics 
When I was at school 50's I was taught or they tried to teach me, BookKeeping [}:)]
which i recon could have been the fore runner to economics 
I don't know
that I ever grabbed it , but i have grappled with it ever since 
The basics of the then economics was to build a product that people wanted, 
Then build it better, 
the cost comes down per item and the sales numbers go up,
increasing the return. 
and the demand 
and the profits 
and the overall
well being of the populace.
It now seems to be the opposite, is that progress 
and someone else, mainly off
shore makes all the moolah 
the dreaded middle man 
did i fail in my
understanding of economics should I worry
the hockey stick theory is based on the idea that the medieval warm period was removed from the graph and that errors exist with the estimates. it is also not referring to the graph i linked above. the graph i linked above is also 10 different recording methods over liad. they all show the same outcome.
the hockey stick theory is actually referring to a graph published in a UN report a few year back. here is that graph. 
it is also based on the idea that urban heat sinks affected the data. the graph i linked above does not only just look at urban areas, records were also taken at sea, and other areas that don't fall under that premise including ice cores. (no cities there)
here is a recent graph from nasa showing effectively the same thing.
again, the disbelievers would have you think that we are in a cooling period. the actual data as pointed out in the interview i published in this thread shows this is not the case.
clearly all the data points towards an increase around the victorian era and an increase continuing on an upward trend.
try and get away from the pointless argument not based on fact and inspred by paranoid internet pages of conspitracy theories and global government domination. whether what is being recorded is man made or natural, face the facts that previous climate changes on earth have lead to mass extinctions.
currently extinctions are happening yearly. scientist are collecting data worldwide to record current flora and fauna and temps are still rising.
at the end of the day i prefer a green planet. pumping tonnes and tonnes of polution into the atmoshpere and cutting down forests globally is never going to lead to a good outcome.
apologies his book is on amazon, but only second hand...http://www.amazon.com/greenhouse-trap-effect-will-earth/dp/0947189777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260665513&sr=1-1
He may not be an expert but the following that he wrote is right on the mark.
If the public has paid for it, the public has the right know it and either accept or reject it.
"A common failing of scientists, particularly those engaged in research which may have impacts upon the public, is to reject any input from the public in the conduct of their work. The peer review process provides an effective barrier to public scrutiny of a science, as is the tendency to regard the public as people to `be educated' instead of being learned from. The resulting intellectual arrogance has the effect of making scientists into a sort of medieval priesthood, keepers of secret and exclusive knowledge, and to be kept away from prying public eyes. Such an attitude, common with many scientists, is unpardonable given that most research is paid for by public money. This however, does not prevent such scientists from adopting a proprietorial view of their research results. The NAS booklet cautions -
"In fulfilling these responsibilities scientists must take the time to relate scientific knowledge to society in such a way that members of the public can make an informed decision about the relevance of research. Sometimes researchers reserve this right to themselves, considering non-experts unqualified to make such judgments. But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means."
This is a direct criticism of `scientism', a belief held by many scientists that knowledge not acquired by professional scientists is knowledge not worth having. Scientism is an affront to free people everywhere as it denies the right of the public to judge the work of science, even where this work is funded from taxpayer's money. It is a formula that holds scientists above criticism, and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world and is clearly opposed by the National Academy.
Yet in the climate sciences, we have numerous examples of public criticism and concern being dismissed with gratuitous statistics and spurious appeals to academic authority."
^ it's called peer review. so much more beneficial than public review. how can the public possibly review a document on climate change and make an informed decision. they have no prior learning or experience.
let those try and dissprove the majority view, it's healthy and brings balance but until they prove they are right and recieve peer recognition they are considered incorrect.
the "majority" of the scientific community are telling us global warming is real. they are clearly telling us the implications to this and they are clearly telling us ways to limit our risk as a global body.
With all the divisive discussions/reasons for and against climate change, one wonders if we are all being as confused, like those land owners up in the New Guinea highlands who have been offered money "NOT" to cut the trees down and that the cash is for the carbon value in the forests they own. This is right on the back of the last group, offering them Money to "CUT the trees down
As shown on TV yesterday during an interview, one reporter was approached by a land owner group asking if he was a rep from the Carbon Trading group. The land owners wanted to know if the Carbon group would supply the bags for the land owners to ship the carbon down the mountains and who was paying the transport cost. Poor buggers must be thinking the world has gone completely mad, when the reporter tried to explain to the land owners, they didn't have too do anything, just sell carbon lots
[}:)] I think that made sense too them...... yea right
Carbon tax world wide
Carbon trading world wide
i suppose al gore is an expert then.
david bellamy, a scientist says global warming is poppycock.
this guy was hardly ever off british television + radio.
that was until he came out and said man/made global warming is poppycock.
what happened then,he could not get any job on british tv or radio.[his own words]
just a coincidence of course. not part of any conspiracy.
just like on the anniversary of sept11, the chicago futures stock closed for the days trading at 911.00. thats with TWO BIG FAT ZEROS.
just a mind boggling freaky coincidence again i take it.
a year after sept11 the pentagon admitted that on the morning of the attacks,they were simulating flying high jacked jets into the wtc + pentagon.
another freak coincidence,just as with david bellamy being taken off tv + radio.
as michael haupt says from his website 3 world wars.com, you either believe history is as told[things happen accidentally] or you believe in conspiratorial history.[things are planned to happen]
looking at the physical evidence, not to mention numerous freaky coincidences, you would have to be the biggest conspiracy theorist of all/time to believe much of what we are being told is factual.
the myth of man made global warming is for a few reasons. the transference of wealth from the people to the state via a carbon tax.
they will use this tax to then empower the U.N. which will incrementally grow all powerful in the comimg few years,leading to a one world govenment.
thats a population micro/chipped one world government.
best to stay off the soylent green, the pigs don't like it and may force us to burn our books.
Why do the "climate change" protagonists become so rabid and feverish in their efforts to convert those with an opposing view.
It brings to mind "I fear he doth protest too loudly."
These people use shaky science, moralistic arguements, fear, impending doom and outright lies to try to convince us that we are all very naughty polluting children and must be spanked with a huge tax paddle as punishment.
There enough very credible scientists in the world that have presented solid evidence that shows that human activities have a negligible to nil effect on climate. Unfortunately those that control the media do their best to silence them.
Sufficient evidence and arguement against the "climate change" idea exists to compel that no "knee jerk" legislative action should be taken, particularly signing away our national sovereignty to some non elected U.N. committee in which proportionate representation will not exist.
Should the people of the world make significant efforts toward reducing pollution?
Of course!!
Should companies continue to provide products and services to consumers?
Of course!!
Should these companies conduct their activities in an environmentally responsible manner?
Absolutely!!
Should governments introduce further taxes at any level in the name of "climate change"?
Definitely not!!
Agree with you Cisco about the need to reduce pollution. Added to that list should be protecting the natural environment, slowing down the consumption of non renewable resoures and reducing the huge gaps of wealth between rich and poor.
I don't agree with the global conspiracy stuff. There may be a cabal of human induced climate change protagonists. I'd liken this to any other lobby group protecting their interests. Many people now earn a good living from climate change science and associated policy so its in their material interest to keep the interest up. Peer review could easily develop into groupthink.
This does not amount to a conspiracy just as the decision by the federal government to throw a few hundred million at the Australian car industry is not a conspiracy.
Through my reading of history its clear that societies are prone to doom and gloom scenarios. Many societies have had doomsday prophecies. Humans often tend to be pessemistic about the future. Thats fair enough as we don't really know what the future holds.
For Australia at least it would be good to have some sort of public enquiry and forum where the issue can be settled before the people. Those who are in favour of the theory of human induced climate change could present their evidence and arguments while those against could present their case. At the moment we have KRUDD, Wong and co going on about it, but not really explaining very much.
Once the argument is settled, most probably in favour of human induced climate change of some degree, or at the very least the fact that humanity inflicts a great deal of damage on the environment, we could look at developing policies to mitigate damage now and into the future.
I like your viewpoint Mobydisc. Sensible, logical and non alarmist.
I would just like to point out though that I have used the word "conspiracy" only once in this thread and it was not in the context of my saying there is one.
I have mentioned the "New World Order" as have both the Bushes and Gordon Brown.
As for "At the moment we have KRUDD, Wong and co going on about it, but not really explaining very much." and their plan to sign us up to this "Copenhagen Agreement", I say "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread."
Apparently 600 odd protesters were arrested in Copenhagen yesterday.
Thanks for that one petermac33.
No doubt someone will try say that the whole 31,486 scientists are a bunch of crackpots, PHD or not.
no someone will say that it refers to the koyote agreement which is out of date and was not agreed to by australia until it was so late that it meant nothing anyway.
10 years on and the evidence is now wholey accepted by the science community in general.
show me some current accepted data that proves climate change is incorrect. not whacky webpages that are inaccurate or out of date.
show me the csiro reports, australian academy of science paper, nasa papers etc.
I also noticed that the UK is putting a 50% tax on all (bank) bonuses in excess of 25,000 pounds and the UK and France is expecting to use a tax on the Financial system to pay for the majority of the money that they are pledging.
I assume that if Kevin Rudd was talking about along similar lines, Cisco would be insisting that humans are definitely to blame for Global Warming
