BBC News - UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row
Printable View
Unlikely.
We are somewhere in a similar state to the 'tobacco/cancer' arguments were in during the 1960's or so - both sides seem to be drastically overstating their cases in the hope of being given more money for 'research'. Depending on who is doing the funding evidence that disagrees with their favoured position will be ignored.
Fortunately - or not, depending on your point of view - this is all going to be increasingly out of the control of the various parasitic powerbrokers - you know, the ones who insist on flying everywhere first class when it could all be done over a video link - as the worlds supply of recoverable fossil fuels - first oil, then coal, will diminish to negligible amounts over the rest of the century. Europe has virtually no oil untapped and the coal fields are becoming too hard to mine, having been in full producton for two centuries - why do you think France is investing so heavily in nuclear power when they have access to some of the largest oil & coal fields?
I should stop before I get too bent & twisted.
It seems to me that the loudest people in the debate are the ones who won't stop until all governments agree to install solar/wind power everywhere, but they then yell up and down the loudest when the learn how much their taxes are raised in order to pay for it. There just doesn't seem to be an answer to the debate.
PS
With regards to coal, Australia has enough coal to last over 300 years at our current rate of usage. Let's just hope there is some sort of technology that will make coal redundant before then...:-)
My two cents worth anyway...
Diver D
______________________________
Check out my Blog
WoodenPlayhouseInfo.com - for inspiration to build that special place for your children
Which is where Ive ended up.....Quote:
Originally Posted by bsrlee
it was interesting to see the people protesting climate change on the telly somewhere. They all looked quite comfortably middle class, nary a raggedy shirt in sight.
Truth in matters such as this is such a subjective thing.
I don't think we know enough either way to say that man causes problems or not. I think he probably does.I think we will always get bias and selective figures from each side of the argument.
What is clear to me is that the the old principal of being safe rather than sorry should apply. We should stop trashing our home before we find out too late what the consequences will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
I have to agree with this.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
What is clear to me is that the the old principal of being safe rather than sorry should apply. We should stop trashing our home before we find out too late what the consequences will be.
As long as it does not involve squillions that is being bandied about. I would be happy with cleaning up the planet using practical measures and or alternate measures that do not involve all the BS of private agendas of personal advancement and or humongous financial gain.
The BS is that as China is a third world country we may have give them funds to clean up their act under the Copenhagen deal. I hear on the news numbers of 120 billion for a ETS tax on this country.
Then some dipstick in France reckons we should be aiming at 25% reduction not 5%. :o Considering we supply about 1.5% to the so called problem a 100% drop by us ain't really going to make a difference and I don't give a rats about the principle.
Especially when are going to be out their pretty much on our own. A little bit like all this free trade barrier reduction stuff while the US and the EU have protectionist policies for their producers as do many of our Asian neighbours
Trade protection: Incipient but worrisome trends | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists
Home | FarmSubsidy.org
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/bu...al/08farm.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us...cs/04farm.html
Im waiting for a the Carbon Futures Market and all the other derivatives to take off, imagine carbon spreads between EU, China and the US. Wonder if some brain will invent a carbon/currency derivative to further eff it all up. Image the crash then when it comes.
Sebbies first Law of Politics "Squillions of public money will always make it into private hands, the piper must always be paid". The recipients will be those who make the largest political donations as usual......
I firmly believe in a 25% target. The cost differential between 5% and 25% is negligble and I think we should become leaders in the wrold ith climate change and the technologies involved. We would be a better place for it. I am on a single income and am considerd to be a low wage earner but I would support a high tax if it means that in the future my kids kids kids will have a world that is livable and has resources to use.
A bit of opinion from Wall Street on Cap and Trade http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/op...nsen.html?_r=2