This is not a detailed post on the topic..just a reminder that “Live Earth ‘ is performing today to focus attention on this debilitating phenomenon which is taking on menacing proportions.
WE cannot but be responsible individually..our children inherit the earth.
Laxmi sent these:
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
Today live on you tube ..100 blockbuster artists, across seven continents, to combat climate crisis…For details
Sachiniti 
Watching the programme”its coming live ..also seeing Abhijeet in between singing for Taj..Gawd cant stand him. And theres pujas going on for Taj to win.. 10 crores have voted they say
Comment by Neha — July 7, 2007 @ 8:34 pm |
I always say, “one plus one is two” is a fact because no reputable scientist anywhere is the world will refute it. Unfortunately for the Global Warming, there are as many good scientists who disagree as there are who agree. Hence it cannot be a fact. It is just conjecture. Yet, Global Warming is almost a religion to some. It is all pure baloney. Please we do not know what the optimal temperature of the earth should be ? In fact no scientific study exist. Remember that the earth was once warmer, 1000s of years ago Greenland was green, today it is covered with snow. Global cooling did not kill us, hence why worry about returning back to what it used to be ?
At the end of the day Global warming will just result in a Global Tax and in my books all taxes are bad.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 8, 2007 @ 5:52 am |
I always say, “one plus one is two” is a fact because no reputable scientist anywhere is the world will refute it. Unfortunately for the Global Warming, there are as many good scientists who disagree as there are who agree. Hence it cannot be a fact. It is just conjecture. Yet, Global Warming is almost a religion to some. It is all pure baloney. We do not know what the optimal temperature of the earth should be. In fact no scientific study exist. Remember that the earth was once warmer, 1000s of years ago, Greenland was green, today it is covered with snow. Global cooling did not kill us, hence why worry about returning back to what it used to be ?
At the end of the day Global warming will just result in a Global Tax and in my books all taxes are bad.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 8, 2007 @ 6:15 am |
Presence of God/Almighty/The One/Spiritual Force is conjecture as well Shaan! Has anyone had the distinction of coming face to face with Him? So, therefore He does not exist ? Is it all pur baloney?
Most countries have accepted the Kyoto Protocol. As of now there is no Global Tax since both U.S. and India are not party to it..so stop fretting like an old man Shaan 😉
Comment by kaveetaakaul — July 8, 2007 @ 12:03 pm |
Big difference.
There are historical figures (plural) who have come face to face with God. These historical figures were trustworthy and honorable people of their times. Additionally God speaks via divine justice and other works of his.
Whereas the leaders of the Global Warming are mostly crooks. These same bandits once talked about explosion in human population, holes in ozone layers etc. They have been proven wrong time and again. Now they don’t talk of the looming crisis in terms of finite time (since they have learned from their past mistake), they talk about it in terms of 100 to 150 years or more, long after they are gone (thereby eliminating any chance that they will be caught in their lies). I can provide more details on these individuals.
Consider the following:
* A couple of Volcano activity generates more green house gas than what humans have produced since the dawn of time.
* Just termites in North America produce more green house gas within three months than what humans have produced since the dawn of time.
* The Carbon Neutral tax that the fat arse Al Gore pays is to himself (his owm company). No one knows what he does with that money and there is nothing within human control that can be done. BTW Fat Al consumes multiple times the energy than an average American consumes.
* The Global warming movement is being funded by companies with vested interest. Soon they will force us to buy their products. Watch and monitor this link.
Sure it make senses to reduce pollution and activity that generate green house gas but saying that we human cause global warming is like saying that if all humans some day decided to move to the north pole and then jumped up and down we might be able to push the earth out of its orbit around the sun.
Global Warming as I have said earlier is just an effort to have a Global Government and Global Taxes. At this time we have enough government and enough taxes. Hence, thank you, but no thank you, before I wet my underwear I need to know why Global Warming is bad ? I want to know what earth temperature is optimal ? I want to know how they know that the polar ice caps are reducing when no equipment or science exists to measure this ? I want to know how the Global Crooks are going to control volcanoes and termites etc which cause more green house gas ?
I want assurances that if and when proven wrong we can hang Al Gore by his neck or at least take back all the assets he has accumulated by scaring us.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 8, 2007 @ 5:58 pm |
“saying that we human cause global warming is like saying that if all humans some day decided to move to the north pole and then jumped up and down we might be able to push the earth out of its orbit around the sun.”
Shaan coz I burst out laughing at this doesnt mean that the rest is what I go with. I must admit here that since I am no authority on Global warming have therefore desisted fromm even attempting a post on it.I had requested Mr. Gajanan to write an article which he has promised to. Perhaps your interaction with him on that post will shed further light comprehensively which will help me decide which is the pov I’d go with.
Meanwhile lets just say, this once, the matter is in abeyance.
I hope this will underline sufficiently that arguing stubbornly for the sake of it is not a matter of procedure for me. Malleability , tractability is my middle name..Ahem!
Comment by kaveetaakaul — July 8, 2007 @ 7:55 pm |
In my line of work talking and debating is par for the course, nonetheless, I love arguing because I am am opinionated people’s person. I enjoy talking but I never insult people or call them names (i.e. the one’s I am arguing with).
Please ask Mr. Gajanan to answer the following :
i) Why Global Warming is bad for human kind, given that the earth was a lot warmer years ago. Remember Greenland was once green, now it is covered with snow.
ii) What the earth’s optimal temperature should be. Is there any non emotional, non psycho babble research on this issue ?
iii) How do we know that the polar ice caps are reducing when no equipment or science exists to measure this
iv)How the Global Crooks are going to control volcanoes and termites etc which cause more green house gas because the green house gas we humans cause is negligible compared to the natural activities.
v)Can he provide any research on this matter which was not funded by a vested company or a vested government. ( I M P O S S I B L E )
vi)What about the equal number of reputable scientist who disagree with the new fake religion called Global warming.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 8, 2007 @ 9:09 pm |
MR Shaan Khan , yes , your questions are very apt and excellent, but to go very technical on this , you will have to read scientific papers. In this blog, one cannot discuss scientific data of the pro and no view pts. Both the camps have very strong scientific view points. I will post pro web sites first and then to the skeptics ( to be more modest , the no camp)
This web site gives all the aspects with numerous references. If you have time go thru this, please go thru this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
Next , this is a debate between scientists The Yes and NO aspect , see link below related to Maldives.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/617/1
Science is highly rated journal. Itn is difficult get even a news item published in this.
About Sunderbans , there are many, news items. Just write ‘ Sunderbans and global warming in google and you will get it.
AS I have written both the camps have very strong scientists with their own data. But one thing is sure , there is change taking place. The sooner an agreement is reached ( consensus is difficult on this issue , bec certain other aspects like sun spot change , seismic disturbances will take a long time (ages) to decipher, even with sophisticated computing). The trouble with doing expts on this ( even though ice core expts are there to find the green house gas content) , it requires massive amts of money to conduct rigorous and precise expts in this area as you have to do this in many corners of the globe. You can sum up like this ” It takes only the brain and computer to predict things, but to do expts in this area ( the proof is in eating the pudding), is very expensive, time consuming ( some times it takes two solid yrs to get good data) and being a non-profit issue, it will require huge amts of money to foot in the bill for the personnel as well as equipment. But these things are happening, but at a slow rate and surely something good will come out of the public awareness created. Remember, only public pressure non-violently can settle issues which concerns the good of people. If it was some science related to individual achievements like creating a nanotube out of carbon ( This also has an impact, but not as social as the issue we are discussing) , it would not have created a stir. I would not use the word hype for global warming as the pro camp scientists also have excellent credentials.
Comment by gajanan — July 9, 2007 @ 6:13 am |
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2001/122/1
This ia pro global warming arguement in the journal Science . It is a news item
Comment by gajanan — July 9, 2007 @ 6:25 am |
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
This web site refers to core expts in Antarctica. Two science papers are referred to in the article. There are some 107 responses to this web site some critical also. Read it, it is a great experience.
One simple fact is deforestation which has taken place all over the world, which itself has caused the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is high school science which tells you all this. Indiscriminate desires to have their own wonderful houses ( Probably to get themselves listed as eighth wonder) have destroyed forests and trees all over the world.
Comment by gajanan — July 9, 2007 @ 8:29 am |
Global Warming is the biggest fraud .similar to the ‘new 7 wonders ‘ .
in 1973 i think , ther was a headline article in Newsweek , that the biggest threat is global cooling and the impending ice age.
none of the glaciers is retreating rather , the himallayan and the antartica glaciers are increasing .
aware of the media manipulation………..
Comment by Manoj — July 9, 2007 @ 8:49 am |
Gajanan
Remember the “holes in the ozone layers”. The late Carl Sagan admitted that he fudged the data and also that he used the data from Mars for analysis on the earth. Ofcourse the ozone holes todays are filling up. In fact now the theory is that some of the global warming is thanks to the holes filling up. Honestly, I am up to my eye balls with scientist fudging data to prove their pet theories. Hence I say we will believe when all reputable scientist agree. I agree that one plus one is two because no scientist disagrees.
I do not disagree that conservation is a good thing. Nonetheless I will not subscribe to this Global Warming scare.
BTW no equipment exist to measure the polar caps. Hence anyone who says anything about polar caps is just gestimating (based on his leanings).
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 9, 2007 @ 3:27 pm |
Agree with shaaan on the ozone layer. what happened to the ozone layer hype a few years back.. everyone was crying hoarse that the holes will do this , do that , increase cancer. now what the hole is filling up and this causes global warming.????? my foot…
all those global warming advocates, please do read Michael Crichlton’s book , State of Fear, wherein he literally tears apart the environmentlaist claims on global warming.
For your info ….following are the facts which refutes master environmentalist Al Gore of the chad fame
1)September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, “Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.”
2)Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
3)Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
For more
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
Comment by Manoj — July 9, 2007 @ 4:23 pm |
Manoj
I like Michael Crichton for his ability to rip apart bull shit. He makes the issue simple and understandable. His State of Fear is definitely a must read on this issue. Allow me to quote Wikipedia, “Crichton, who spent 3 years studying the theme, included a statement of his own views on global climate change at the end of the book, saying that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is largely unknown and unknowable”.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 9, 2007 @ 10:25 pm |
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5752/1313/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5752/1317/
These papers are relevant and from the journal
Science
These are the two papers relevant to expts for CO2 in ice cores. Thw work is still continuing , and the there are some technical hitches, but it is moving along. I do not know whether you have done expts from scratch in life. Expts take time. Once complete experimental data comes in we can conclude.
I agree with Manoj’s humidity concept of Mt K, but deforestation also causes, nature’s inability to absorb/ adsorb CO2, a major green house gas.
I do not know whether you have heard of the great Arrehenius , a Nobel Prize winner , who was the first to show the effect of CO2 on atmosphere. Savant Arrehnius is the father of reaction engineering and kinetics. This he showed in 1903. Many would pooh -pooh such an old work. After all,Arrehnius is one of the founding father of science. I will post his reference of the first paper asap.
I will not give importance to media persons. actvists unless and until , they back it with good scientific data , like for example Vandana Shiva. She backs up all her lectures with great amount of data. She also has opponents.
I would like to give a web site , please click on it and judge how science is run today. Please read the contents and judge for yourself.
http://www.duesberg.com/
Comment by gajanan — July 10, 2007 @ 4:59 am |
“The important thing is to not
stop questioning.” Albert Einstein
is from the web site mentioned , which is similar to the Sanskrit query ” Not this, Not this” (Neti , Neti) propounded by Indian sages thousands of years ago. Please keep questioning , that is the way it should be.
Comment by gajanan — July 10, 2007 @ 5:06 am |
The father of climate change – Svant Arrhenius
There is time line given upto Kyoto Protocol This is from the ” The Guardian”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1517938,00.html
Comment by gajanan — July 10, 2007 @ 5:32 am |
A great difference between the time of Arrhenius and now is science then was done with passion, now it is done with fashion , which is the reason you have corpns (vested interests), media and novelists ( they know they will make a good living) jumping into the band wagon. One must thank our stars , that there were no agents to science then, otherwise progress would not have been as spectacular as it is.
Comment by gajanan — July 10, 2007 @ 5:45 am |
Gajanan
I remember reading a report on Red Wine (sponsored by the wine industry). The report praised red wine so much that you would want to bottle feed it to infants. Yet no where did they mention that all the benefits could be obtained from concord grape juice without any of the harmful effects of alcohol.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 10, 2007 @ 6:29 am |
Click to access Arrhenius.pdf
This is a 22 page paper of Svant Arrhenius. Please do not mistake he won the Nobel Prize for this work. He won it for ionic solutions. Just see the hard work, he has done and you can read passion coming out of the paper. If you want to ingnore the web site of globalwarming mentioned in the pdf , please ignore it or if interested browse thru it. The choice is yours.
Comment by gajanan — July 10, 2007 @ 7:09 am |
Paper published in 1896 , by SArrehnius.
Comment by gajanan — July 10, 2007 @ 7:11 am |
Do did Carl Sagan win a Nobel Prize.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 10, 2007 @ 8:10 am |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
This site does not list a Nobel for Carl Sagan. You cannot compare science done pre 1940 to the science done after 1940. Pre 1940 scientists were media shy ( most of them). For example the Gottingen scientists like Bohr , Fermi, Schrodinger , and even Einstein were so absorbed to science that they stuck to scientific forums, journals. The Post 1940 era only is marked by flamboyance (Sagan had this plus his astrobiology concept) bro-hua due to telly and rise of media, corporations into science.
Of course there is an exception like Dr Jonas Salk who refused to patent the polio vaccine and probably ( a conjecture) missed the Nobel Prize due to this. The fact is that due to this kind act , Polio vaccine was available to masses, at very very low price.
It is very difficult to be like Dr Jonas Salk in present days, when everything is patented and commercialised (Salk was called Gandhi of Modern Medicine by some).
The best analogy is Hindi flim lyrics. Is there a poet like Sahir Ludhianvi, Shailendra, or Kaifi Azmi now to write good lyrics? So much of pomp and flamboyance , loud music , with no scope for words.
Comment by gajanan — July 10, 2007 @ 12:14 pm |
Gajanan
I will not argue that the modern day systems (democracy, science, etc) have been compromised. I agree. Nonetheless let us focus on Global Warming. Nothing you have presented negates my arguments. I can link research papers to this thread also, but unfortunately no one will read it. For a debate on a blog to be interesting and educative (for all) one has to presented these research papers in a executive summary. Hence I suggest that rather than I just read the papers (which I have) that you have been kind enough to draw our attention to, it is best that you synthesize them into bullets or sound bites. This way it will benefit all. I rather have everyone follow, agree or disagree than tune off.
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 10, 2007 @ 4:07 pm |
It will take a lot of time to write as an executive summary. Please wait. I will have to rope in some more experts on this.
Comment by gajanan — July 11, 2007 @ 5:15 am |
Consulted experts. All feel that some more data is coming on the expt side, which then could be incorporated as exe summary and a report within. See, these are all expts and that too done in difficult terrain and then they have to analyse the data. Let us wait for some time to write an exe summary. Here is a Japanese link , who have experience with natural calamities more than anybody in the world and have mechanisms to defend that also. An (most) advanced Asian country, whose views on this issue, (still in flux), cannot be ignored. The publication is in Japanese. This is only an abstract, but it gives good information to carry the message thru’
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200705/000020070507A0122744.php
Comment by gajanan — July 11, 2007 @ 8:51 am |
Gajanan
Regardless on which side you take, this is an important issue. Hence such issues should be discussed without fear in the open and with maximum involvement. In life I have written many research papers (although on a different issue) but it was only when I turned my paper into a story/sound bite that I found success. Today I don’t even bother to exchange research paper (most of the times) because most people don’t read it (yes these very people are willing to listen when it is turned into a neat and small story).
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 11, 2007 @ 9:14 pm |
Why Rama Sethu should be Saved…….
http://saveramsetu.blogspot.com
Comment by anonymous — July 15, 2007 @ 11:19 am |
http://www.greendiary.com
http://www.ecofriend.org
Comment by Laxmi — July 15, 2007 @ 4:02 pm |
Not all taxes are bad, ane people have been taxed by government since very early in human history.
In Biblical times, for example, therfe were two tithes demanded of all who owned land. One tenth of the crop was for the Priests, and one tenth was for the poor (those who didn’t own land), but thswas not the end of the tax since the bible also demanded that a farmer not glean the corners of his fields but leave this grain for the poor to gather; this added another five percent to the tax. this meant that the total tax in Biblical times was approximately twenty-five percent, comparable to today’s tax rates.
We must tax ourselves for certain functions which government seems best able to perform, and this includes (but is not limited to)law enforcement, national defense, education, and healthcare.
Comment by TD walter Segall — December 4, 2007 @ 9:57 pm |
Sunlight Is the best disinfectant
July 18, 2008…5:31 pm
‘No evidence carbon emissions cause global warming,’ says top Australian scientist who developed Kyoto accounting protocol
Jump to Comments
‘Economy will be wrecked’ in bogus drive to reduce CO2 emissions, he adds
BREAKING NEWS
The Australian scientist who developed his country’s Kyoto accounting protocol says there is no evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming and global warming itself appears to have stopped by 2001, with temperatures now back to 1980 levels.
In an article in The Australian newspaper today, Dr David Evans says that despite years of searching for it, scientists have found no evidence to support the theory that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
While Dr Evans accepts global warming has occurred, he insists there is no evidence carbon emissions caused it, despite computer modelling that suggested warming would follow higher carbon dioxide emissions.
Further, he says all the evidence is there has been no global warming since 2001, and temperatures are now back to 1980 levels.
“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise?” he writes. “The [Australian] Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions… When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.”
Dr Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
“I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector,” he says. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office.”
When he started that job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good, he wrote.
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”
But since 1999, new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.
“As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir’?
“There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
“One. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
“When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
“Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot.
“If you believe that you’d believe anything.
“Two. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
“Three. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the ‘urban heat island’ effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
“Four. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.”
None of these points are controversial, Dr Evans writes. Alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance, he adds.
“The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
“Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
“In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
“If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
“The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
“The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.”
Comment by Shaan Khan — July 22, 2008 @ 5:19 pm |
Thanks !
Comment by AripsMoimirof — August 3, 2008 @ 7:54 am |