- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
But if the equatorial region warms as Marcus predicts, the biggest of all spots could take on a different appearance.
The Jovians must be really booming. They probably don't have an aversion to capitalism. They could teach us a lot.For gawd sake don't let Kev07 or Penny Wong know.
We'll be up for more wasted money trying to convince the Jovians to decrease their greenhouse gases.
gg
Smurf, do you think you could write a letter to Penny Wong, c.c. her boss, and very politely explain this?
You would be doing the nation a considerable service.
(emphasis mine).Penny Wong is completely unreceptive to any new ideas on this issue. She knows very well that if she took a rational approach (rather than the ideological approach) she would be out of a job.
Suppressing the inconvenient facts about climate change
Declan McCullagh of CBS reveals that the US environmental agency quashed an inconveniently sceptical report
THE Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was sceptical of claims about global warming. Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA centre director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data". The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward ... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision." The email correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency. Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels." After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Julia,Sorry if I've missed some basic point, but I wonder what the various world governments have to gain by such zealotry about something which seems to be at best inconclusive?
Other than a cryptic reference from Snake, no one has ventured an answer for me here. Anyone?I agree about the principle that whoever is paying determines what outcome the researchers will find.
What do the Rudd government have to gain from an ETS? Are they going to rake in more taxes that won't have to go straight back out on subsidising all the organisations and individuals to whom they've promised said subsidies?
Or will there be plenty left to stuff into General Revenue?
Is it to fuel Rudd's strutting on the world stage by saying Australia is leading the way?
Sorry if I've missed some basic point, but I wonder what the various world governments have to gain by such zealotry about something which seems to be at best inconclusive?
Other than a cryptic reference from Snake, no one has ventured an answer for me here. Anyone?
Thanks gooner. But the price of electricity is already going to rise 30% in Qld this winter, without anything to do with the ETS.
How is the reduced use of electricity (if that in fact is what would happen) actually going to benefit the people who are so passionately promoting global warming?
Going back to the suggestion that researchers will produce a conclusion in line with what's expected by those who are paying them, I'd still like to know just what e.g. Rudd and Wong have to gain by costing businesses and individuals hugely more to run their enterprise or lives?
Not sure if I misunderstood your question or am stating the obvious, but less electricity means less greenhouse gases as electricity is produced by burning coal.
Arguably, given the ETS is just a tax, there may be reductions in tax in other areas to offset it. So, it is not necessarily a bad outcome for everyone financially. And we save the planet, to boot, assuming you believe in global warming of course
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?