Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Some Dude]

With all due respect Some Dude, you substantianted them for me. I recognised some patterns of a personality disorder which you acknowledged you have.

I'm working on how we can better relate to each other and will get back to you.

I'll give you a perfect way to achieve that. Elaborate by showing examples, citations, research, evidence, etc for any of the questions posed about your assertions or labels in the previous posts. If you can't then why should anyone accept your observations as valid?

 

[Knobby22]

With all due respect Some Dude, you substantianted them for me. I recognised some patterns of a personality disorder which you acknowledged you have.

I'm working on how we can better relate to each other and will get back to you.

Not impressive Whiskers, resorting to attacking the messenger. I was hoping to see you provide some interesting scientific studies. Instead it appears that you are merely blindly listening to propaganda without using your critical facilities and relying on your prejudices to form your viewpoint on this issue.

 

[Whiskers]

Not impressive Whiskers, resorting to attacking the messenger.

Absolutely not attacking the messenger Knobby... far from it. If you read back I was complimentary where compliments were due and facilitating where I noticed a problem... ie noticing not just a personality style, but a personality disorder that was getting in the way of resolving the essentially circular conversation where one acknowledges little but keeps asking questions and broardening the conversation instead of narrowing the conversation to settle key points before moving on.

Surely you appreciate that certain types of personality disorders pose particular problems with communication and comprehension. The respectful thing to do is recognise it, as he has, and the onus is then on the rest of us to understand the nature of it and adjust accordingly. To ignore the condition exists is the worst thing you can do.

I was hoping to see you provide some interesting scientific studies. Instead it appears that you are merely blindly listening to propaganda without using your critical facilities and relying on your prejudices to form your viewpoint on this issue.

Maybe it's because you are from melb and not very familiar with things in Qld and NSW, but I did spell out the particular issue of the qld gov approving the Coal Seam Gas (CSG) projects via the coordinator general process without any enviornmental assessements or restrictions and approved simillarly by the fed gov. The fracking process by definition 'blasts' the subterranean landscape to allow the methane gas to escape from the coal seam. Also by definition they have no control over, nor idea of where the fractures will traverse and let the methane plus all the fracking chemicals escape to, eg up the hole, into the water table or else where into the atmosphere as numerous reports in the history of fracking in the US and the 4 corners report showed.

Refer to the Coal Seam Gas - an unregulated, unmitigated environmental & economic disaster thread for more details if you are not familiar with CSG.

Now getting back to the point, how can you reconcile the former Qld and current fed gov 'hysterical' position re global warming with allowing thousands of holes to be drilled for CSG a major greenhouse gas, methane with a long record of uncontrolled methane leakages into the enviornment without any enviornmental assessement first, let alone controls?

By awarding the projects via the coordinator general act, as special projects, they by-passed the normal assessement processes to fast track the projects on the basis the economic benefit was worth more than the environmental damage. Do you not see the glaring contradiction with their climate change position!?

 

[Some Dude]

Absolutely not attacking the messenger Knobby... far from it. If you read back I was complimentary where compliments were due and facilitating where I noticed a problem... ie noticing not just a personality style, but a personality disorder that was getting in the way of resolving the essentially circular conversation where one acknowledges little but keeps asking questions and broardening the conversation instead of narrowing the conversation to settle key points before moving on.

Surely you appreciate that certain types of personality disorders pose particular problems with communication and comprehension. The respectful thing to do is recognise it, as he has, and the onus is then on the rest of us to understand the nature of it and adjust accordingly. To ignore the condition exists is the worst thing you can do.

The problem though is that having an opinion about that, and demonstrating it are two different things. Simply asserting that I demonstrate it with my posts without citing the examples for the labels that you have chosen is problematic.

Why should anyone accept your observations if you can't demonstrate them to be so? You don't even know what I was diagnosed with yet you are confident that that is the reason for whatever it is you think is happening.

Arguments can often be dismissed with the same level of evidence provided. In this case, the validity of your assertion regarding personality disorders and communication, for which you don't even know which I was diagnosed with, is supported by the equivelent of "read his posts".

Well, you're wrong. Just read your posts.

 

[Knobby22]

Hey, I'm not saying that governments walk the talk. The present government hasn't a clue.
The whole thing is a farce.

I am just saying the world is obviously warming and in a geological way, incredibly fast. The evidence stacks up that it is human induced but I am open to how it operates. Methane is a good example as it is a very strong greenhouse gas that thankfully doesn't last in the atmosphere that long.

As the earth continues to warm something will give politically. It just takes time.
I predicted a while back that it will be the Republicans who will declare war on global warming when the time is right. It is amazing how many of the so called hard right are investing in sustainable technologies in the knowledge that if they get it right they will get richer. For instance, at present plenty of money is going into alternatives to storing the energy made by wind power. Texas has a lot of wind power but it is useless when the wind stops. If they could store the energy then it could be used to meet peak loads.

There is also research going into air cars run off compressed air! (and so far it has been very successful).

The world is going to be a very different place in 30 years but until that takes place, powerful interests want to keep the status quo as long as possible, hence the Heartland institute and powerful media organisations pumping out the lies.

There are of course overzealous types who have no idea what they are talking about in the "green" sphere as well but you have to keep going back to the facts.

We have had a solar lull. it will become very obvious in the next 5 years. I can wait.

 

[wayneL]

The hard right being anyone to the right of socialism?

Knobby, there is also the issue of general pollution and energy security. Great reasons to invest in renewable energy, never mind climate change.

 

[Knobby22]

The hard right being anyone to the right of socialism?

Knobby, there is also the issue of general pollution and energy security. Great reasons to invest in renewable energy, never mind climate change.

The hard right are right of the right. The right are right of the centre. The socialists are similarly left and far (or silly) left. I probably should have said the elite right though.

And I agree with your comment. They are great reasons.

That does not mean they are not aware of the truth.
What about that right wing think tank that publically espouses that global warming is rubbish while spending money on research to plant the atmosphere with a range of gases to cool the earth? It was on this thread well back but I am disinclined to search for it.

 

[Whiskers]

...there is also the issue of general pollution and energy security. Great reasons to invest in renewable energy, never mind climate change.

A good time to reaffirm this is a valid point. I actually agree with the policy to develop natural gas resources, but the issue is in the application of that policy in the context of the gov global warming stance and policy and proper long standing pollution and toxic spill issues and regulations.

You don't even know what I was diagnosed with yet you are confident that that is the reason for whatever it is you think is happening.

Without even knowing or seeing you, but just from your writing and conversation style, my knowledge and judgement lead me to correctly conclude you had a personality disorder, didn't it.

While respecting your request not to elloberate on that and not wishing to dwell on it too much, I can relate to you probably more than you think... for example, like a few other forum members I have personally experienced a personaly disorder/mental condition, (mild) depression with the attached stigma.

But the point of that exercise was to fine tune a better dialogue style in the belief that you are genuinely interested in this issue and not just a forum troll out to destroy good dialogue.

The problem though is that having an opinion about that, and demonstrating it are two different things. Simply asserting that I demonstrate it with my posts without citing the examples for the labels that you have chosen is problematic.

Why should anyone accept your observations if you can't demonstrate them to be so?

Some Dude, there are some things that I don't need to demonstrate to be true such as (regarding the CSG issue) the lack of enviornmental controls for the Gladstone CSG project and others. They are well documented in the government Coordinator Generals Office website under special/significant projects status. You can find it all at: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects.html They were also well presented in the 4 Corners report and other sources.

Similarly by definition, CSG refers to methane gas and fracking refers to the (toxic) chemicals used to break up the subterranean enviornment. I'll ask you check and confirm that for yourself.

Regarding the history of fracking for CSG, search phrases like 'Coal Seam Gas', 'fracking for CSG' and 'US enquiry into fracking'. I could provide plenty of links, but to avoid being accused of bias, it's best you follow your own enquiry into these well established concepts and historic issues.

To paraphrase my point again, if the Gov were so concerned about the green house effect and global warming that they wished to and started putting taxes on carbon emissions, why would they grant the drilling for methane gas (which is one of their most complained about greenhouse gasses) a special status to avoid the normal enviornmental assessement, approval and control processes?

 

[burglar]

As an experienced poster one would expect words to assist in understanding this difficult subject

"Mother Nature has an awesome agenda!"

Given time, she will remove the difficultly, with or without our intervention!

 

[Some Dude]

Without even knowing or seeing you, but just from your writing and conversation style, my knowledge and judgement lead me to correctly conclude you had a personality disorder, didn't it.

But can you demonstrate a causal effect on the relevant points of discussion. You say that you can tell by writing and conversation style, well cite and elaborate with regard to the validity of the discussion points.

If you are choosing to avoid substantiating your assertions because of some effect that you believe I was diagnosed with then why should anyone else who has not been diagnosed with something accept your assertions? Are you asserting that everyone else can see and accept what I can't?

While respecting your request not to elloberate on that and not wishing to dwell on it too much, I can relate to you probably more than you think... for example, like a few other forum members I have personally experienced a personaly disorder/mental condition, (mild) depression with the attached stigma.

Your status with regard to "I can relate to you probably more than you think" is irrelevant to me with regard to the relevant discussion points. I am more than happy to chat to you about other experiences etc in a different context, hence if you want to continue this aspect of the discussion let's do it in private.

For this discussion, I would like to return to the discussion points, namely please substantiate your assertions.

But the point of that exercise was to fine tune a better dialogue style in the belief that you are genuinely interested in this issue and not just a forum troll out to destroy good dialogue.

I'd ask you to read this post. You don't need to fine tune anything to be honest in your assertions with everyone, not just myself.

Some Dude, there are some things that I don't need to demonstrate to be true such as (regarding the CSG issue) the lack of enviornmental controls for the Gladstone CSG project and others. They are well documented in the government Coordinator Generals Office website under special/significant projects status. You can find it all at: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects.html They were also well presented in the 4 Corners report and other sources.

Similarly by definition, CSG refers to methane gas and fracking refers to the (toxic) chemicals used to break up the subterranean enviornment. I'll ask you check and confirm that for yourself.

Regarding the history of fracking for CSG, search phrases like 'Coal Seam Gas', 'fracking for CSG' and 'US enquiry into fracking'. I could provide plenty of links, but to avoid being accused of bias, it's best you follow your own enquiry into these well established concepts and historic issues.

To paraphrase my point again, if the Gov were so concerned about the green house effect and global warming that they wished to and started putting taxes on carbon emissions, why would they grant the drilling for methane gas (which is one of their most complained about greenhouse gasses) a special status to avoid the normal enviornmental assessement, approval and control processes?

I tried obtaining an understanding about this in private but alas, we disagree there also, so be it.

I work professionally in the CSG industry and from my vantage point observe enough truth, myth, and hypocrisy from all parties to provide plenty of discussion for other people. I sought to be honest with you and declare why I will not be answering your questions instead of simply evading. None of this affects the basic principle that if I was to make a statement of fact on the topic, regardless of my situation, I should be able to substantiate it if asked. This should not be confused for you posing a question not directly related to an assertion that you or I have made. It would be disappointing, yet illuminating for others, if you were to continue evading the burden of proof for your assertions of fact by attempting to claim that I can't ask for substantiation when acknowledging why I won't be answering unrelated questions on one topic.

I can't and will not be commenting further on any issue directly related to this topic for what I thought would have been fairly obvious reasons. As with my medical diagnosis, I chose to be honest about it instead of simply ignoring it. I don't need to get into detail because both are irrelevant to you providing substantiation for your claims.

I will be continuing to highlight where I believe you are making statements of fact on other topics that appear to be unsupportable.

 

[Whiskers]

I tried obtaining an understanding about this in private but alas, we disagree there also, so be it.

It's unfortunate that we could not get an understanding. I will not reveal our private discussions, but I have given you permission to if you wish.

Are you asserting that everyone else can see and accept what I can't?

No, not everybody... but I note the few who have, are very intelligent and knowledgable, like yourself, and they have some training and or experience in managing conflict.

At this point I would refer back to a point I made earlier.

But the point of that exercise was to fine tune a better dialogue style in the belief that you are genuinely interested in this issue and not just a forum troll out to destroy good dialogue.

Now, I gave you the benifit of the doubt, because I figured there was a personality disorder involved. If you think I've been harsh, then wait until you see how I normally treat a forum troll.

Diverging a bit off topic, but I promise everyone else we will end back on topic.

I'd ask you to read this post.

Depends on the parallels that you perceive to sport. I do have a philosophical inclination that motivates me i.e. I believe that a large part of the problem that adversely affects many discussions in society at large is not what people believe but how or why they believe what they do and an inability to establish common ground on how to assess information and derive conclusions when communicating with others. If arguing is a sport for me, or whatever other word is appropriate, I am but one amongst a large field of players, and a relatively passive player at, whom are proactively seeking to assert something to convince others.

If you mean I am much more practiced than most people then sure, I agree. Depends on what you meant.


With regard to the words that we use, sometimes the choice of a word can be important. Take this example:

You don't need to fine tune anything to be honest in your assertions with everyone, not just myself.

I did, which leads to...

But can you demonstrate a causal effect on the relevant points of discussion. You say that you can tell by writing and conversation style, well cite and elaborate with regard to the validity of the discussion points.

At this point I refer back to my post (4446) that you refer to.

Some Dude, you seem to be quite articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonably civil in your conversation... that's good.

But, some of your behavioral concepts include, Catastrophizing, Dependency, Invalidation.

Let's start with "Invalidation".

Invalidation - The creation or promotion of an environment which encourages an individual to believe that their thoughts, beliefs, values or physical presence are inferior, flawed, problematic or worthless.​

Non-PD’s often reach into their instinctive fight or flight responses when confronted with an invalidating comment. They may thus respond in an inappropriately aggressive manner, with anger and exasperation or they may feel the urge to take a defeatist response where they give in. Either way, the perpetrator gets what they want and the diversion is established. What generally works better is an unemotional, yet assertive response.​

Coping with Invalidation

Invalidation is an aggressive form of emotional abuse. If someone uses invalidation on you it is important to recognize it and to understand that they are not looking for a compromise or a way to meet you in the middle at that particular moment. They are using a power play to win - to suppress your needs in favor of their own.
http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Invalidation.html​

Now, was I not right again, in concluding from your writing and conversation that you had a genuine interest in this issue.

While I am empathetic with your diagnosed personality disorder, you will not divert me off on tangents that lead to endless circles of arguement.

I chose not to dwell on your disorder, but you chose to fight using it as an emotional card.

If you want to "avoid" CSG issues you should not have bought into climate change debate. But, I know you just want to 'rattle' those who don't share your opinion.

The particular point I was putting was, to paraphrase my point again, if the Gov were so concerned about the green house effect and global warming that they wished to and started putting taxes on carbon emissions, why would they grant the drilling for methane gas (which is one of their most complained about greenhouse gasses) a special status to avoid the normal enviornmental assessement, approval and control processes?

Now, you cede you work in the industry as a professional to insist you will not comment on it. But, the answer has nothing to do with you personally... it a physolophical issue... the answer of which is at the heart of the integrity of those portraying the validity of Climate Change.

 

[Some Dude]

Now, was I not right again, in concluding from your writing and conversation that you had a genuine interest in this issue.

I don't recall seeing you acknowledge that I have a genuine interest, as opposed to attempting to rattle and troll, but if that is what you are saying then that is a good starting point.

Thank you.

While I am empathetic with your diagnosed personality disorder, you will not divert me off on tangents that lead to endless circles of arguement.

Feel free anytime to cite an example so that we can establish whether we can agree with your observation. Just because you believe some line of question or clarification was an endless circle does not necessarily make it so. You maybe right! You maybe wrong! But we won't establish common ground to move forward from until we can agree on some basic things first.

I chose not to dwell on your disorder, but you chose to fight using it as an emotional card.

If you don't want to dwell on it then stop talking about it. I offered to take that portion to a private discussion, you did not take up that offer. This element of the conversation will cease the instant you stop mentioning it.

If you want to "avoid" CSG issues you should not have bought into climate change debate. But, I know you just want to 'rattle' those who don't share your opinion.

Thanks for your opinion about that but I disagree. Was there a missing word in the initial section that I quoted? That last sentence does not appear to comport with the first sentence that I quoted.

 

[Some Dude]

At this point I refer back to my post (4446) that you refer to.

I'm comfortable with the line of conversation that led to post 4446. Are you?

And a thank you for taking the time to ask me for my opinion, I appreciate it. My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas.

From that position though, I have very little to offer other than looking around and noting the hysteria.

Consider this... you claim not to be capable of assessing the data... but by default, haven't you got caught in the hysteria forming the opinion that firstly, there is an "overwhelming majority of climate scientists"... that maybe actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise... and secondly that they are "in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas"?

If I ask an 'expert' for advice, as a business owner/manager/director I have a fiduciary duty to understand the advice I'm acting on. I don't follow it in blind faith. To quote my ole mate Albert Einstein "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". The point is you should not endorse anything you do not understand.

No. I have an opinion and belief that those who spend their professional lives in this field are better able to analyse and draw conclusions from data that is not even available to us yet. I am open to be being convinced that we who do not do this professionally are better qualified or better informed but that is a positive claim that you would need to demonstrate that to me. This is why I continually ask for the evidence. If you believe that you are in a better position to assess and formulate coherent ideas about the latest data on climate science then by all means enlighten us. Demonstrate to us how you are able to see more clearly than the overwhelming and vast majority of climate scientists who publish their work in a highly competitive environment.

Further, simply saying "maybe" does not make it so either. If I said that that there maybe individuals or groups within the climate change skeptic community that are actually a minority acting in fear and panic making more noise without evidence, would that change your mind?

...

Correct. Not sure why you think that applies here though. I have an opinion and belief informed from reading, assessing and discussing as best I can within the bounds of my abilities. Part of that assessment is identifying who can sustain and logically sound and valid argument. If I am business owner, I don't need to understand Ethernet collision algorithms to assess the viability of network segmentation and switching. What I need to be able to do is assess metrics and outcomes so that I can make determinations on who is the most suitable or capable to provide the service or advice. If someone regularly makes claims that they can't substantiate then they are not deferred to when it comes to matters that I can't possibly invest the time or resources into investigating.

Regarding your ole mate Einstein:

Netwon's third laws of cliches. For each and every cliche, there is an equal and opposite cliche.

"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics" - Richard Feynman

I endorse quantum mechanics even though I do not understand it. I endorse it because there is a scientific consensus of the overwhelming and vast majority of physicists.

Are you going to revisit the previous questions?

Just by way of comparison, would you prefer the planet was cooling? How much more habitable do you think a colder planet would be?

...

No, except to say think more about this.

"My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas."​

Don't you see a degree of contradiction here! On the one hand you say you are not qualified or capable of coherently assessing the data, yet you have made (by your own admission) subjective opinions that there is an overwhelming majority of consensus among scientists and decided to move from the status quo to the hysteria.

People don't move from the status quo without either a coherent understanding of their reason or fear and panic.

Sorry to see you bail out on the dialogue.

...

You missed the most important part of that statement.

My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic.

I don't have the equipment, training, resources, or involvement in the latest research, thinking, arguments, peer review, etc. with regard to the field of climate science. I can't possibly pretend with any credibility to be even in vague co-location to the forefront of the most recent modelling, assessments, etc. Are you?

The next sentence which you highlight as a possible contradiction is an acknowledgement that I try to keep up but I am at best playing catch up.

Thanks for the discussion though

If you don't know if that is realistic, you make my point, that you don't comprehend even the basics of climate.

One thing is certain in nature, nothing is stable, least of all climate. Everything evolves in cycles.

Wow, a breakthrough, I wonder if that is why I defer to climate scientists!

I am very comfortable in saying that I don't know because I don't pretend to know. What would concern me more would be if I couldn't sustain my assertions after the most basic of questions about them.

Doesn't that concern you?

And finally post 4446

Some Dude, you seem to be quite articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonably civil in your conversation... that's good.

But, some of your behavioral concepts include, Catastrophizing, Dependency, Invalidation.

Are you diagnosed with some type of personality disorder or do you just enjoy baiting, selective moments of competence and circular conversations with limited moments of clarity to try to belittle those you strongly dissagree with?

If you want me to continue to engage in conversation with you, behave like the responsible, intelligent and logical person I know you can be... otherwise you go on my ignore list.

After stating numerous times that I defer to climate scientists because I am not in the position to know and thus focus on the claims of fact made by people i.e. make claim, cite, check and read the supporting information, you comment that "If you don't know if that is realistic, you make my point, that you don't comprehend even the basics of climate".

I disagree with your observation that this conversation thread demonstrates the characteristics that you claim, including invalidation. Am I assertive, you bet. Have you checked your posts against the list you provided?

Let's start with "Invalidation".

Invalidation - The creation or promotion of an environment which encourages an individual to believe that their thoughts, beliefs, values or physical presence are inferior, flawed, problematic or worthless.​

Non-PD’s often reach into their instinctive fight or flight responses when confronted with an invalidating comment. They may thus respond in an inappropriately aggressive manner, with anger and exasperation or they may feel the urge to take a defeatist response where they give in. Either way, the perpetrator gets what they want and the diversion is established. What generally works better is an unemotional, yet assertive response.​

Coping with Invalidation

Invalidation is an aggressive form of emotional abuse. If someone uses invalidation on you it is important to recognize it and to understand that they are not looking for a compromise or a way to meet you in the middle at that particular moment. They are using a power play to win - to suppress your needs in favor of their own.
http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/Invalidation.html​

 

[Whiskers]

Ok, Some Dude... you spent a whole lot of time talking about you and me and how you dissagree with just about everything I respond to you... I think we've got that clear now.

So how about talking about whether the gov practised what they preached about Climate Change with regard to granting the CSG licenses in Qld and NSW. If you are uncomfortable talking about CSG, then discuss the principle of granting an oil and gas licenses in general, by the coordinator generals special project status.

Gov policy is that climate change is a very important issue that warrants all sorts of land use restrictions for the ordinary person and the introduction of new taxes... BUT, if a project is considered in the urgent economic interest of the state, we'll totally ignore the environmental impact and climate change.

Is that a credible way to deal with climate change?

 

[Some Dude]

Ok, Some Dude... you spent a whole lot of time talking about you and me and how you dissagree with just about everything I respond to you... I think we've got that clear now.

What I am not sure is clear though is that the important element for myself is not that we disagree, it is how we disagree.

Have you considered communicating in a more neutral tone? For example, instead of saying "you spent a whole lot of time talking about you and me and how you dissagree with just about everything I respond to you", you could say something more neutral that does not set a negative context for the other person to discuss from. A suggestion for what I believe is your intended message above, albeit I maybe wrong, could be "we have struggled identifying common ground or a common perspective with each other.. I think that much is clear now". In this way, you don't ask by implication for the other person to accept by default the negative implication when there is disagreement about that very issue. This helps set some common neutral ground that we can both work from.

Gov policy is that climate change is a very important issue that warrants all sorts of land use restrictions for the ordinary person and the introduction of new taxes... BUT, if a project is considered in the urgent economic interest of the state, we'll totally ignore the environmental impact and climate change.

Is that a credible way to deal with climate change?

Within the context of claims regarding climate science and what we use to inform our political and societal decision making process, I assume that all previous questions are considered finalised?

Tony Abbott previously indicated that he thought a carbon tax was the intelligent way to proceed so I am puzzled about the change of heart for many, including Tony Abbott's. Differences in how a carbon tax would be implemented, sure, but that outright a carbon tax, or trading scheme as is what we really have if my understanding is correct, is something that should not happen? Why did people change their minds?

If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.

I have also been pondering drsmith's comment.

As a broad principal, act only in step with our economic influence. We are only a small portion of the global economy and our influence is limited by that.

In the context of accepting the premise we should implement some kind of program, I understand the logic behind this but have been contemplating whether this absolves us the responsibility for taking our own action regardless of what the rest of the world is doing. I am still processing it and if you have anything to add to that, I would welcome your comments.

 

[Calliope]

Surely you two guys could swap insults in private. No one else gives a stuff. I have lost track of what you are on about.

"Originally Posted by Tony Abbott". I don't think so Dude.

 

[explod]

Surely you two guys could swap insults in private. No one else gives a stuff. I have lost track of what you are on about.

"Originally Posted by Tony Abbott". I don't think so Dude.

Dissagree. In amongst the banter there is very fair discussion on climate change in my view. The tossing re our global influence just today for a start.

Maybe you do not give a real toss but just in there as you detest tree huggers.

Anyhoooow, each to their own.

 

[Some Dude]

"Originally Posted by Tony Abbott". I don't think so Dude.

Go check the link I posted preceding it, it's from Tony Abbott's website.

 

[Julia]

Surely you two guys could swap insults in private.

It started off reasonably, but quite understandably went rapidly downhill when Whiskers decided it was appropriate to ask Some Dude on a public forum if he had been diagnosed with a personality disorder.
Surely, even if it's appropriate to ask such a personal question at all, it should have occurred via PM?
I congratulate Some Dude on managing to remain civil in response.

As far as I know, Whiskers is not qualified to provide medical/psychological diagnoses in any instance, let alone on the basis of a typed message on a public forum.

 

[Ves]

Hey Whiskers, without being rude, are you the guy who sets up placards in the Queen St mall regarding things like "fluoride" and "CSG"?