- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
The danger is due to climate change, which is causing frozen corpses in Siberia to thaw. Some of those bodies could have been infected with smallpox before they died, and experts fear the disease could remain in suspended animation because of the cold conditions.
Last week, scientists from France and Russia said they had managed to revive a 30,000-year-old virus called Pithovirus sibericum, which had been frozen in Siberia’s vast tranches of permafrost. That has very obvious implications for smallpox.
A POX ON YOUR HOUSE (or body in this case)
http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...ng-back-smallpox/story-fn5fsgyc-1226851404396
Wasn't there a movie about this with Kurt Russell as the lead actor ?? No wait ... that was "The Thing":
Climate change body chief: 'bad guys' won when the 'good guys' lay down
Bernie Fraser says ‘brazen falsehoods’ and ‘misinformation’ have confused a switched-off and fed-up public
One of the country’s most experienced policy thinkers draws a brutal conclusion about Australia’s climate change debate: the “good guys” have lost the argument because they failed to contest untruths peddled by “bad guys”, including the federal government.
Bernie Fraser, the chairman of the independent climate change authority, which the Abbott government intends to abolish, is a softly spoken former governor of the reserve bank and former secretary of the federal treasury, not known for simplistic assessments of major policy discussions.
But he is clearly frustrated at what he believes has been the wilful misleading of a confused and increasingly fed-up public by politicians and industry groups who, he says, deliberately spread misinformation about climate science and the policies that might reduce Australia’s emissions.
The “bad guys” are winning because their “brazen falsehoods”, “untruths” and “misinformation” are often going unchallenged.
“The good guys are way behind and seem to be not making up ground,” he says, in an interview with Guardian Australia ahead of a speech he will make to the national press club on Thursday. “The public generally are getting bored with it all and switching off. The problem seems to be to be that the bad guys are spreading untruths and exaggerations and assertions without a lot of hard evidence and serious debate, cheered on by the big companies who make similar assertions and repeat those assertions without thorough debate.”
Nice to see a clear, succinct of te4h climate change debate.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...hief-bad-guys-won-when-the-good-guys-lay-down
....and Bernie's credibility as a cc expert is?
Bad guys, good guys.... Pffffft what a wanker.
....and Bernie's credibility as a cc expert is?
Bad guys, good guys.... Pffffft what a wanker.
....and Bernie's credibility as a cc expert is?
Bad guys, good guys.... Pffffft what a wanker.
The categorization of good guys and bad guys in this debate is childish and asinine, not to mention a reprehensible load id camel dung... absolutely silly.
....and downright unscientific.
Tony Abbott or Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut - who do you believe?
Date
March 13, 2014 - 4:21PM
Ken Henry, Bernie Fraser and Ross Garnaut are lions of Australian economics. They carry more intellectual and institutional weight then most of us mere mortals put together.
So if they broadly agree on any course of action we should all probably sit up and listen, right?
In the past seven days all three have, in different ways, supported a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet.
... Economists should stay out of things they do not understand
Bernie Fraser says ‘brazen falsehoods’ and ‘misinformation’ have confused a switched-off and fed-up public
Frankly Wayne you don't care who made Bernie Frasers speech ...
... Putin ...
SO are they going to tell that to Qantas? 100 million dollar carbon tax bill wont make people fly less? And it is not going to stop companies from polluting as they can simply purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions and this will then be borne by the consumer. What a stupid way of going about something. Let's tax it to make it more expensive to stop people from using it? Worked for smoking as well. $25 a packet hasn't stopped 'em? ... how about petrol? 40 cents or more is tax. Wine Equalisation Tax .. worked a treat that did ! What a stupid idea
Economists should stay out of things they do not understand
I think you've lost the plot regarding the reason for the carbon tax TS.
It is NOT intended to necessarily reduce energy use. The main purpose is to make energy that emits CO2 more expensive than non polluting energy sources. It gives the market place a signal that they should get out of coal and into solar/wind/wave whatever. Thats it.
In this particular case almost every economist, left right or centre, would agree that making CO2 emissions taxable is the simplest way to redirect investment to non polluting energy.
The taxes on cigarettes do have an effect on consumption but they also fund extensive programs to encourage people to give up smoking. And of course the gov gets its hands on more cash as well.
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?