yes I have been away too.

” not long ago when Climate Change was not supported by the majority of taxpayers it received money for it’s research and PR”
and you dared somebody to say that it didn’t, because if they did they woukd be filthy liars.

Now I going to use some tools from Karl Popper here, to take you to task with particular reference to the liar bit.

One. there is no such thing as a truth, only hypotheses that haven’t yet been falsified.

Two. Falsification comes in two major kinds a) fallacies of logic, where the argument does follow from the premise, or b. the structure is good but the content (evidence collected) disconfirms the hypothesis as posited.

Your argument is false on both of Poppers methods of falsification
a. The premiss that “in recent times Climate change was not supported by the majority of taxpayers” is false

See here from the Climate Institute’s independent research - I have summarised for you.*********

Climate change research on Australians revealed that in 2003 climate change was seen as “extremely important” by 38% of respondents; by February 2007, 78% of respondents believed climate change was a “major problem”. In March 2007 81% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that our Government should make Australia lead the way in finding solutions to climate change .

**********
Secondly the content is fallacious, as the climate change institute is a non-partisan, independent research organisation which is primarily funded by a donation from the Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund), a bequest left by a man who tried to make a difference on the way out the door. Not a tax dollar to be seen.

So am I a filthy liar? And for that matter, where is your evidence to the contrary?

Meski made a good point the other day: Skeptics might have to accept greenhouse response as a necessary evil. The Left might have to accept including nuclear power as a necessary evil.

Just because the Left have the science on their side, doesn’t mean they get to dictate everything about the response. If you have to choose between nuclear power and runaway greenhouse, what’s it going to be?

You’ve got to choose your battles. And, if you throw the Right a bone by letting Australia make lots of money out of uranium, you might have a chance of talking them into relinquishing a portion of the coal profits.

I don’t think so.”

You don’t think so, because you have no understanding of the subject matter. That’s okay, neither do the Liberals.

There are no technical reasons why Australia could not produce all energy from renewables by 2050.

Need I remind Robbi64 that not long ago, when climate change was not supported by the majority of taxpayers, it received funding for its research and PR. And I dare someone to say it didn’t - you would be a filthy liar if you tried that line, but then, that is the way of the left.

The point being, it is important to always hear both sides fairly - and not act like some crazed, cult following zealot who crucifies anyone with a different opinion, something which this blog seems to religiously practice. In fact, the intolerance displayed by those on the left is now of mind blowing proportions. But then, hypocrisy has always been their strength. It was after all John Howard who commissioned the report, and allocated funds, into a possible ETS - and he is a skeptic.

On another topic, it is most peculiar how quiet commentators, particularly Crikey commentators, have been regarding Rudds’ recent censoring of the oppositions’ newsletters.

Censorship has historically been a prelude / pre-requisite to a totalitarian regime, surely it must be worth a discussion. Or does this attack on our democratic society get excused because it is being done by left wing royalty – namely a labor Prime Minister.

We are surely heading down the path of a totalitarian regime with Rudd’s dangerous censorship of opposition criticism. Think I am wrong? Hitler did not appear over night. He power slowly grew, as did his influence. He took 1600 small steps, and before people knew it, he had taken a mile and was dictator of Germany and attacking Europe.

The key to his success - preventing criticism of his regime by controlling all opposition.

What is the use of having an opposition if they cannot criticise the government? What is the use of having elections if the government does not allow the opposition to be the opposition?

This should surely be a key discussion of an unbiased political website.

I could not disagree more. What a disgrace would be more like it.

Fortunately I am far from being the only one who refuses to live in the Dystopic-horror-anime-fantasy-between-the-ears of climate catastophists like BK and only when it suits KRudd.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525031879821944.html

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/australia-prime-minister-kevin-rudds.html

@Venise. Ian Macfarlane (ps he’s the Liberal) said emphatically last night that there will never be another coal fired power station built in Australia: “that’s the reality”.

80% of our electricity is presently comes from coal fired power stations.

Soon to be 35 million population. No nuclear power allowed. Where is it going to come from? Flannery’s geothermal projects and wind turbines?

I don’t think so.

Let me explain it for you…

You so desperately want “Man Made Climate Change” to be real.

Much like the residents of Drumnadrochit who long for a glimpse of Nessie.

The confusion stems from your profound belief in this myth to the exclusion of reasonableness, rationality and understanding, despite myriad evidence countering its mythical entrapment.

Fear not however.

You are not alone….particularly in the Crikeysphere.

Enlightenment will come.

Confusion often precedes understanding…

I could not disagree more. What a disgrace would be more like it.

Fortunately I am far from being the only one who refuses to live in the Disneyworld-between-the-ears of climate fanaticists like BK.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525031879821944.html

@Venise. Ian Macfarlane said emphatically last night that there will never be another coal fired power station built in Australia: “that’s the reality”.

80% of our electricity is presently comes from coal fired power stations.

Soon to be 35 million population. No nuclear power allowed. Where is it going to come from? Flannery’s geothermal projects and wind turbines?

I don’t think so.

All of that, together with Rupert Murdoch’s rag the Oz which continues to pour the shit-can over anyone who even thinks the words Climate Change, makes me wonder if it might be possible to change the Australian Constitution. Whereby the ability to vote can be denied to huge corporate entities whose vested interests are in direct opposition to any major change which could affect the living standards of the general population. For good, or for evil.

By its very nature big business, especially the mining industries, are in perpetual questing mode. They have a built-in knowledge of producing not only the minerals, but the market as well.

When faced with the electorate’s decision, wisely or not, the mining companies will always seek out ways of meeting the market. To expect to be paid for NOT producing what the market wants flies in the face of what it is to be an entrepreneur. In fact, it is so far out of whack with the norm it is a farce.

For governments to support an over-weight mining industry does nothing more than encourage it to become uncompetitive, listless and supine. They will remain this way until such time as they extract their collective fingers and do what the electorate wishes them to do.

This is in no way meant to be a suggestion to socialise these industries: I seek merely to encourage them to abide by the wishes of the majority. After all, even the most obdurate company has to back-off from mining National Parks. It’s not as if mainland Australia tolerates companies like Gunns timber company.

They are - at
http://www.apsjobs.gov.au/

Agencies can still advertise some more senior positions in the papers if they wish to pay for it.

By the way typos do not maketh a stream of consciousness rant - thats more your style. OK here you go then pedant.

this….

“I am guessing you are looking at the geological record and you’re convinced by the relative long equilibriums punctuated rapid change which allows you to conclude this sort of thing has happened many times before human walked the earth”

should have been this….

“I am guessing you are looking at the geological record, and you are convinced by the relative long equilibriums, which are punctuated by rapid change, which allows you to conclude that this sort of thing has happened many times before humans walked the earth”

The reference is Steven Jay Gould “The panda’s thumb” - hardly a fact-free individual, a respected darwinian historian and anthropologist. Some of us get out of our pyjamas and do the quickest blogs they can.

and as for this twaddle

“…As long as you deny the evidence that dangerous man made global warming is on its way…”

You mean it’s NOT HERE YET??? “

Yes I believe it is, but Kerry Lovering doesn’t (have a read of the reference before you start shouting at me next time)

have another go at me - the laughs are on you, big talking mama

Crikey via Bernard is merely suggesting that taxpayers may not wish to generously fund climate change sceptics in order to help them publish their scepticism.

Many taxpayers here are agreeing with the sentiment.

Some would like to see them silenced, but Bernard did not suggest that. He just suggested they fund their own PR campaigns.

Doesn’t sound right to me. I don’t necessarily agree with the views of the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ climate change skeptics - however I do support their right to disagree. As should Crikey.

“…As long as you deny the evidence that dangerous man made global warming is on its way…”

You mean it’s NOT HERE YET???

Thanks again for the laughs in another fact-free stream of conscious rant.

So, the powers that be in the Tasmanian ALP didn’t feel like putting a good show for Mr Latham in Tasmania, and Braddon swung Liberal again. That bloody seat has caused so many upsets in elections over the decades (ask Malcolm Mckerras for an analysis), not just federally. It is usually Braddon who changes the Tasmanian government too.

What’s Braddon? Heavy industry, forestry, mining, farming … and religion. Great. They just about got Harradine up all by themselves. They also give us Christine Milne, so don’t be too harsh on them.

I am guessing you are looking at the geological record and you’re convinced by the relative long equilibriums punctuated rapid change which allows you to conclude this sort of thing has happened many times before human walked the earth; so therefore we are flattering ourselves to think that we can bring about such rapid changes with our relatively small means of impact, compared with the forces that have shaped earth as we know it today.

As long as you deny the evidence that dangerous man made global warming is on its way, you bolster the image of the do-nothing minority, who just like yourself care nothing for the precautionary principle, care nothing for the headcount of scientists who are convinced vs. those that deny. You my dear, are the minority “usual suspects”. So called geologists and a few right wing extremists; you are engaged in the very common psychological display of ‘projection’, which is where one accuses others of the very thing they fear most being accused of themselves.

Re: Rudd and the rentseekers.

I propose some working titles for the typology that Bernard has relayed to us

1. Outright sceptics - could be called “Grieving pillocks”

2. Those who profess to believe but oppose any proposed means of doing something about it - “‘Wait on - the beer is still cold”

3. Those who want to wait until the rest of the world takes action “Goes to the toilet when the bill arrives”

This is a %&$ing disgrace. The Australian is a free market paper - fair enough, stop getting government job ads that no longer need to be in print. Every Australian taxpayer should be demanding that these ads stop, forthwith.

If the Australian is going to preach one thing and then do another - well that just boils my blood.

No more government job ads for the Australian!

Hmmm Bernard, I don’t seem to see Heather Ridout’s name here anywhere?

Except here: http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/12/heather-ridout-the-21st-member-of-rudds-cabinet/

But that was sooooo long ago.

By omission are you implying that she is not a rentseeker?

ROBBI64: This would be the same CFMEU who supported Howard in Tasmania in the election before Rudd’s coronation?