Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I remember back in about 1966 or 1967 or thereabouts watching a tv programme here which looked at pollution in the Derwent River (on which Hobart sits) and the programme flagged some terrible pollution being created by a business on the Derwent River. Here we are in 2007 and Tasmania has a reputation of being environmentally aware and a "clean" state (good for its major industry - tourism - oh, if you're coming to Australia, don't overlook Tasmania, it really is beautiful).
I also remember reading Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". Nowadays you can find plenty of people who will come down on Carson. But guess what? She belled the cat. We listened. We benefited.
From a personal point of view I have to say I'm not arguing for a return to things of stone and wood (Chips will get the musical reference). I am not in favour of shutting everything down and creating a new Dark Ages for our species. I am in favour of us taking appropriate and conservative steps in dealing with global climate change. I'd like us to do the small steps now so that we don't need to actually take radical steps in the future, radical steps such as destroying the benefits of industrialism and advanced capitalism.
If you found a suspicious lump would you ignore it? Would you wait to be told that it metastised?
And yet you claim anyone that doesn't buy into man made glob al warming because no science provides any clue as to WHAT it is we are doing to heat the planet are denialists. You ignore that the US IS doing more than most to clean up and to ensure we get better and better at not messing in the first place.
I wonder why that is?
What would work REALLY well with me is if some of this hysteria was channeled toward an actual determination as to the cause PRIOR TO trying to cure it.
If it's al cyclical change in the Earth's climate, then all the meetings, treaties, and witchdoctor cures will have the same effect as pissing into the wind.
You haven't been paying attention, according to Larkinn and D it is all decided, We have caused it and must fix it. Science has of course forgotten the middle step, you know, the part where they show us WHAT we did to cause it?
But we are denialists because we want such a silly thing as evidence of man actually causing a problem, since if we do not know what caused it, we obviously can not "fix" it.
Now Larkinn has decided that he is just to dumb to actually want to know what it is we have done that we supposedly will fix.
And D, well he thinks we should just stop doing everything that might possibly, maybe, could have caused it, while still heating all our homes and running all our business, I assume on mud water?
Right...science hasn't addressed what humans did to cause it at all.
No, you are a denialist because you want absolute proof. There is plenty of evidence out there.
I have? Surely after posting how I thought I was the smartest person ever about 500 times, you can't believe this? Seems you are contradicting yourself ol boy.
Try reading what me and D have to say as opposed to seeing that we've posted and then closing your eyes and trying to clairvoyantly figure it out. It would make your responses much more relevant.
That YOU think your the cat's meow on brains doesn't mean you are.
Now Larkinn has decided that he is just to dumb
So...do I think I am "to dumb" or do I think I am the "cat's meow on brains"?
Considering you can't even understand what I actually state, try not to scry what I think about myself.
Oh, and by the way, learn the difference between intelligence and knowledge. I have never stated I'm not smart enough to learn the science.
But up to this point you admit to not fully understanding it, yet still manage to claim that your fictitious majority that say man is causing the majority of global warming must be right.
and you continue to believe the highly flawed IPCC report.
When told the evidence that it is flawed is readily available, instead of examining it for yourself you not only demand others provide it for you
, but stick your fingers in your ears like a four year old when they present it to you.
And how do you know its flawed? Oh right, some people told you so.
Ah yes...I'll examine it for myself. Oh wait I see an inconsistency between that and other findings. Does that mean the IPCC is wrong or that the other things are wrong?
Because, surprise surprise, I don't think you know more about climate change than what was it we figured out...42% of scientists? Not a majority, no, but their opinions carry a hell of a lot more weight than you do.
How do you knot it isn't? Wait I know this one. "Despite not understanding the data I trust them."
I don't know. Neither do you.
Like me, you're pretty sure you think you know.
Never claimed I did. I do think less than half of the scientific community haveing a unified opinion isn't enough to call this a closed case. Apparently you do.
Do you go into the doctors office and demand to know exactly what they do, exactly how the medicine works, what evidence there is that the medicine works, which tests have been done, which doctors have done tests and refuted them, blah blah blah.
Really? You don't know? Then why do you consistently claim that its flawed?
Unlike you, I listen to what the scientific community is saying. You like to find one guy, read his book, and then think that he knows all the anwsers.
I've never called it a closed case. You however have said they are incorrect. I think they are incorrect and that those who disagree are largely doing so for political reasons.
If a doctor tells you your left leg is going to fall off for no apparent reason do you just say "ohh, ok, what shall we do?"
If the same Doctor tells you your sick , he doesn't know why your sick but he thinks if he cuts off both your legs it might help a little, do you say " ok, when is the operation?"
If your son comes home with a comunicable sickness and you learn 5 other kids in his class have the same sickness, do you burn down your barn cause he played in it and it might have caused the sickness?
Or you find out 5 kids around the city, that have had no direct contact with your son have the same sickness BUT all 6 have been to the same park with the same mosquitos there, do you drain your pond and do nothing about the pond at the park?
I wonder at the incompetence of whoever devised the poorly written and incoherent hypothetical.
I ask if there is anything that can be done to save it and perhaps go for a second opinion.
Try creating analogies that have some relevance.
Is there a link to the barn and their sickness? Are there numerous scientific studies which hypothesize a direct link between them?
I wonder at the incompetence of whoever devised the poorly written and incoherent hypothetical.
The two you do not like are directly related to the Global warning is caused by man joke we have.
Kyoto proposes we pay billions and ruin economic growth with absolutely no evidence the proposed action has ANYTHING what so ever to do with Global man made warming. We are told we need to cut our legs off in the hopes it may help a problem that may not even be our problem.
Other planets in the solar system are showing continued heating, yet we are told the only common factor, the Sun, has nothing to do with our heating. Instead we are told we should take action to stop something that is not proven that we are even causing. And that we should do so in the hopes it might help.
Further you insist you will just "believe" ( you know have faith)
that some men and women in white smocks might be right about a warming trend
and that even though they do not know what is causing it we should damage our economies while ignoring emerging polluters.
Your defense being they know more then you do. So I assume when a doctor just tells you , with no explaination he is going to cut off your legs, you will of course agree with him, cause after all, he is the doctor and you do not know medicine, why ask at all?
Do you go into the doctors office and demand to know exactly what they do, exactly how the medicine works, what evidence there is that the medicine works, which tests have been done, which doctors have done tests and refuted them, blah blah blah.
Really? You don't know? Then why do you consistently claim that its flawed?
Unlike you, I listen to what the scientific community is saying. You like to find one guy, read his book, and then think that he knows all the anwsers.
I've never called it a closed case. You however have said they are incorrect. I think they are incorrect and that those who disagree are largely doing so for political reasons.
As usual you attribute beliefs and assumptions on to people that aren't true and for which there is little to no evidence for simply for ease of argument.
No reasonable person could conclude about me what you have time and again. (i.e I believe one person's opinion is the be all and end all).
