Some views for you. Btw, do you live in a frigging cave ?

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/how-the-academic-left-came-to-hate-israel/2012/04/18/

http://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/26344/why-british-left-hates-israel

http://www.anorak.co.uk/362810/news/the-left-wing-hates-israel-because-it-despises-the-western-way-of-life.html/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/01/why_does_the_left_hate_israel.html

Surely you're aware of the left picketing Max Brenner coffee shops even in your own country ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/max-brenner-protesters-walk-free/story-e6frg6nf-1226433393159

"Little pearl'', you say. Read a paper.

Jewish political sentiment spans the complete spectrum from left to right - being both Jewish and a paper reader I find your attempt in one glib line to try to categorise Jewish opinion as ignorant at best. Ignoring the rather wide divide between mainstream Israeli opinions as opposed to the Jewish diaspora, apart from general opposition to both far left and far right opinion, "Jewish opinion" is no less diverse than opinions held on most issues in Australia.

Do you always dredge up asides that you don't think should be highlighted only to further highlight them ?

No, I made this exception just for you... you should be flattered.

The following is from one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. Flannery even rates him.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.

And then of course there is this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/weekly-standard-lindzen-puff-piece.html

And then of course there is this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/weekly-standard-lindzen-puff-piece.html

Flannery has not been averse to smearing other scientists for their supposed political beliefs. Speaking of the highly regarded Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology in Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he said; ‘the problem with Richard Lindzen is his politics is to the right of Andrew Bolt and Genghis Khan.'

Now there's a rating !

Flannery has not been averse to smearing other scientists for their supposed political beliefs. Speaking of the highly regarded Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology in Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he said; ‘the problem with Richard Lindzen is his politics is to the right of Andrew Bolt and Genghis Khan.'

Now there's a rating !

And then there is this (lifted from his Wiki page):

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times article. Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque."

In the same interview, Dr. Lindzen said, "You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science." He further explained: "If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something."

He doesn't seem to have much confidence when it comes to his own "climate science".

And of course, he has never had the fossil fuel interests in his pocket... well, maybe just occasionally:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding

And didn't Myth Ben Her argue pretty strongly against Carbon Dioxide being a pollutant (I assume that being a greenhouse gas qualifies it as being a pollutant)... looking at the quote above, it would appear that our BH may be a little "nutty" according to one of his/her heroes in Lindzen.

BH: "Is it your contention that carbon dioxide is a pollutant ? It isn't."

Dr RL: "...agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty."

Jewish political sentiment spans the complete spectrum from left to right - being both Jewish and a paper reader I find your attempt in one glib line to try to categorise Jewish opinion as ignorant at best. Ignoring the rather wide divide between mainstream Israeli opinions as opposed to the Jewish diaspora, apart from general opposition to both far left and far right opinion, "Jewish opinion" is no less diverse than opinions held on most issues in Australia.

You seem bewildered. I was happy to oblige your question.

If you knew, you wouldn't have asked. The academic left is strongly linked with anti Israeli sentiment. Sorry to be the bearer.

Thanks for all the information here which confirms the thought that there is an actual problem.

Perhaps Tony could be shown some of this and avoid the embarrassment that he is attracting by failing to acknowledge that many Australians are aware of the problem?

The academic left is strongly linked with anti Israeli sentiment. Sorry to be the bearer.

"if I was Jewish I doubt I'd see the left as compassionate."

So we have gone from vast side of politics described as left to the "Academic left". And bearing anti Israel sentiment equates to lack of compassion.

How didn't I see that ?

And then there is this (lifted from his Wiki page):

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times article. Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque."

In the same interview, Dr. Lindzen said, "You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science." He further explained: "If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something."

He doesn't seem to have much confidence when it comes to his own "climate science".

And of course, he has had the fossil fuel interests in his pocket... well, maybe just occasionally:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding

And didn't Myth Ben Her argue pretty strongly against Carbon Dioxide being a pollutant (I assume that being a greenhouse gas qualifies it as being a pollutant)... looking at the quote above, it would appear that our BH may be a little "nutty" according to one of his/her heroes in Lindzen.

BH: "Is it your contention that carbon dioxide is a pollutant ? It isn't."

Dr RL: "...agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty."

What are you trying to argue ? Scientists the world over from both sides of the fence agree that the "science isn't in", yet you decry a respected scientist for acknowledging that ? Why ?

Of course carbon dioxide is a natural gas. Of course it's a greenhouse gas. So is water vapour. It doesn't make it a "pollutant" even though alarmists love using that word. Shame on them and you.

You seem to be trying to kick some goals here, but just look silly in the process.

"if I was Jewish I doubt I'd see the left as compassionate."

So we have gone from vast side of politics described as left to the "Academic left". And bearing anti Israel sentiment equates to lack of compassion.

How didn't I see that ?

Academics lead the left's ideologies.

The real issue here is that you had no idea what the hell I was talking about.

Buy a paper and stop wasting others time.

Thanks for all the information here which confirms the thought that there is an actual problem.

What information particularly concerns you ?

Please quote.

What are you trying to argue ? Scientists the world over from both sides of the fence agree that the "science isn't in", yet you decry a respected scientist for acknowledging that ? Why ?

I am responding to your statement: "The following is from one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. Flannery even rates him."

Yes, Flannery did rate him, didn't he... to the right of Bolt and Genghis Khan. From the articles at the links I provided above, it would seem that he is not as highly regarded in the scientific world as you might like to think either. I would not be putting as much faith in what he has to say as you seem to.

I am responding to your statement: "The following is from one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. Flannery even rates him."

Yes, Flannery did rate him, didn't he... to the right of Bolt and Genghis Khan. From the articles at the links I provided above, it would seem that he is not as highly regarded in the scientific world as you might like to think either. I would not be putting as much faith in what he has to say as you seem to.

Look, put the bib on and open wide.

Flannery used to rate him and I heard him say so years ago on a radio interview. If he's changed his opinion it's because Lindzen no longer supports the alarmists and those that use this issue as a political football.

You may remember that Flannery said a few years ago that we'd never have decent rains again and the rain that came wouldn't fill our rivers or dams. This from a guy that purchased a house on a river. Flannery is a well paid liar and hypocrite that has made a living being an alarmist. He thrives on the good-hearted dopes like yourself that lap up his and others fear mongering.

If you want I can link countless recent articles that poor much doubt on flawed climate models, but I doubt there's any point. You clearly want to believe that man is heating the world dangerously even though there's plenty of evidence to say this ISN'T true. The blinkers are well and truly on with you.

Murry Salby became a victim of politics when he was terminated from Macquarie University, because he's cast major doubt that man is influencing CO2. He's presented lectures in Sydney and recently in Hamburg where even opponents of his view can't fault his findings, although his theories are yet to be peer reviewed.

The science isn't in, on both sides, but there's no doubt that climate models have been wrong and Australia placing a useless tax on businesses and its residents is an utter joke and was brought about by the prevailing political mood of the time.

What information particularly concerns you ?

Please quote.

None actually concerns me.

Again my full quote was "Thanks for all the information here which confirms the thought that there is an actual problem." If you cant concede there is a problem from the array of opinions displayed on just this thread then there is little hope that you are the more enlightened person I was suggesting may emerge when I entered the thread.

It certainly has been an interesting conversation and I am still unconvinced that doing nothing is the right option.

I had hoped we Australians as unimportant as we may be to some were still capable of taking some initiatives and with changed behaviour become more relevant in developing more efficient and effective sustainable processes for energy generation and use and perhaps try and maintain the delicate environment in which we live rather than continue to degrade it through our actions. I am happy to concede that the current government does talk of "direct action" but I have seen very little progressive suggestions from the policy presented and I doubt there will be much action other than to ensure political survival.

None actually concerns me.

Again my full quote was "Thanks for all the information here which confirms the thought that there is an actual problem." If you cant concede there is a problem from the array of opinions displayed on just this thread then there is little hope that you are the more enlightened person I was suggesting may emerge when I entered the thread.

Rather than me concede anything how about you articulate the problems you're referring to. My children are a little old for guessing games these days, so I'm out of practice.

I'm not suggesting you're not right, btw, just would prefer you articulate the major ones.

You say ''nothing concerns you''. A breakthrough for you I'd suggest.

1. He thrives on the good-hearted dopes like yourself that lap up his and others fear mongering.

...

2. If you want I can link countless recent articles that poor much doubt on flawed climate models, but I doubt there's any point. You clearly want to believe that man is heating the world dangerously even though there's plenty of evidence to say this ISN'T true. The blinkers are well and truly on with you.

...

On the first point, I follow no particular scientist's beliefs on global warming... however (and this relates to the second point as well), I think I am far more likely to be leaning towards the opinion of roughly 94% of the world's (polled) climate and earth scientists, than the 6% who prefer to fly in the face of popular informed opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

You can accuse me of having the blinkers on (pot, kettle, black), but so far all you have done is convince me that you simply enjoy being contrary - you like to stand out from the crowd because it gets you more attention. Sorry, but where my kids' future is concerned, I couldn't care less about my hip pocket... and that seems to be your main objection to this whole thing.

On the first point, I follow no particular scientist's beliefs on global warming... however (and this relates to the second point as well), I think I am far more likely to be leaning towards the opinion of roughly 94% of the world's (polled) climate and earth scientists, than the 6% who prefer to fly in the face of popular informed opinion.

This is a rubbish stat.

Plenty of the 94% that believe man is warming the planet don't believe it is doing so dangerously and have a variety of views about the politics, whether man has feasible measures to lower temperatures, whether taxes are anything more than re-engineering the economy, etc.

Bandying around a percentage as though it supports your view that there's a problem is at best stupid and at worst a lie.

Why don't you acknowledge that within that 94% there are all sorts of opposing views as to the degree man is heating the planet, whether there's actually a problem, whether there's politics involved concerning grants, etc, etc.

You can accuse me of having the blinkers on (pot, kettle, black), but so far all you have done is convince me that you simply enjoy being contrary - you like to stand out from the crowd because it gets you more attention. Sorry, but where my kids' future is concerned, I couldn't care less about my hip pocket... and that seems to be your main objection to this whole thing.

You think I'm being ''contrary'' ? I started the frigging carbon dioxide thread on the subject such is my interest and my disdain for this do nothing tax. I don't usually waste my time discussing things I'm not interested in. There would be 25 threads on the main board and I doubt I've posted in 5 of them.

As for hip pocket ? Perhaps you can explain how your tax donations are lowering the world's temperatures ?

This is a rubbish stat.

Plenty of the 94% that believe man is warming the planet don't believe it is doing so dangerously and have a variety of views about the politics, whether man has feasible measures to lower temperatures, whether taxes are anything more than re-engineering the economy, etc.

Bandying around a percentage as though it supports your view that there's a problem is at best stupid and at worst a lie.

Why don't you acknowledge that within that 94% there are all sorts of opposing views as to the degree man is heating the planet, whether there's actually a problem, whether there's politics involved concerning grants, etc, etc.

Yes, I'm sure there are many differing views as to how much man is contributing to the warming of the planet. Of course we can't know how they thought individually, but I would say that with the 1.5 degree post-industrial revolution increase in temperatures coupled with the fact that the rate of increase has accelerated exponentially since 1975, it would be fair to assume that the majority believe man is a major influence.

And as for grants, we could see that your friend Lindzen accepted moneys from the pro fossil fuel side, so yes, you are probably right, there is probably a bit of that going on on both sides of the fence.

I seem to recall there were plenty of medical "experts" who supported the tobacco lobby in their assertions that there was no causal link between smoking tobacco and cancer... now we have the same thing happening with the link between shrinking polar ice caps, record temperatures etc etc.

I seem to recall there were plenty of medical "experts" who supported the tobacco lobby in their assertions that there was no causal link between smoking tobacco and cancer...

But of course, why didn't I think of that ? Because smoking is very dangerous we can draw the obvious link to carbon dioxide and its harmful effect on global temperatures. Got it.

You think I'm being ''contrary'' ? I started the frigging carbon dioxide thread on the subject such is my interest and my disdain for this do nothing tax. I don't usually waste my time discussing things I'm not interested in. There would be 25 threads on the main board and I doubt I've posted in 5 of them.

As for hip pocket ? Perhaps you can explain how your tax donations are lowering the world's temperatures ?

Yes, I think you are being contrary... I also believe you are an attention seeker. Oh, and I can't say I really care how many threads you have or haven't posted in. I'm surprised that someone like you who loves to belittle other posters whose opinions don't match your own, even feels the need to have to explain himself in that way.

As for the tax... if you expected events and conditions that have taken a couple of centuries to manifest themselves will suddenly turn around over night because of a tax, well, what can I say? To be completely honest, I have noticed very little change in my financial situation since the Carbon Tax was introduced, and I expect that if and when it is dismantled, there will be little or no change then as well. My main fear is that this govt is simply obsessed with dismantling everything that was put in place by the previous govt (and beyond - Medicare for example).

But of course, why didn't I think of that ? Because smoking is very dangerous we can draw the obvious link to carbon dioxide and its harmful effect on global temperatures. Got it.

You're really losing it now aren't you... no mention of Carbon Dioxide, yet you draw that conclusion... you are unable to comprehend the intent of my statement which says far more about your limitations than it does mine.

Yes, I think you are being contrary... I also believe you are an attention seeker. Oh, and I can't say I really care how many threads you have or haven't posted in. I'm surprised that someone like you who loves to belittle other posters whose opinions don't match your own, even feels the need to have to explain himself in that way.

Given your gullible views on man dangerously warming the planet you'll appreciate that your views on my motives don't concern me. Although I will point out they're rubbish. If I wanted to be contrary and seek attention I'd post in countless threads desperate to hear (read) the sound of my own voice, but I don't, which was the point I was making and the one that was lost on you. I disagree with plenty of footy related posts and don't bother commenting on 98% of them, which is hardly the sign of an attention seeker.

Your personal experience on a tax that won't do anything in a thousand years is hardly relevant to the principal behind such futility and nor does it alleviate the burden on the businesses that are paying plenty. And one would only be happy to pay this noble nonsense if man was dangerously warming the planet, which it clearly isn't.

So not only do you like paying a tax that won't have any effect on the world's temperatures for a thousand years, by which time technology will be obviously so advanced it makes this token gesture ludicrous, but you're wedded to the erroneous view that man is heating the world dangerously.

Given your gullible views on man dangerously warming the planet you'll appreciate that your views on my motives don't concern me. Although I will point out they're rubbish. If I wanted to be contrary and seek attention I'd post in countless threads desperate to hear (read) the sound of my own voice, but I don't, which was the point I was making and the one that was lost on you. I disagree with plenty of footy related posts and don't bother commenting on 98% of them, which is hardly the sign of an attention seeker.

Your personal experience on a tax that won't do anything in a thousand years is hardly relevant to the principal behind such futility and nor does it alleviate the burden on the businesses that are paying plenty. And one would only be happy to pay this noble nonsense if man was dangerously warming the planet, which it clearly isn't.

So not only do you like paying a tax that won't have any effect on the world's temperatures for a thousand years, by which time technology will be obviously so advanced it makes this token gesture ludicrous, but you're wedded to the erroneous view that man is heating the world dangerously.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you. You invent scenarios, convince yourself that you know the motivations of every poster you disagree with and finally convince yourself that you actually know what you are talking about.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you. You invent scenarios, convince yourself that you know the motivations of every poster you disagree with and finally convince yourself that you actually know what you are talking about.

Do you believe that man is ''dangerously'' warming the planet ?