"0tterbot" wrote in message

(snip)

that we must ditch dependence on fossil fuel isn't even one
of those things where one has the luxury of an opinion based on ideology,
it's just a fact that everyone is aware of now; that it must happen some
time between sooner and later, so why maintain the line that human-induced
climate change is simply not true and is, in fact, a _conspiracy_
titter!

I've long wondered about both peak oil and climate change and whether there
is a difference in attitudes to both of those things between country and
city dwellers and I've finally come down on the side of a distinct
difference. City dwellers tend to witter on about it and say all the right
things, but don't seem to understand how it applies to them and their
profligate ways. I suspect that only when the water stops flowing out of
thier taps or they can't get fuel for their fourbies that they might
eventually realise what it really means. (rant mode off)

i saw ian plimer on the telly the other week. it was one of those
interviews that was just so embarrassing to watch

God wasn't it appalling! And to think that Abbott is quoting him as a
credible scientist on the subject of climate change! No wonder Abbott got
shot down in flames for giving out the wrong information about the Hadley
Institute's findings if he was relying on Plimer.

I read the revues of Plimer's book after that interview and one scientist
who knows him well because he's at the same uni, made the comment at the end
that Plimer's book was like the Von Danikan books.



i want to know what the denier's prize actually is -

Follow the money is usually the first way of finding out the 'prize'.

Plimer is a Director of a number of mining companies. I wonder if any of
those Directorships would involve coal mining companies?

because best i can work
out they don't have one. it seems counterintuitive to argue & fight
against an idea that's well-established, to tire and humiliate oneself, to
lose the respect of others, and so forth, in a fight where one side does
not seem to have a prize in mind, and if there is a prize it would seem to
be one they simply can't win. if some huffy & self-serving notion, such as
"pride" is the prize they're fighting for, should they not demonstrate
slightly more now in order to have enough left to have proven, later, that
they "won"?

Bugger 'pride'. I'd lay pounds to peanuts that money is involved in one way
or another. That could be direct employment in a position of some sort
which atracts remuneration or, in the case of politicians, contributions to
campaign fundings or a multiplicity of other ways to grease palms.

the other thing i want to know is where all these people were 25 years ago
when the subject was first brought up for debate in the public domain.
denialism only got groovy this year, but the horse had already bolted
years ago. does one fight harder & more desperately if one knows the fight
is effectively already over & has been for years?? _that's_
counterintuitive _too_. intriguing, it is, viewed from any angle.

if there is an exodus from teh sock drawer overnight & matching influx to
this group, is it our fault for feeding the troll?

Well he's already done at least one addy amendment because he's escaped from
my killfile to post in the last couple of days. I'll be surprised if there
aren't more add socks.