It's more than just the 'people he has contact with'. I've read Marahasy
for years and she is a climate change sceptic. And as for Jensen being ex
CSIRO, he was only there for 4 years so could have done no long term
research on climate in such a short time. His site makes no contribution
to discussion on climate change, just says he's agin anything put forward.
I don't find that useful at all.

I would give the CSIRO the beneift of the doubt.


It's a complex subject and I dont' have any Science background to help me
out in understanding it. At best, I rely on real scientists and to me
that precludes many 'scientists' in the US where their research is so
often funded by big business. CSIRO says that humans are involved in
climate change and that it will impact negativley on Oz.
http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html

I know I've done a lot of travel through various bits of rural NSW and Vic
over recent years and whatever is happening and why is not a pretty
picture. I think our rural areas are pretty well stuffed.
Too many people, too much farmer mis man agent ment created by corporations
squeezing these people on top of a change of climate.
Pollies, in alliance with corporations and their shareholders, in the past
have sold us out, and it happens all the time.

We all have different opinions
Its not political though, its climate change.
My opinion certainly isnt political, I want the damn truth.

Of course it's bloody political if you post claiming to using an HONEST
politician and that post sends people to Jensen (who says nothing) and
Marahasy (who is a sceptic)! All they were doing is presenting a
petition.

Dennis Jensen appeared on Four corners last night, as a coincidence BTW
on the subject.

Yes. And that was an interesting show but not for anything it said about
climate change. The real story there was that the Libs are still in
disarray, are still arrogant and need to learn some humility and still
seem to think that they can make promises and change them at will. Their
climate change commitment was only made because they thought they'd lose
the election they clealry thought it could fool enough people into
believing the promise to survive and then they'd rescind the promise post
election. Cynical shits (as are nearly all politicans).

As an easy way to see if it is solar heating rather than people
influenced there has been the Ulysses
satellite observations of other planets also getting hotter....Hope your
sound program works...
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2009/11/...rina_breakfast

I'll try to listen to it later (if I haven't exceeded download limit in
which case I won't).
Ok thanks that's a reasonable reply.
The other situation is of course, while the planet may be hotting up, what
is the actual reason?
Al Gore, who seems to be on a nice earner, is also the person involved with
the previous fluorocarbon refrigerants they banned. While the McDonalds foam
burger wrappers, are not
a major concern, they were a big item a while ago, and foam is being used
everywhere these days. What are they using to manufacture that stuff these
days?
Some interesting websites for and against, man made or nature. I found
these in "Silicon Chip" the
electronics magazine.
http://www.infinitebanking.org/BankNotes/2009-08.pdf


http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/2...ven-and-earth/

An interesting aside is if the co2 lobby is to be believed, there is
something else we need to understand.
After a certain percentage of CO2 is reached, the greenhouse effect no
longer increases. This CO2 window
in other words creates no more escalation of greenhouse heating.
If we are close to this saturation point, we should have no fears of
increased CO2 production, as it wont affect the climate anymore than at
present.


From this website
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blo...0B2B!592.entry

"The greenhouse effect from CO2 is generally stated as 3°C, so an additional
100ppmv above the 280ppmv level is only capable of generating a maximum 5%
increase or 0.15°C. The forcing parameter is based on a full 0.6°C which is
four times the 0.15°C absolute physical limit of warming from CO2.

Furthermore if this 0.15°C increase has used up the full 5% of the remaining
possible energy as the concentration reached 380ppmv, there is zero warming
possible from further increases in CO2.

This is why the CO2 notch is virtually identical in the two spectra; the CO2
band was virtually saturated at the 325ppmv concentration level, so even
nine times more CO2 has almost no appreciable effect.

Unless all these points can adequately be addressed, the climate models
based on this forcing parameter must be declared invalid, and all work based
on these models as a reference for global warming mitigation must also be
declared invalid. "

Enough said? There is a political problem. Its getting these people to stop
doing to stop screwing the world even more.