Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Petterson on January 6, 2012 at 8:51pm

If you look at the LNP page they still hold to climate change for some reason among their policies as I quote below. When will they see that this garbage is a waste of time?

The Environment
Queensland has a unique and diverse environment that encapsulates a wealth of natural resources and a rich cultural heritage -
Our policies will:

• Foster and coordinate a shared responsibility for environmental health for the mutual benefit of all
• Engage with Queenslander’s to raise awareness and protection of our natural biodiversity
• Respect Australia’s heritage particularly that of our Aboriginal and Islander peoples
• Position Queensland as the Australian leader in environmental sustainability with world best practice planning laws
• Promote the use of clean energy and the development of renewable industries
• Commit to nationally agreed affordable climate change strategies
• Preserve Queensland’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations

Permalink Reply by Ruth Bonnett on January 7, 2012 at 6:05am

Campbell Newman does not have the courage to call climate alarmism for what it is.  We live in a land of drought and flooding rain.  In Queensland we can add a flogging from cyclones every so often.

Climate happens. Weather happens.  At best we should have some attention to a climate hazard and event strategy to just handle what comes along, rather than try to stop the natural changes that are occuring.

A recent senate enquiry in Canada has finally shed some light on the United Nations, the IPCC and the ways in which the real voices of scientists have been drowned out in the process.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOuKfQFhiPw

 

First, the economics of climate change do not favour Kyoto-type commitments. Under current and foreseeable technologies, the greenhouse gas policies that we can afford to undertake would have such small climatic impacts as to be pointless. The same kinds of models that are used to forecast global warming predict that, if all the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol complied with their commitments, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we would have observed by 2100 would instead have been reached by about 2105, a trivial difference. Kyoto was too costly for countries to reach. When a policy is proposed that is too costly to implement and yields benefits that are too small to measure, you would expect reasonable people to see it as a bad idea. Instead, we observed a dogmatic elite consensus in support of Kyoto. In my mind, this never validated Kyoto; it merely discredited the elite consensus and suggested to me that the international political milieu in charge of the climate issue was unduly susceptible to groupthink.

 

Click here to read the whole transcript.