"The Age 2/2/07 (my emphasis):

After years of research and a marathon week of intense secret debate, scientists from around the world last night signed off on a bleak assessment of a devastated planet: Earth.

A turbulent future of violent storms, devastating drought, increasing temperatures and rising sea levels is inevitable, according to a United Nations report released in Paris last night. The report, the work of 2,500 scientists over six years, is considered the most authoritative evaluation of climate change ever produced.

It anticipates temperatures will rise by at least 1.1 degrees by the end of the century, with the high-end estimate at 6.4 degrees.

While scientific dissent continues to divide experts on some core questions - like the rate at which seas will rise, and the ferocity of cyclones fed by warmer waters - the Paris statement is most notable for its consensus on the issue of what, or who is to blame. Humanity.

The final text of the report says it is 'very likely' that human activities led by burning fossil fuels account for most of the global warming in the past 50 years. This represents a significant ramping up of the language of the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, which said the link was 'likely'."

I guess the 2,500 scientists are just lefty trendies following each other like sheep and that mankind really has nothing to do with global warming really?

OzTennis

You're quite right about the differences between the sides these days; it's really just a question of a shade of grey... It will be interesting to see whether Rudd does change some stuff if he does get in... and I'm still not sure that he will, the honeymoon will be over by the time the election comes around...

The war thing really has been a complete balls up all around and it's a shame we can't admit it and get out... the trouble is I guess there would be even more carnage if they were left to get on with it themselves at the moment... Oh well, perhaps another couple of years...

The 'war thing' if we are brutally honest is not about the war on terrorism or finding weapons of mass destruction, it's about protecting 30% of the world's oil reserves and we all know how Uncle Sam has 'got fuel to burn, got roads to drive, got styrofoam garbage for the ozone layer, keep on rockin' in the free world' (Neil Young). Australian and British involvement in the 'war thing' is mainly about doing the right thing by Uncle Sam aka George.

OzTennis

Don't think you're right there I'm afraid... The oil situation was around long before the invasion and the world was coping just fine...

Personally I think Bush Jr thought he saw an opportunity to get rid of one of the world's bad guys, who just happened to have cost his Daddy his job a few years previously... At the time the WMD bit looked like just the excuse needed to go in...

We'll just agree to disagree on motives as they are mainly conjecture. The oil supplies didn't dry up under Saddam (because he needed the oil revenues to wage war on his Shi'ite enemies - be they Iraqi/Iranian/Kuwaiti etc, not to mention Kurds and Christians).

There is surely (I would hope) a lot more to the world's superpower going to war than just a son trying to appease daddy? A country would not commit hundreds of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars just for George snr? There are many big business interests for Republicans to satisfy (othewise the campaign donations dry up). And we are after all talking of the world's most powerful leader who asked Charlotte Church which part of England Wales was in!

OzTennis

Under the rule of Saddam Hussein, many of Iraq's oil fields were completely undeveloped. As soon as the coalition invaded they initiated a process to develop these untouched oil fields. As you know I'm sure, the more of a commodity on the market, the lower the price. Also, from a geostrategic perspective, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan help to encircle Iran, a problem of the next 5 years, if Iraq was the problem of the last 5.

And no, a particpatory democracy does not go to war on the word of one man, not even a president. The US constitution offers limited power to the executive. Although foreign policy is one area where the executive has quite a lot of power, he is still restrained by Congress, not only in the amount of time he may commit troops abroad, but also of course in terms of the appropriations committee, etc.

Long time no hear from you.

Strange that you should re surface on this thread.

When these scientist explain why CO2 goes up after the planet warms, when these scientists explain the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now (and which is conveniently missing from Al Gore's hockey stick chart), when these scientists explain why the temperature went down in the 1940's even though CO2 went up, when these scientist explain how an increase of a few tens of parts per million can have such a dramatic effect, then I might listen. The tosspots can't predict if it going to rain in the morning, how can they predict climate change 50 years from now? It's all a load of cobblers.

Of course...

I'd think so too... didn't you see the rolling eyes smilie...?

So, they'd knock off a medium sized country and take huge losses just so big business can make some bucks and keep the GOP's donations flowing in...? Hmm...

Yup, he really is a complete plank isn't he...!!

Ah, but that's just where you're wrong...

It's all about the percentage of cobblers...

"Hollows threats and a great adventure
So much business, towns in the dirt
Company cars and efficient Americans

Three black boys sit in the corner
White woman waiting to talk
Lots of intention but no understanding

If Ned Kelly was king
He'd make those robbers swing
He'd send them down
Out in the deadheart tourists and cameras
Four wheel drives wreck, snapshots and slides
Follow the brochures but nothing's inside

Heavy machinery loud in the outback
Dreamtime developers they make all the sound
Where will we be when they leave us a quarry?

If Ned Kelly was king
He'd make those robbers swing
He'd send them down there
He'd make them stay
And we can hope"

OzTennis

Yeah, I've got a vested interest in mining, I want to keep on earning a living. I also have a vested interest in seeing the country that I plan to spend the rest of my life in have a strong, prosperous economy so that it can provide for all it's people.

I know, let's let Garrett have his way. Let's close all our coal mines and coal fired power stations. Let's tax petrol off the scale. Let's see how he can maintain a modern western economy when he takes away it's energy source. Nuclear? Great idea but we'll never have it. Wind? Part of the solution, but a tiny part. Same for wave and solar power. Let's destroy our economy for the sake of a theory that is not proven and is still being hotly debated.

Exactly. When a scientist with Phd's coming out his wazoo states that GW is not man made he is shouted down as being a pawn of big business, but when a scientist says it is man made, nobody questions and he's a hero.

Like you say, bollox.

There was some English prick on SBS tonight saying that we have only got 10 years before it's too late and the World is going to be f**ked. 10 years time then, around about easter time, the world is going to end.

Better get the beers in.