Not really sure what your point is now, apart from hating green groups. Greenpeace overestimated the amount of oil (to which they apologised, so what, they were still oppose to its sinking in the first place! I take it you think that dumping stuff at sea is a good idea.

I think that protecting our environment is a good idea.

What if its a safer, cleaner, option than onshore disposal?.

I share your concerns about the environment your Lordship. In fact I am reasonably green myself. I have no children, I haven’t owned or driven a vehicle of any kind for 10 years. My license expired in 2006 and I haven’t renewed it. I never use airconditioning, I use energy efficient bulbs etc. (I wonder if Al Gore can say he has no children and hasn’t driven for 10 years?)

What I object to (and it was clearly stated at the bottom of my post), is the use of emotion to get over facts, something that Greenpeace does on a regular basis. It’s a fact that disposing of the Brent Spar the Greenpeace way did more damage to the environment than dumping at sea would have. But Greenpeace spouted on endlessly until it got its way.

In much the same way, the AGW lobby is repeating its mantra-like argument and ignoring obvious and incontrovertible facts like the Medieval Warm period, or the fact that CO2 levels have been higher before due to natural phenomena.

So long as people use emotive means to further an argument I will knock them back down. Its called reality.

Absolutely he can - his chauffeur drives nowadays.

Here’s a laugh. The climate Institute, June 2008:

In the most likely outlooks, the proportion of average households income required to meet current energy needs is projected to fall from just above 9% (in 2005) to around 8% (between 7.8% and 8.6%), as incomes rise more than energy prices.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/i...d=189&Itemid=1

Price of oil in December 2008: US$38.6/barrel
Price of oil in December 2009 US$77.1/barrel

Did your income rise in the last 12 months by more than 100%? (mine didn’t).
If not the climate Institute got it wrong.

(And before anyone accuses me of selective use of data, or using too narrow a period to measure oil prices by, that EXACTLY what the AGW lobby do. If its ok for them its ok for me).

I have a chauffeur.

ding ding, next stop please driver....

In the short term temperatures are rising but when compared to 19th century readings they have actually fallen across the Murray-Goulbourn Basin
Benalla
1871-1900 average 22.2
1971-2000 av. 21.8
Echuca
1871-1900 av. 23.6
1971-2000 av. 22.2
Deniliquin
1871-1900 av . 25.3
1971-2000 av . 22.9
Wagga
1871-1900 av. 23.9
1971-2000 av. 21.8
It is well known that the 20th century was a cooling phase but is the cooler phase normal or the present heating phase normal.Or is it just an natural oscillation between the two.
All figures from Bureau of Meteorology website

As you say, round and round we go.

Quite apart from being impractical, 99.9% of we, the voters, will not have (a) the raw data, and (b) the expertise to understand and quantify them.

Man made global warming.

The biggest con trick since 'baby Jesus' was born


Only my opinion ofcourse

I agree. Not popular here though

People will eventually realise that all those extra taxes they have been paying to 'save the planet' was all a waste of time,unfortunately it'll be 1000's of dollars later.

Weather,by its very nature,never stays constant...never has done and never will.

It has happened before, many times. That seems to be glossed over a lot.

No-one's talking about weather.

By whom? Certainly not by the IPCC.

Does not 'global warming' involve the weather in some form then ?