Essential Research has produced its final weekly survey for the year, ahead of a sabbatical that will extend to January 12. It shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly from 59-41 to 58-42. I might proudly note that they have taken up my suggestion to gauge opinion on the internet filtering plan, and the result gives some insight into the government’s apparent determination to pursue this by all accounts foolish and futile policy. Even accounting for the fact that this is a sample of internet users, the survey shows 49 per cent supporting the plan against 40 per cent opposed. Also featured are questions on the government’s general performance over the year, bonuses to pensions and families, optimism for the coming year (surprisingly high) and the target the government should set for greenhouse emission reductions (only 8 per cent support a cut of less than 5 per cent). Elsewhere:
• The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 WA respondents showing 60 per cent believe the federal government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have contributed to a recent upsurge in boat arrivals in the north-west. However, only 34 per cent supported a return to the Pacific solution against 48 per cent opposed. Sixty-nine per cent professed themselves “concerned” about the increased activity, but 54 per cent said they were happy for the arrivals to live on Christmas Island while they were assessed for refugee status. Fifty-one per cent were opposed to them being processed on the mainland. Westpoll also found that 62 per cent of respondents “definitely” supported recreational fishing bans to protect vulnerable species, with “nearly eight out of 10” indicating some support. I suspect The West Australian commissioned monthly polling in advance expectation of a February state election, and has tired of asking redundant questions on support for the new government.
• Imre Salusinszky on Bennelong in The Weekend Australian:
The experience of Labor in 1990, when Bob Hawke was mugged in Victoria by the unpopularity of former Labor premier John Cain, shows there are occasions when a Labor state government can throw an anchor around the neck of its federal counterpart. According to Newspoll figures published in The Australian yesterday, federal Labor’s primary vote in NSW is running at 41 per cent, nearly four points down on its level at last year’s federal election. Although this is still much higher than the 29 per cent primary vote recorded in a Newspoll last month for the state Labor government – which, as it happens, was precisely the party’s primary vote in Ryde – it certainly suggests Rudd has problems in NSW. Given Rees’s recent decision to scrap plans for a metro rail system linking central Sydney to the city’s northwest, some of those problems could manifest in Bennelong. And while Howard was a formidable adversary, it would be possible to argue his presence assisted McKew by encouraging every gibbering Howard-hater in the country – including the activist group GetUp! – to get involved in the battle for Bennelong.
The key, obviously, lies in the calibre of candidate the Liberals manage to put up. Two names that have been mentioned are former state leader Kerry Chikarovski and former rugby union international Brett Papworth. Chikarovski represented Lane Cove, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1991 to 2003; Papworth is a son of the electorate who began his playing career there. But if there is one candidate who could give McKew a fright, it is Andrew Tink. Tink represented the state seat of Epping, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1988 until last year’s state election. A true-blue local, Tink would be able to exploit a lingering perception of McKew as a celebrity blow-in. Tink appears to be enjoying his second career as a historian of NSW politics, but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.
• Noting the difficult position of the Canadian Liberals as they pursue power behind an interim leader, Ben Raue at The Tally Room looks at differing methods used overseas for selection of party leaders and offers a critique of Australian practice (part one and part two).
• Possum: “ETS – Why 5% in two charts”. Even shorter version: it all comes down to the Senate.
[We need all th supporting interlectuals , th Greens and other Rudd disenters to move to a housing commission home and live on th pension till 2020 and donate there excess monies to th Salvos All very well to preach unrealities from an Ivory tower , without being acountable , and they never will be Govt wise….so whilst well meaning & science corect its still all fluff & cheap unacountable talk]
So you support Rudd AND a police state.
Well at least you’re honest (but wRONg).
At least Rudd has announced a cut…how much has India or China committed to?
Rudd is no political fool, he is wedging the Coalition and it shows he’s not an environmental radical to blunt the Tory attacks…and really the Greens are always going to preference the ALP…it is win win for Rudd a play from the Howard Book of political genius.
“This demonstrates you don’t know the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, i.e. the source of energy that powers the sun, and thus all other energy sources”
Shows
brilliant, you should live on the Sun then lol
MayoFeral
it is becoming increasingly clear that experts of OTHER COUNTRIES haven’t been fooled by our government’s rhetoric so that instead of boosting the chances of getting a worthwhile agreement in Copenhagen their disquiet as the true extent of how paltry the CPSR effects are sinks in will likely have the opposite effect. They’d be entitled to wonder why THEY should do the HARD YARDS when the country that claims it will suffer the most from GW isn’t prepared to.”
so using your logic , we should not do anythinh till th richest Country USA does …at moment USA done zero
Using your
[Shows
brilliant, you should live on the Sun then lol]
Meh…
My point was that we will be using nuclear fusion in 30 or 40 years time, so saying that nuclear energy is the past is absurd:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Gary Bruce @ 975 –
The last PM to go to an election with the message “we stand for higher prices” </i.
I believe we’ve already has that debate. Didn’t Rudd go to the last election promising action on GW and not shying away from it being hard and expensive and only promising to protect the disadvantaged?
Seems to me the electorate knew they would be paying more if they voted for Rudd and enough were prepared to make that sacrifice to elect Labor.
Now some are saying the fact that CC has dropped from the number one spot to third or fourth on peoples reported concerns behind the GFC is evidence that they have changed their minds. Perhaps. But it could also be that they believe, IMO wrongly, CC is no longer as big a threat because they now have a government that is doing something to fix it.
I also suspect that people are aware that bad economic times have a limited life, while, unchecked, CC would be effectively forever.
ShowOff
“So you support Rudd AND a police state.”
No , but obviously you believe Rudd runs a police State….or ar you scared of putting your money whre your asperations ar……before th rest of us
I hold th patent on “w ron g” having blogged it months ago ….I always expected a clone copier like a showoff , but want to do you slowly on keep repeating it first
[No , but obviously you believe Rudd runs a police State….or ar you scared of putting your money whre your asperations ar……before th rest of us]
LOL! 😀 Stop being so funny. You were the one who wanted to send people to housing commission homes, not me. So stop endorsing a police state, it’s boring.
[I hold th patent on “w ron g” having blogged it months ago]
Good blogging Ron! But you’re wRONg.
do you want to put your money up before your mouth on it
[do you want to put your money up before your mouth on it]
LOL! 😀 SOLID GOLD RON! Admit it, you have a team writing this stuff don’t you?
Shows
your dog with abone defence of nuclear is almost cultlike.
Nuclear is unsafe,dirty and prone to weapons manufacture (ps theses are really nasty grade 1 weapons)
In forty years where will renewables be,what advances and new technologies will we unearth.
The attachment to nuclear and other forms of non renewables is a state of mind.
bit like taking away a childs security blanket, or those who siad we couldnt fly and would Never ever go to the stars.
enlightment awaits you shows,that first step is always the hardest 🙂
Ron :do you want to put your money up before your mouth on it
ShowOff:
LOL! 😀 SOLID GOLD RON! Admit it, you have a team writing this stuff don’t you?
Ron: no , not a team of writers but a team of money to put up ….so do you want to put your money up before your mouth on it
‘a team of money to put up ‘
i’d put that on bet that Australia avoids recession
still good odds at the mo
[Nuclear is unsafe,dirty and prone to weapons manufacture (ps theses are really nasty grade 1 weapons)]
I would oppose a nuclear industry in Australia if we used it to make nuclear weapons.
In order to do that we would have to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which I would oppose.
I consider this a red herring argument, Australia could use nuclear power without making nuclear weapons.
[In forty years where will renewables be,what advances and new technologies will we unearth.]
Nuclear fusion is effectively a renewable energy, because it uses certain isotopes of Hydrogen which are relatively common in the ocean. If you don’t consider nuclear fusion renewable, then you can’t consider solar, wind, or hydro renewable.
[The attachment to nuclear and other forms of non renewables is a state of mind.]
Nuclear fusion is effectively renewable. As long as there is sea water, there is fuel for nuclear fusion.
[enlightment awaits you shows,that first step is always the hardest :)]
There is no need to be so patronising. Reverting to this rhetorical tactic suggests to me that you don’t know all the facts on nuclear energy, both current and future.
[Ron: no , not a team of writers but a team of money to put up ….so do you want to put your money up before your mouth on it]
STOP IT RON! I can’t concentrate when you make these hilarious posts.
OK, I’ll TRY to post something to your standards, here it is:
[Do you want to bipedal locomotion the oral communication?]
I TRIED, I am just a beginner so go easy on me. I know the spelling is too good to be perfect, but surely it’s a start.
‘This demonstrates you don’t know the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion’
moi patronising
pot.kettle.black
so while we wait forty years for your fusion frenzy
what do you suggest we do??
twiddle our thumbs-quite valid as an energy source tho pretty tiring allup
‘I would oppose a nuclear industry in Australia if we used it to make nuclear weapons.
In order to do that we would have to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which I would oppose.’
But at least concede it COULD happen
Ron: I hold th patent on “w ron g” having blogged it months ago
Now ShowOff you clearly not a betting man to chalenge that , just as well a I didn’t reely wanta take your house to pass to charity , so being genrous you can pay an xhorbitant license fee donation to moderator , but it would not be a standard ETS cap with reducing $ limit cap per trade blog emmission basis
Gusface…in response to ShowsOns comment…
“I wouldnt oppose it, or the option to build them if we ever needed them”
Think of it this way, if we had nukes, we’d save a lot on defence expenditure in the long term lol!
Glen
now there you go 🙂
ps I presume we would also have anuclear navy with afew of your A/C’s patrol the waters for boatpeople and other “uglies”
Hmm… high quality of posting here between ShowsOn and Ron this afternoon… 😛
Anyway, more reforms by the Rudd government:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24818622-601,00.html
ShowsOff
“I would oppose a nuclear industry in Australia if we used it to make nuclear weapons.”
Gusface
“In order to do that we would have to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which I would oppose. But at least concede it COULD happen”
Ron: I don’t not tink that you wouldn’t build a nuk fussion plant to build a nuke weapon as there would be no point Such bombs must be triggered by a fission reaction first
A nuclear fusion reactor with no unranium but instead hydrogon is being built in France right now under ITREP costing about $15 billion So Nuke power is nopt on way out , especialy France 78% and Belgium 54% electricity from nuke power , not that that nuke bit thought is pleasings to me at all
[Hmm… high quality of posting here between ShowsOn and Ron this afternoon…]
Quite so. Can we please talk about politics, rather than each other?
[Seems to me the electorate knew they would be paying more if they voted for Rudd and enough were prepared to make that sacrifice to elect Labor.]
1006 MayoFeral – the problem with that argument is that it assumes people only had CC on their minds when voting. I dispute that. In fact I’d go as far as to say if Howard had kept his hands off the IR honey pot the bees wouldn’t have swarmed on him.
[1006 MayoFeral – the problem with that argument is that it assumes people only had CC on their minds when voting. I dispute that. In fact I’d go as far as to say if Howard had kept his hands off the IR honey pot the bees wouldn’t have swarmed on him.]
Quite so. Climate Change was a relatively minor issue last election in comparison to:
1. Industrial Relations
2. Interest Rates
3. Education
4. Health
If it wasn’t for Serfchoices, JWH would have had quite a decent shot at winning a 5th term. After all, in November last year, the economy was still performing strongly on the back of the mining boom…
[Now some are saying the fact that CC has dropped from the number one spot to third or fourth on peoples reported concerns behind the GFC is evidence that they have changed their minds.]
I’m not so sure about that either but what it does indicate is that looking after number one and the flock financially is a very high priority and it doesn’t take a genius to know that that type of thinking means that the world may have to wait for a little while as far as they are concerned. No good saving the world in 2050 while the family goes down the tubes in 2010.
Glen, America has an estimated 5,000 nukes in service (down from perhaps 40,000), yet it still spends more on conventional forces than the rest of the world combined.
Nukes may only be of use if your potential opponents doesn’t have them, and even that isn’t a given. Vietnam still sent the U.S. packing, as may the Afghans. Nor did Israel’s 200-300 nukes help it in 2006.
Once your opponents also have nukes your’s become useless unless you’re mad.
Mayo that is because they are a Super Power…we arent a Super Power so if we had nukes no body would mess with us…
Yes but look if China has them and we have them do you think China would mess with us knowing what we could do to them???
[I also suspect that people are aware that bad economic times have a limited life, while, unchecked, CC would be effectively forever.]
A limited life? What, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? The problem is neither, me, you or anyone else knows the answer to that. We are in unchartered waters here. What is the thing that really upsets people? Uncertainty and in times of uncertainty you look to shore up your own circumstances first, not your neighbours. It’s the survival instinct. So right now I’m not so sure people are thinking of putting the world before themselves to be honest.
Garry Bruce … the following is from NASA scientist and people who was on the UN IPCC panel. I think you should especially read Dr Pal Brekke’s piece. I will keep an open mind and not think the world was flat
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last
100 years.”
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
dovif – you can supply me with every article by cc sceptics you like. The one thing you can’t satisfy as far as I’m concerned is the answer to these questions – “What if the deniers/sceptics are wrong?” Poof. there goes the world. What happens if the CC believers are wrong but we take precautions? World still survives. So which one do you want to take a chance on? Really, don’t waste your time with me on this. I’ve made up my mind which way I want to see us go.
Gary Bruce
That is the same argument used by the person who said the world was flat.
If you are right, you might prove us wrong, but if you are wrong, you fall off the face of the planet and dies
I would much prefer to take the chance on real scientist people who have through about the problem
By the way these people are not deniers/sceptics
They are Climatist and scientist ….. including Scientist who no longer works for NASA and does not get paid $150k anymore to paddle the view of the heads of NASA.
They include people who were part of the UN IPCC who disagree with the limited discussion of the UN. The questions for the UN IPCC is, why is the UN IPCC only publishing findings that supports its view and skewered its processes so that its paid scientist comes to their predetermined view and ignore the mountains of work that does not support its conclusion? What has it got to hide? To question is scientific, that is why there are scientist.
ShowsOn, I already posted a far more rigorous analysis that takes more things into account than the IAEA report.
I find it intriguing that you want to put our eggs in the fusion basket which will not be viable for at least 50 years, but you refuse to accept the existence and potential for renewables which are providing baseload power as we speak.
[That is the same argument used by the person who said the world was flat.]
Well, if one person fell off the edge of the earth proving the flat earth theory to be right there was nothing lost except a life (as tragic as that would be) and civilisation would continue. If we get this wrong the entire human race is gone. No comparison.
Dovif –
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/12/15/essential-research-58-42-4/comment-page-20/#comment-225280
Got any?
Gary Bruce @ 1024
1006 MayoFeral – the problem with that argument is that it assumes people only had CC on their minds when voting. I dispute that.
So voters were capable of considering more than one issue in 2007, but will decide their vote on a single issue in 2010?
It’s not as if most will be anymore affected than they will be by what has already been announced. It doesn’t materially change things, especially between 2010 and 2013, if the CO2 reduction is 5% or 10/15/20/25%. The same people that the government is now promising to make several hundred dollars a year better off, pensioners and families earning <=$80K could still have the same windfall. After all if the government sells 2/3/4/5 times as many permits it will have 2/3/4/5 times as much to hand out.
Plus the biggest reductions will be in the years 2018-2020, not 2011-13, by which time the GFC should be a distant memory of similar impact as “The recession we had to have” was last year. The policy framework actually gives the government considerable wriggle room setting the trajectory of the cuts:
The 2010-13 trajectory given in the CPRS (Figure 4.4, page 4-23) calls for minuscule cuts.
Labor will be at the wrong end of the electoral cycle by 2018+ anyway. Think of it as Rudd’s/Gillard’s/whoever’s parting gift to Howard Jr.
Dovif
ar you a CC skeptic or a totaly committed CC acceptor of IPPCC 4th Report?
MayoFeral
ar you saying oz will take no notice of whatever target Kyoto mark 11 agrees on
Dovif – think of it this way.
In the full spectrum of future possibilities, there is enough evidence to suggest that there is some unknown probability that catastrophic global warming will occur.Now, I don’t mean “catastrophic” in the same way some of the religious Greens use the term – complete collapse of the biosphere and human extinction etc etc, I mean it in terms of the costs to human net welfare will be of an extremely large magnitude (sea level rises leading to forced relocations of a few hundred million, economic development getting pushed back a decade as money that would ordinarily be invested productively gets redirected into dealing with the fallout of that human relocation etc).
But we dont know what that probability is and any model that pretends to tell us that probability as a known certainty is an exercise in mathematical masturbation and basically a blatant lie.
However – we can put certainty intervals around these things which gets us onto surer foorting which gets us to the key question – at what approximate level of probability of catastrophic global warming occuring would we be willing to act to prevent it or ameliorate it?
If there’s between a 1 and 10% chance of it occurring – is it worth acting on?
What about 10-20%? 20-30%? etc.
Because the costs of catastrophic global warming are so high, it only has to be a very low probability of occuring for us to be able to act and receive a net benefit on balance.
Which is where we’re at today.
The biggest problem with global warming action isnt global warming deniers – it’s global warming zealots that alienate the large numbers of ordinary people that democratic politics needs to carry with them to enable action in the first place. People carrying on with things like shutting down the coal industry by next Tuesday do more damage to the cause of global action than all of the Andrew Bolts and Cory Bernardi’s combined. Without politicians being able to carry large majorities of people with them (and by carrying, I mean carrying them not only in good economic times but bad), the scope for action becomes limited.
The more hysterical things that are said, the more people get turned off from the whole shebang and the smaller the things become that politicians can achieve.
[So voters were capable of considering more than one issue in 2007, but will decide their vote on a single issue in 2010?]
MayoFeral 1036 -When the issue involves their personal well being and finances, yes. Don’t you think the opposition and businesses and anyone else seriously opposed to a high target would be making it number one on the hit parade? To right they would.
Besides, IR was number one on the hit parade last election. It was the main game. That’s what got Rudd elected and I’ve already gone through why I believe that. Money and personal well being was at the heart of that too.
[The biggest problem with global warming action isnt global warming deniers – it’s global warming zealots that alienate the large numbers of ordinary people that democratic politics needs to carry with them to enable action in the first place.]
That is the biggest piece of BS I’ve heard in my life.
I don’t see anyone in parliament, for example, saying “Hey we shouldn’t act on climate change because the crazy Greenies are saying it’s going to destroy the universe and now I’m turned off”.
I do see them saying “The world hasn’t warmed. There’s no consensus. It won’t affect us so there’s no point losing jobs over it”.
1039 Possum – Well said Poss.
[It’s not as if most will be anymore affected than they will be by what has already been announced. It doesn’t materially change things, especially between 2010 and 2013, if the CO2 reduction is 5% or 10/15/20/25%. The same people that the government is now promising to make several hundred dollars a year better off, pensioners and families earning <=$80K could still have the same windfall. After all if the government sells 2/3/4/5 times as many permits it will have 2/3/4/5 times as much to hand out.]
Try selling that at an election where people are being fed otherwise. Besides if what you say is true then why frighten the horses and start with the high figure?
A limited life? What, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? The problem is neither, me, you or anyone else knows the answer to that.
No, though I doubt it will last anywhere near as long as that. Despite the scaremongering, so far, adjusted for inflation, this is similar to the S&L related recessions of the late 1980s-early 1990s. Then 1,600 American deposit taking banks had either failed or were being propped up by the U.S. government. That is on top of about a 1,000 credit unions/building societies. Ultimately, about half, over 1,500, of these went belly-up. It also gave us the recession the Libs blame Keating for.
However, if I’m wrong, then an ongoing deep recession will achieve most of what the CPRS is meant to do which would allow the government to ease or even suspend the scheme.
And/or much of the world could be locked in war which is another ballgame completely.
Enemy Marsupial
“But we dont know what that probability is and any model that pretends to tell us that probability as a known certainty is an exercise in mathematical masturbation and basically a blatant lie.”
Do not agree , it is not a mathematical probability test
th full IPCC Fourth Assessment Report includes the input of more than 1,200 authors and 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries
th terminology of CC being man made , and CC actualy happening for instanse is listed as “very likely” 95% scientific certainty based on scientific findings from these 3,700 guys….only a fool would argue against 95% likihood scientific CERTAINTY
th IPCC ascribes a “likelihood” to a scientific finding , the term used reflects a specific range of scientific certainty based on scientific findings ….on th IPPCC chart with “very likely” is listed as 95%PLUS scientific certainty based on scientific findings This is not a mathematical probaility for mathematicans but a science based methodology
Oz, you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.
What people say in Parliament is neither here nor there – how the electorate behaves is nearly all that really matters when it comes to the size of an action a government can take to deal with long term issues.
Firstly, the Australian public doesnt like being lectured to.Look where it got Keating, look where it Kennet, look where it got the Republican movement.
Secondly, the Australian public doesnt deal well with political hysterics. The more hysterical the public finds a political group’s claims, the worse the public net approval of that group becomes. Hanson fell to earth when she started getting hysterical, Hewson probably lost the 1993 election when he started acting hysterical.
The problem with the Greens is that they have zero political maturity as an organsiation, they can’t control their fringe element and they dont realise when they are damaging the very causes they actually believe in.
I dont really care if you agree Ron, I forget more about mathematical modeling by breakfast than you’ve ever known in your life. There’s only one rule of forecasting “You can’t predict the future”…. and everything moves on from there. Modeling is an exercise in uncertainty.
The IPCC work is no different and if you actually understood the specific meaning of the terms you’re bandying about under its name, you wouldn’t be feeding me this nonsense and telling me white is black. So forgive me if I just ignore you on this.
Possum 90% of what you say makes sense. But I still think your statement that the biggest obstacle are not climate change deniers, which include elements of the second biggest party in parliament, plenty of big business a decent chunk of the MSM but “fringe greenies” is nonsense.
Possum
#1047
“I dont really care if you agree Ron, I forget more about mathematical modeling by breakfast than you’ve ever known in your life.”
Your arrogant assertion you know anything about science is breathtaking
You clearly know NOTHING about scientists ascribing a “likelihood” to a scientific finding , the term used reflects a specific range of scientific certainty based on scientific findings with a chart listing % of scientific certainty based on that scientific findings
Now seeing thats what th 2,500 ACTUAL IPPCC scientists say it is quoting from th IPPCC ,which is what I blogged , if anyone takes notice of you against those experts , they ar a fool
[ Your arrogant assertion you know anything about science is breathtaking ]
I’m just gonna help a fellow mathematician (well, kinda) out and say… Ron, pull yer head in. Possum knows what he’s talking about. 😉