>The statement 'pseudo "anger"' is the excellent and same thing I equate to some seeing climate change as a replacement for religion.

Joe Hildebrand on ABC's Q&A mid last year poised a question that perfectly describes what I think you are getting at..

To paraphrase, it went something like this:

When the Rudd/Howard election was in progress, climate change and what to do about it were firmly on the agenda.

Both Labour and Libs promoted policies at that point that were very similar....an emissions trading scheme.

Both policies were very close in terms of expected outcome and costs.

Polls indicated that over 70% of the electorate overall were onside with both sides policies.

No matter what happened in that election, our country was committed to a change, committed to reform and doing what was was right...reducing greenhouse gas.

The science on Greenhouse Effects has been taught in schools since the 70s...the majority generally understands the issue and that something has to be done.

Move forward to the Gillard coo and broken tax promise.

All of a sudden, the electorate support for such a measure plummeted.

So much so that the Libs have stupidly chosen to exploit it and oppose it.

Hildebrands question to the audience was why?

....and deathly silence followed.

The answer that comes to mind for most of the electorate is that they detested the deception and religious argument for the tax.

A group with a 16% primary vote (now less than 11% and falling) made this tax a key part of the requirement for Labour to take power.

Cynics rejoiced, each side of the argument took up their extreme positions and the majority was left in a political vacuum.

The problem with such extreme opposites is that the real debate gets lost.

I am convinced that we have to do something to reverse the CO2 levels in our atmosphere, but the current argumentsand fringie behaviour for such a change is ignoring the majority centrist physche:

The extremists for climate change action blurt memes that only serve to divide instead of educate.

There are 2 very important points to make in that regard:

- In the majority of cases, anyone who raises a question on the subject that challenges the current thinking is a Denialist.

A lay persons question is generally a call to be convinced. The evidence is clear, most of the centrist majority in the country have an understanding of the greenhouse effect and want to be convinced by valid and un-emotive argument, being labelled as a denialist for questioning the science ,( a word that has been burned into our language to ignore the existence of the Holocaust )is offensive and immediately shuts out the audience. What's more important to recognise is that the loony pseudo science think tank louts just love this....

Then, the extreme left shouts back wealthy bastards, the right yells get a job....

Blah,blah f*****n blah...

Zero gain on the real issue. :-(

- Laying immediate blame on natural disaster at the feet of Climate change is akin to the Tactics of a Religious Cult.

One of my most enduring horrors in life was to witness the effect of a tidal wave in Aitape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Papua_New_Guinea_earthquake)

The immediate human reaction to natural disaster is to find cause and lay blame.

After the shock, a raging anger is hard to suppress. This is what we are....human.

To put forward an immediate "answer" or "reason" for a natural disaster after such events manipulates and takes advantage of vulnerable people, to do such is reprehensible and evil beyond measure...these are the tactics of Scientology and other cults.

The fringe dwelling Fake Modern Armchair Greenie bleats Climate Change being the cause for all natural disaster.

The Tea Party Dickheads rejoice at being able to point out this evil.

Yet again, the real debate gets lost...zero gain :-(

So my answer to everyone that choses to hide behind pseudo intellect and and mumbo jumbo quotes is to get a real life and start helping the situation before it is too late.

The reality is that there is a balance in human affairs.

Numbats like Alan Jones exist because there are equally Numbatty people like Christine Milne.

Centrists like myself are truly getting sick of the BS....full stop!

Doing something, I believe to be prudent. If only to make our nation self-sufficient in fuel, reducing import costs and reduce pollution.

I just hope it can be indisputably proved or disproved before there is irrevocable damage.

Cheers,

Mike

_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk