Climate Commission sees changed weather

climate

The Australian Climate Commission, which is a government funded institute which aims to inform about climate change, has released a new report declaring that:

1. Climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of many extreme weather events, adversely affecting Australians. Extreme events occur naturally and weather records are broken from time to time.

However, climate change is influencing these events and record-breaking weather is becoming more common around the world.

› Some Australian examples include:

  • Heat: Extreme heat is increasing across Australia. There will still be record cold events, but hot records are now happening three times more often than cold records.
  • Bushfire weather: Extreme fire weather has increased in many parts of Australia, including southern NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and parts of South Australia, over the last 30 years.
  • Rainfall: Heavy rainfall has increased globally. Over the last three years Australia’s east coast has experienced several very heavy rainfall events, fuelled by record-high surface water temperatures in the adjacent seas.
  • Drought: A long-term drying trend is affecting the southwest corner of Western Australia, which has experienced a 15% drop in rainfall since the mid-1970s.
  • Sea-level rise: Sea level has already risen 20 cm. This means that storm surges ride on sea levels that are higher than they were a century ago, increasing the risk of flooding along Australia’s socially, economically and environmentally important coastlines.

2. Climate change is making many extreme events worse in terms of their impacts on people, property, communities and the environment. This highlights the need to take rapid, effective action on climate change.

  • It is crucial that communities, emergency services, health and medical services and other authorities prepare for the increases that are already occurring in the severity and frequency of many types of extreme weather.
  • The southeast of Australia, including many of our largest population centres, stands out as being at increased risk from many extreme weather events – heatwaves, bushfires, heavy rainfall and sea-level rise.
  • Key food-growing regions across the southeast and the southwest are likely to experience more drought in the future.
  • Some of Australia’s iconic ecosystems are threatened by climate change. Over the past three decades the Great Barrier Reef has suffered repeated bleaching events from underwater heatwaves. The freshwater wetlands of Kakadu National Park are at risk from saltwater intrusion due to rising sea level.

Full report below:

ExtremeWeatherReport Web (1)

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. The Australian newspaper has done so much to undermine the understanding of the scientific consensus on climate change among Australia’s leaders.

    It (and other news outlets) ought include this statement in every article reporting any doubt about climate change

    “No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.”

    A list of all the organisations follows this quote at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Hopefully the Australian will give this report the prominence it deserves.

  2. Abbott will no doubt abolish the Climate Commission so the new government won’t have to deal with annoyances such as this.

      • Excellent. You know a civilisation is on the fast track to destruction when science is discredited and buried. How long did the Dark Ages last? 1000 years?

        • I would give this Dark Ages to last all of 3 years before Labor is back after a deep cleansing of its factional and union warlordery 🙂

          • I welcome a Lib government. We are heading into a shitstorm, and Tony is going to wear it as his legacy.

          • GunnamattaMEMBER

            Well if TestosterTone has some of your common or garden variety Torynuff whackos on board, and festoons the ark with Gorgeous George the former Ballarat Ruckman then the public may well twig at some point.

        • Since when should ‘science’ be run by Canberra bureaucracies ?

          The whole idea of science is that it isnt captured by political interests and we never put an official stamp of authority on any opinion, theory or expert.

        • “when science is discredited and buried”
          IMO there is a significant probability that this GW thing will end up in fiasco, as scientific myself (in a previous life) I am bit worried about the discredit if in the future something serious needs to be addressed.

          • dam: You make your name in science but overturning conventional wisdom. If climate science was going to end up as a fiasco, don’t you think after 20-odd years someone in the scientific community would have published a peer-reviewed paper by now?

            Are you still holding out for evolution to “end up as a fiasco” as well?

          • These things take time, grants, motivation. In 10-20 years time there will be more data (especially oceanic ones, which are the ones that really matter, so far there is very little usable( long term enough to draw conclusion)).

            So far it doesn’t look too good, same can prepare for a pretty hard backlash if models forecasts get significantly out of the range of observations.Time will tell, no need to agitate yourself.

    • “Abbott will no doubt abolish the Climate Commission so the new government won’t have to deal with annoyances such as this.”

      Can’t wait.

  3. Robert Sherlock

    I lived in Perth a long time and it seems like the more water restrictions, reduction in on site sewerage systems (septic tanks) as coincided with the reduction of rainfall. I wonder if less water in the topsoil of Perth has anything to do with less rain? You would think that less plant growth because of this might increase run off and flooding when the rains do come. Didn’t Brisbane go from water restrictions to flooding?

    Government made climate change?

  4. This is breathtaking.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html?utm_source=direct-on.ted.com

    While livestock may be part of the problem of “desertification”, they can also be an important part of the solution. Alan Savory has demonstrated time and again in Africa, Australia and North and South America that, properly managed, they are essential to land restoration. With the right techniques, plant growth is lusher, the water table is higher, wildlife thrives, soil carbon increases and, surprisingly, perhaps four times as many cattle can be kept.

    There is a book chapter HERE on Australian farmers already using the system:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18385090/Chapter%2012%20Stevenson.pdf

    The book is Mark Stevenson:
    “An Optimist’s Tour of the Future”
    Published 2012 by “Profile Books”

    Another good book by the sound of it.

    • A TED talk is not peer-reviewed scientific paper in a credible journal.

      Still waiting. I only want one. Just one.

    • A rise in air temperature is only one manifestation of additional energy in the system.

      The intensity of weather events and the ability of the ocean to absorb additional heat are examples of where this extra energy is being expressed or stored.

      Again a climate denier is picking apart one little part against the overwhelming evidence. Please leave the internets.

      • “one little part “……… thats confirms temps have not substantially moved during a period when CO2 emissions have skyrockted. Further, the UK Met office is predicting no movement substantially in temps for another 3 years or so- all in a 20 year non- movement in global temps. The observed data is showing that global temps are falling well below IPCC’s most conservative predictions.

        I know there are many, many new theories as to why this may be so. Bottom Line however- Observed data shows the disconnect between stable global temps of the last 17 years and increased CO2 emmissions. Fact. I don’t think it would be wise or prudent to rule out other effects on the changing climate.

        Manki, you are the one denying fact.

  5. Lorax,

    You wanted peer reviewed papers.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6029/abs/316591a0.html

    Abstract: “During much of the Quaternary, the Earth’s climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core.”

    Drastic changes have occurred many times before.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5546/1431b

    Abstract: “Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age”

    More evidence of prior warming and cooling periods.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04121.html

    Abstract: “We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.”

    Solar influence.

    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/30/5/455.abstract

    Abstract: “Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate.”

    Evidence of Climate cycles.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023644/abstract
    Albert Arking – Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
    Abstract: “Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations…. The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.”

    Questioning CO2.

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

    “In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

    Falsified?

    • First paper is from 1985 and bears no relevance to the short-term changes we are seeing now. And so on for the other papers you present.

      We are asking you for papers that directly disagree with the consensus view of AGW. Clearly, you are unable to provide one.

      We, on the other hand, can provide you with ~14,000 peer reviewed papers that build a formidable edifice for the consensus view.

      One loses patience with idiocy 🙄

  6. Look, the “there is not one peer-reviewed article supporting the skeptical position” is such a monstrous lie that I don’t know where to start. I have tried posting links to LISTS of such things, which it seems to me to be the logical thing to do.

    H&H and the readers of this blog are capable of following a link, opening a web page, and clicking on a few references for themselves. But if you need me to swamp the thread with individual references to “peer reviewed journal published articles”, here goes: for a start, here is an already out of date list of the ones authored or co-authored by ONE scientist, Willie Soon:

    Implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide and methane forcing in climate change: Past, present, and future
    (Year: 2007, Journal: Physical Geography, Citations: 8)
    Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’ survival control factor?
    (Year: 2007, Journal: Ecological Complexity, Citations: 14)
    Global Warming: Soon & Baliunas
    (Year: 2003, Journal: Progress in Physical Geography, Citations: 4)
    Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
    (Year: 2003, Journal: Climate Research, Citations: 64)
    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
    (Year: 2001, Journal: Climate Research, Citations: 20)
    Calculating the climatic impacts of increased CO(2): The issue of model validation
    (Year: 2000, Journal: Solar and Space Weather, Citations: 1)
    Climate hypersensitivity to solar forcing?
    (Year: 2000, Journal: Annales Geophysicae, Citations: 20)
    Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth’s climate?
    (Year: 2000, Journal: New Astronomy, Citations: 34)
    Inference of solar irradiance variability from terrestrial temperature changes, 1880-1993: An astrophysical application of the sun-climate connection
    (Year: 1996, Journal: Astrophysical Journal, Citations: 35)

      • Ad Hominem and smearing. Is this “science” or even a “debate”?

        Can I not accuse alarmist scientists of being “sell-outs” to something else?

        If scientists can only get funded to research one angle by the bureaucrats who control the funding, and any other sources of funding immediately render a scientist ad-hominem invalid by definition, what is this?

        It smells of political totalitarianism, talks like political totalitarianism, walks like political totalitarianism…… It sure doesn’t smell of, walk like, or talk like “science” or “fair debate”.

        • I bring you thousands of eminent, impeccable scientist you support AGW.

          You bring the usual suspects (a small handful of men) who almost all have proven links to polluting industries, who are not climate scientists, or who have been debunked by their colleagues.

          There is NO CONTEST.

          NO CONTEST!!!

  7. Here is a similar list for “Patrick Michaels”;

    Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (McKitrick & Michaels, 2007)
    (Year: 2007, Journal: Journal of Geophysical Research, Citations: 4)
    A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (McKitrick and Michaels 2004)
    (Year: 2004, Journal: Climate Research, Citations: 1)
    Revised 21st century temperature projections
    (Year: 2002, Journal: Climate Research, Citations: 1)
    Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century
    (Year: 2001, Journal: Climate Research, Citations: 13)
    Observed warming in cold anticyclones
    (Year: 2000, Journal: Climate Research, Citations: 18)
    Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements
    (Year: 1998, Journal: Climate Research, Citations: 22)
    Predicted and observed long night and day temperature trends
    (Year: 1995, Journal: Atmospheric Research, Citations: 1)
    Benign Greenhouse
    (Year: 1993, Journal: Research and Exploration, Citations: 4)
    Global warming – a reduced threat
    (Year: 1992, Journal: Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,, Citations: 25)

    • All you need to know about Patrick Michaels
      http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

      Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren, told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee in June 2003, “Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”

      • Alex Heyworth

        John Holdren’s recent publications, from his Wikipedia bio:

        Holdren is the author of over 200 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, including:[14]

        Science in the White House. Science Magazine, May 2009, 567.[15]
        Policy for Energy Technology Innovation. Acting in Time on Energy Policy, (with Laura Diaz Anadon, Max H. Bazerman, David T. Ellwood, Kelly Sims Gallagher, William H. Hogan, Henry Lee, and Daniel Schrag), Brookings Institution Press, 2009.
        The Future of Climate Change Policy: The U.S.’s Last Chance to Lead. Scientific American 2008 Earth 3.0 Supplement. October 13, 2008, 20-21.[16]
        Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics. Boston Globe, August 4, 2008.[17]
        Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy To Meet America’s Energy Challenges. Presentation at the National Academies 2008 Energy Summit, Washington, D.C., March 14, 2008.[18]
        Global Climatic Disruption: Risks and Opportunities. Presentation at Investor Summit on Climate Risk, New York, February 14, 2008.[19]
        Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge. The John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C., January 17, 2008.[20]

        Pot, kettle?

  8. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
    – Craig Loehle

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
    – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
    – Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov

    A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 2004)
    – Madhav L. Khandekar

    Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
    (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)
    – Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey

  9. Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
    (Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
    – Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens

    Climate Change – A Natural Hazard
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
    – William Kininmonth

    Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
    (AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
    – Tim F. Ball

    Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
    (Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
    – Craig Loehle

    Climate change projections lack reality check
    (Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp. 212, December 2006)
    – Madhav L. Khandekar

    Climate Change Re-examined
    (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
    – Joel M. Kauffman

    Climate outlook to 2030
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)
    – David C. Archibald

    • You cite papers from people like William Kininmonth. Bzzzt! you lose (all credibility).

      Note that it’s drawing a long bow to cite papers published in Energy & Environment, which is published by an editor (Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen) who stated “I’m following my political agenda”.

      Pas the sick bag!

      • Alex Heyworth

        At least she is honest. The editors of Nature and Science could take a leaf out of her book.

          • Alex Heyworth

            Not at all. I suggested that the editors of Nature and Science should be more up front about their political views.

          • They are among the very best journals in the world. They do not have political agendas, despite your aspersions.

            You are comparing them to a rag despised by most scientists.

          • Alex Heyworth

            If they don’t have political agendas, what do the editors have to lose by revealing their political views? It will be obvious to everybody that their views have not influenced their editorial policy.

      • This whole thing comes down to exactly the same arguments on both sides. You scream “agenda” at me, I scream “agenda” at you. You scream “lacks credibility” at me, I scream “lacks credibility” at you.

        Your side is, after all, the side busted in “Climategate”, “Climategate II”, and “Climategate III”; and there is evidently more yet from the same leaker/hacker. And you talk about the journals that publish SKEPTICAL papers, as “lacking credibility”?

        Like I said; ad hominem, debate ruled out by definition.

        • Busted in Climategate.

          Is this the same Climategate in which 8 (eight) committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct?

          • This is actually a case where ANY fool can simply read the evidence and draw their own conclusions. The “committees” (who appointed them anyway?) chutzpah is astonishing.

            It reminds me of those famous Police and Media bodies that do all the first investigations of police and media wrongdoing…
            “move along, nothing to see here…”

            And the public looks at the evidence, such as email trails, and goes “what the…..?”

  10. Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
    – Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

    Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
    (Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 66-72, May 2007)
    – David Bellamy, Jack Barrett

    Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
    (Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
    – G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

    Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)
    – Craig Loehle

    Dangerous global warming remains unproven
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
    – Robert M. Carter

    Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
    – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels

    Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (PDF)
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 88, Number 6, pp. 913-928, June 2007)
    – Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

    • You keep using the same journals that are known in academic circles to be corrupt.

      And now you’re quoting stuff published by weathermen too (meteorologists). You have no ability to discern!

  11. Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)
    (Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)
    – Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen

    Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
    – Patrick J. Michaels

    Global Warming and the Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 101-126, January 2005)
    – Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes

    Global Warming: Correcting the Data
    (Regulation, Volume 31, Number 3, pp.46-52, 2008)
    – Patrick J. Michaels

    Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
    (Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
    – Ferenc M. Miskolczi

    Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp.1207-1213, September 2009)
    – G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel

    Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 6, pp. 1037-1045, November 2005)
    – Jack Barrett

    In defense of Milankovitch
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Number 24, December 2006)
    – Gerard Roe

    • Notice all your papers are 2009 and before.

      The oil industry has stopped funding this crap from about 2010 when they realised that the argument is lost and it’s a waste of money.

      • If the oil industry HAS stopped funding this “crap”, it is because a crypto-totalitarian movement has finally bullied them into silence and acquiescence. Good capitalists know how do go along to get along.

        Shall I start looking for papers after 2009? I bet I can find them. I am not an expert, I can just use Google, that is all, unlike lazy, incompetent and biased “mainstream” journalists. There is plenty more where the above came from. Like I said, there is an embarrassment of riches, and there is hardly a movement more guilty of perpetuating monstrous lies on the basis of P T Barnum and Joe Goebbles tactics, than the CAGW alarmist movement. Eg “2500 unanimous scientists in the IPCC”; “not one peer reviewed skeptical paper”…..

        I have a copy of the latest IPCC Draft Report. There is plenty in that. The facts just won’t reach the public, that is all, by the time the “lead authors” have finished with it and the UN pooh-bahs have written the “summary for policy makers” that the MSM slavishly regurgitates.

          • And people like Maurice Strong, who set up the IPCC in the first place, do not have political beliefs that any decent western citizen would recognise as perilous to their freedoms if given scope?

            The US States that have passed laws against “Agenda 21” are wise and awake. As I have said with urban planning, it is redneck hicks whose intuitions are the soundest these days.

            The whole thing has been so riddled with “unintended consequences”, without the slightest concern of the IPCC pooh-bahs, that it is not half obvious what the agenda is. Refer, for example, the LSE paper “Rethinking Climate Policy” by Gwyn Prins et al, in which they suggest that hastening the transfer of industry from the first world to the third as the result of Kyoto policies, has INCREASED global CO2 emissions. But Pachauri, Strong et al have expressed satisfaction at that transfer of industry…. because it is “morally right anyway”….!

            If you trust the UN and you trust bureaucracies generally, and you mistrust capitalists generally, your radar of trust is not particularly well calibrated. I distrust all three. BTW most of the “capitalists” involved in this argument are on your side, not mine. Generally, it is the rent-seekers like Goldman Sachs who are on your side, and the honest suppliers of goods and services and employers of workers who are on mine – if they are brave enough to defy the near-omnipotent complex arrayed against them, backed by the State’s power to harrass and shut down.

  12. It is not a “debate” when one side controls every term of the debate, right down to what sources are admissable. It is not “science” either.

  13. R2M and PhilBest – it would be nice to hear some other voices here.

    And play the ball, not the man.

    You each have good points to make if you can get past the vitriol….

    EDIT: and with that warning ignored, thread locked. Go and have a beer gents.