TheByte

Mirage77

We're getting temperatures like 35 degrees celsius here... It used to average about 27C.

Centurion

Maybe you whoudl tell your father to cancle your 4porte order and buy the new 4 door fiat instead.

Michael

Well where I am apparently our weather is going to be worse this winter (colder) because of the change in overl currents of the ocean and wins. El Nino I think may be the one behind this or maybe El Nina. Our hurricane season was not as bad.

I don't think anyone can noticed substantial changes in their weather patterns. Take into consideration that we humans have so many other things on our mainds on a daily basis, weekly, monthly, and yearly, and we don't necessarily notice, "oh...its colder today than it was last year."

Germaniac

G'day

I think I was attempting to link the fact that in both scenarios (with the white australia policy and the current environmental debates) the same excuse is being used - "it will cost us jobs and harm industry". I drew the conclusion, based on the fact that immigration has done nothing if not benefit the Australian economy because with more people comes a greater need - that tight emission control, while in the short-term will surely affect jobs (as did mass immigration of cheap labour), will in the longer term create jobs due to the fact that the need for energy production will still be the same - it will just need to come from different (ie "green") sources, which will in turn inject investment into that industry.

I think the heart of the issue is your point "If US companies are forced to cut emissions, they will simply close down their operations in the US and move their facilities to China or other developing countries ". As I've said I'm no expert but this is my understanding of the situation - companies now require a great deal of energy (electricity, fuel etc) to operate and are basically solely reliant on fossil fuels to provide that energy (power the generators, work the machines etc). Now, your scenario is that once companies are forced to "clean up their act", they will not bother but instead ship their operations off sure to a less restricted country, costing both jobs and doing just as much harm to the environment. I just don't see this as a plausible reality, mainly because I'm under the impression companies can't just pack up and leave operations in countries like the US with they seem fit - they are inextrolibly linked or "tied down" in politics, unionism etc - think about all the trouble GM, for example, has had in recent years with laying off employees - imagine all manufacturing companies laying off all of their staff tomorrow - it just ain't gonna happen. Instead, I believe, companies will "swallow", forced or otherwise, the slightly higher cost of energy by buying it from green sources.. initially of course that energy will be significantly more expensive but as it is assimilated more and more it will become the new norm.

Mirage77

Yeah I thought about it. I keep looking at fuel consumption figures for the QP and it's one of the highest around. But y'know, my dad isn't convinced that what he does by himself can make any difference in the world.

Rob

Founder of the Weather Channel Sues Al Gore for Global Warming

As if losing the 2000 Presidential election in a nail biter was not bad enough, now Al Gore is being sued by the founder of the Weather Channel (John Coleman) and others to expose the “fraud of global warming.” After losing the election, Gore has spent a significant amount of time championing environmental issues and fighting against global warming, exemplified in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth“. Oh, but now he’s being sued!

According to John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel way back in 1982, the TV channel has lost it’s way. Coleman believed that the “Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book… let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.” I’m not so sure that it really lost it’s way, I mean, it’s just a channel that tells you about the weather… apparently Coleman wants it to go back to its roots. But everyone knows you can’t trust weather predictions for more than a few days, if sometimes only a few hours…

The Weather Channel has generally accepted the notion of global warming however, and Coleman though that was a horrific idea. He advocates suing those who sell carbon credits. He stated that “if the lawyers will take the case - sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

Wherever you stand on the issue of global warming, most scientists agree that spewing toxic gases into our atmosphere is probably not the best course of action, and would best be prevented. Who knows what will happen with Coleman’s case, but it’s kind of funny to see a man single out Al Gore as the spokesman for global warming “alarmists.” Shows you how far from politics Gore has really moved.

Founder of the Weather Channel Sues Al Gore for Global Warming