jump to navigation

Channel 7 Australia: The Great Climate Debate February 13, 2011

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , ,

Channel 7 Australia: The Great Climate Debate

Last week on the Channel 7 segment “Sunrise All Stars”, the panel decided it would be best to have experts from both sides to debate man-made climate change. Today on the segment they had Associate Professor Mark Diesendorf  versus Associate Professor Stewart Franks to debate man-made climate change. Click picture below to view.

Click to view video



1. Robert Serf - February 15, 2011

Try to keep this a non emotional comment.
Prof Mark Diesendorf from the start already lost me when he failed to acknowledge that temperatures had to rise as the planet came out of the liitle ice age. (LIA)aprox. 1450 – 1850.
What he calls a dangerous rise in temps since 1875, can we REALLY call a rise of 0.7c DANGEROUS?
Get real.
Most of this temps where taken from land based temperature sensors, and when they scrapped 1600 temperature sensors from Russia ( which is on of the coldest countries, ) of there readings would have to go up.
They claim to make allowances for this change , but this allowances at best are really only ESTIMATES!!.
The alarmist camp does not acknowledge the LIA or the medieval warming because to do so completely negates their arguments and there goes their funding.
Second thing that really worked against this prof was his remark that oil companies and fossil fuel companies are funding people like Prof Stewart Frank.
Mark Diesendorf did not have the courage to ask Stewart before that remark as to whether he was funded by any of this companies.
The truth is a lot of this oil and fossil fuel companies want an ETS because they will make heaps of money from it.
BP is a company that loves to call itself green and makes no secret of wanting an ETS.
So what Mark said is really a lot of BS.
And the question of rising seas, think of this,
if the seas are going to rise by 20 metres as claimed by Al Gore, in the next 90 years, that means divide 20 metres into 90 years is .22 metres per year.
Start adding since 2006 thats 5 years, 5x.22= 1 metre has already occurred.
Go to Bondi and ask any body if the seas have risen by 1 mtr in the last 5 years or if they have even noticed any increase at all I think you might be shocked by the truth.
So when is this dangerous sea level going to occur,When Al Gore or the alarmist professors snap their fingers and say “LET THERE BE SEA LEVEL RISE’?!!
My conclusion is that this Mark Diesendorf is an alarmist idiot and should not even call himself a professor of anything.
Science is not about consensus. Consensus was a tool that Stallin used in the bad old days in communist Russia and still used in places like Cuba where the consensus of course is done by none other than by Castro and associates.
As Einstein once said, it does not take a hundred scientists to prove me right ( consensus ?).
It only takes one to prove me wrong.

2. archaeopteryx - March 10, 2011

while we are all (myself included) becoming unwilling experts in climatology, utility microeconomics and other trivia, we are forgetting two basic things:

(a) Anthropogenic Climate Change is a 1986-7 German adoption of a 1985 theory of some obscure Swede. Since 1985, the Germans have expended a lot of German planning and EU money to promote a hoax. The reasons are two-fold: (1) German exports and (2) an ideological and financial dominance of the post Cold-War english speaking world. I know this sounds over-simplifying and conspiratorial but please refer to:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/secret-history-climate-alarmism , and


Through NGOs, tampered-with scientists, bogus Nobel Prizes, German-owned “science” magazines (Scientific Ameri”k”an for starters) and a fair amount of direct and indirect bribing, the Greens have acquired poltical legitimacy along line of pre-1990 leftist movements.

(b) This is not about ideology or obscure cultist pyramids. It is about money. Behind every environmental or renewable energy “solution” are the German Industrialists for the benefit of whom this whole fraudulent affair is being perpetuated. Siemens, MAN, Zeiss et al. Othe European companies are minority partners. Local companies are employed as marketing agents. It is driven by the imposition of a carbon tax to alleviate, you guessed it, AGW!. The carbon tax is offset by bying “solutions made in Germany” — never mind the manufacture of gadgets in Denmark or Spain. The bulk of “Green” employment is in Germany.

Here is a casual summary about the all-German nature of Green Business:


Few people outside Germany have heard of “Desertec”; this is a very concise albeit pharaonic example of the Green German Business Plan in North Africa — probably postponed by current events. A review of the origins of Desertec may be found in


Apologies for the lenghty comment, but I think a lot of the irrational behind the drive for “change” may be explainable in simple business terms. The energy supply and post-industrial world pollution problems may be real, but the Green Craze has nothing to do with them

By the way, while the sea-levels are …rising, it is a good opportunity to buy waterfront property on the cheap (for those of you familiar with the Rex Luthor scam in “Superman”)

3. John Smith - June 14, 2011

So much for keeping this level and not emotional. Well done guys at undermining the argument. Check this though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: