Others who had comment removed

There were some other comments from that Guardian article also removed. Some are more innocuous than mine.  They're civilised comments - just dissenting.  Why were these removed?:





Update: I had a look at the Guardian posting policy and it's ambiguous enough to edit whatever they want.  See here:

1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated.

OK, so my post said: Mirror mirror on the wall who's that scariest scare monger of them all, re: Hansen?  I guess that was a personal attack on the author, although it's fairly vague.  I mean, where do you draw the line between dissent and insult?

2. We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish, but will not allow persistent misrepresentation of the Guardian and our journalists to be published on our website. For the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.

6. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy, such as potentially libellous or defamatory postings, or material posted in potential breach of copyright.

Point 6 I can agree with cause the UK has very strict libel laws.

censorshipRuss

27 Dec 2009, 8:35PM

The theory about CO2 and climate was a minor scientific hypothesis which was hijacked by many vested interests.

Mainly the oil companies (Carbon credits) and banks (Carbon trading).

lorenztl

27 Dec 2009, 8:16PM

CO2 is not a pollutant, however it is plant food. Without CO2 the earth would not be green! 





In a June 23, 1988 testimony to Congress, "Dr Hansen writes "that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year." 





"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it?s not a pollutant, it?s a product of every living creature?s breathing, it?s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it?s a product of all industrial burning, it?s a product of driving ? I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

I always laugh when I read a newspaper article which expresses, "the experts are surprised" Why are experts surprised when computer models do not predict a correct outcome?

ngavc

27 Dec 2009, 7:51PM

Yes, people must make changes in the way they live.

Not until you guys face up to Phil Jone's attempts to hide missing source data, blacklist publications and dissenters, and FOIL freedom of information law requests. A full and complete investigation conducted by scientists most people trust with their lives (Like those employed by Exxon-Mobil) must be conducted immediately.

MAGB1

27 Dec 2009, 7:48PM

The theory about CO2 and climate was a minor scientific hypothesis which was hijacked by many vested interests. Among these, governments were interested in more taxes, and gaining trade advantage. Copenhagen has shown that the trade idea is dead. Fortunately, countries have to compete on tax, especially for corporations. So left-wing activists should lower their expectations that high carbon taxes will re-order society according their old-fashioned and discredited socialist ideas.

houlio

27 Dec 2009, 7:39PM

Thought i should mention that we have moved on - it was global warming, then it was climate change, it is now "climate instability." Please, we really need you all to keep up. We all need this change because the temp has not kept up with the models(it hasn't changed in 10 yrs) and we have too much invested in the theory too abandon it now.

Thankyou for your cooperation. You will have a place in our new world society

once we purge the malcontents.

WEREFEAT

27 Dec 2009, 7:26PM

The guy who wrote this article actually thinks that a world government is a good idea. And he thinks that humans are affecting the climate. Don't believe him for a second. None of that is true.

plaasjaapie

27 Dec 2009, 7:24PM

It does not speak well of the Guardian to publish the spewings of a known liar and fraud like Hansen.

noglobalwarming00

27 Dec 2009, 7:12PM

each time i read about M.M.G.W.

i'am reminded of the great quotation,

''IF YOU TELL A LIE BIG ENOUGH AND KEEP REPEATING IT,PEOPLE WILL COME TO BELIEVE IT''

thats how i feel about man made global warming and it gets repeated

all the time.

chiefwiley

27 Dec 2009, 6:58PM

Here's the solution.

http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do;jsessionid=6869B3989EDDD9CB6D8F3B01A98B4043

FreeCarbonOffsets.com

Save the world with a simple download of a certificate. Indulgences and dispensations were never so simple before!

censorshipRuss

27 Dec 2009, 6:17PM

Hansen is nothing more than a gullible little rent boy for George Soros.

AntonyIndia

27 Dec 2009, 3:52AM

By the way, the graph above is another strange one, after the hockey sticks.

Developed countries are show separate, but developing countries are bundled together with "shipping and air". Looks misleading to me.

My post that was rejected on the Guardian

Post on Guardian newspaper article from The Observer, Sunday 27 December 2009: Copenhagen has given us the chance to face climate change with honesty  by James Hansen.

It happens a lot for me and I'm used to it.  My recent post on James Hansen's article at the Guardian was removed by a moderator.  I kind of expect it.  I mean, I comply with the basic rules like no profanity or ad hominem attacks etc.  But I think it's just too politically incorrect.  In some cases I probably put myself up for libel under UK laws and perhaps the moderators are protecting me I don't know.

My last Guardian post mentioned that Prince Phillip co-founded the WWF and they are interested population reduction and it got removed.  Or perhaps they're concerned about other things like all the links I make to references?  Anyways here is the post:

CarbonFooledYa

27 Dec 2009, 10:42PM

James Hansen is a major researcher on the effects of aerosols and has stated that human made aerosols such as sulphates can reflect sun energy back into space offsetting global warming by more than 1C. Strange that there's no mention of this in this article. Hmm that is very peculiar, until you realise that Hansen has always vehemently promoted AGW. He says earth is heading for a tipping point and we've only got a few years left to act. Yet surely he is aware that the MWP was warmer than today with no tipping point - no Greenland ice sheet melt leading to Al Gore Waterworld (AGW). That ice sheet has survived 5 interglacials so far, but a few decades worth of warming is suddenly going to melt them? Wow, Prof Hansen, wow!



Mirror, mirror on the wall who's the scariest scare monger of them all?



There's a grotesque distortion in the article. The graph shows human "carbon" emissions (of course not elemental carbon but gases containing a carbon atom) but not natural emissions. It also ignores the number one greenhouse gas water vapour! If you include natural sources of carbon human contribution is only 2.33% of the whole. If you include water vapour and all else humans only contribute 0.28% of greenhouse gas.



Seeing as the transit time for CO2 in air is only a matter of years, not decades there is almost no remaining CO2 from human output decades ago, hence rich countries don't owe reparations to poor countries.



Just typing in Hansen to the East Anglia search engine...hmmm, 38 results, seems James Hansen is a major player in the hockey team. Seems every discussion they have of observed cooling it is regarded as a "problem". So, we're paying trillions to politicians to save us from a 2C rise but when climategate scientists discover cooling it's regarded a bad thing to be covered up. To wit, most environmentalists would be very sad and angry if you told them global warming was over. I guess without catastrophes they're nobody and it makes them mad and insecure.



@calmike 27 Dec 2009, 4:45AM. Well said. There is a technical solution to the energy crisis, but instead they're more interested on how they can get a clamp on the people. And to @hix1050 27 Dec 2009, 6:13AM as well. You've identified how much of a fake this worldwide AGW conspiracy is. It is nothing to do with science and everything to do with control.

Googlegate

I load the front page of Googlenews many times a day every day. Even though the number of stories definitely warrants it climategate hasn't appeared on the front page once since the scandal broke. Is it being censored?

BBC: Anatomy of a Deception

Take a look at this prime example of a propaganda piece from BBC scaring people into believing anthropogenic global warming:

Climate change: Copenhagen in graphics 

24 November 2009, BBC

subtitle: "Where do greenhouse gas emissions come from?"

"Which countries are most responsible for causing human-induced climate change?" 

They say "most" but it excludes natural sources of CO2. It's trick that most people will be unaware of.  As I show in my summary page humans emit 26 billion tons of CO2 and nature 700 billion.

fig 1

So, nature emits 27 times more CO2 than humans but this crucial qualifying fact is swept under the rug by these charlatans.  Here comes the first dodgy graphic:

fig 2

 

It contains a very clever device which would go unnoticed by many.  This is a graph of CO2 "equivalent".  Most will read it as just CO2 but the figure is boosted from 26 billion to 47 billion tons by assuming these following radiative potentials:

CO2  1

CH4  21

N2O  310

We emit a tiny amount of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) but taken as the CO2 equivalent it looks much scarier because it's multiplied by those values.

Next graphic:

fig 3

A total distortion cause they leave out natural sources of CO2, NH4, N2O, but most importantly: H2O, the number one greenhouse gas.

Here is the real proportion of greenhouse gas contribution including H2O (fig 4).  But the BBC doesn't want you to know that cause the BBC has an agenda.

fig 4

 

Third graphic:

fig 5

Again, same trick as before.  This pie chart is the breakdown of the sliver of 0.28% in fig 4.  Now you see the scale of the deception.  The BBC purposely ignores 99.72% of the greenhouse effect to achieve their objective.

With that put in context you can see how silly the rest of the article becomes.

This is an outrage but we know why it is so.  In a guideline circulated June 2007, ironically titled "Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century" the BBC stated that they would no longer be presenting a fair and balanced assessment of AGW but would instead only  promote the pro-AGW case.  An excerpt from the BBC guidelines:

"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."

This is why we must now go to Russian TV for real news.  The BBC is the new Pravda.  But socialists love it.  They love being owned and done over by the the Socialist New World Order.  Greenies love being told what to do, cause it's for the "environment" don't you know?

The solution to climate change: voluntary reduction system.

There are still about a third of people who believe in AGW.  If all of them stop using electricity and eating most foods like meat, and stop showering etc (which shouldn't be too much of a concession for many of these sorts) it will reduce more greenhouse gas than a 20% reduction amongst everyone would.  (With the caveat that their reduction in carbon footprint might be mitigated by their BO.)  It all depends on their green religious conviction and willingness to rebel against the modern lifestyle.  Of course law enforcement and security will have to be beefed up in case any of them get jealous of us sceptics as we continue with our normal way of life and drive around in even larger SUVs just to rub it in.

The real AGW agenda revealed

Lord Monckton on the stop light of global warming: they call themselves green cause they're too yellow to admit they're red.  See them at this Copenhagen rally here.  



One of them is asked:  "What do you think is causing climate change?" His answer: "I really don't know actually I'm not a scientist." Hah, hah, of course he doesn't know; it's not about the science.  AGW is a political movement end of story.

See Hugo Chavez get applauded by the communistas at Copenhagen.

Australian article

Andrew Bolt blog

Chavez in Copenhagen

AHH, so anthropogenic global warming was about the political agenda and nothing to do with science after all.

Check out Lord Monckton

Check out Lord Monckton interviewing this Greenpeace activist who trusts Greenpeace as a matter of faith but would have to verify everything Lord Monckton just told her.

Her first statement is "We're here...for the people who negate climate change."  They really think that by paying their tax they can stop hurricanes, wind, storms, tidal waves and other things that they would, no doubt, classify as climate change. They literally think they can pay to stop bad weather.  It's a type of insanity isn't it?

My Summary disproving AGW

 1) Humans are not causing the CO2 increase

Humans are not the likely cause of the steady increase in CO2 reflected in the upward Keeling Curve (see figure below) of the Mauna Loa observations.  There is a dC13 carbon isotope ratio reduction often said by AGW believers to be a "fossil fuel signature".  It is not.  As you will see below fossil fuels aren't even from organic or "fossil" origins.  The slight reduction in the carbon 13 isotope with respect to the carbon 12 isotope can be produced by many means.  In fact, it has been statistically correlated to changes in the ocean produced by the El Nino effect:



Roy Spencer on how Oceans are Driving CO2



Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio

Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural?

An Example of the Little-Moron Logic & Mendacity of BOOP: The Carbon Isotope Ratio Nonsense.

Bristlecone dC13



Climate change is 'natural not man-made'



CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY 



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/spencer-on-an-alternate-view-of-co2-increases/





http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/a-look-at-human-co2-emissions-vs-ocean-absorption/





http://www.cgfi.org/2009/04/02/hemispheric-timing-shows-oceans-are-source-of-co2-by-dennis-t-avery/

So, it's not us but nature.  Warmth, a change in ocean currents, solar cycles, changes in land use and in the biosphere can all affect changes in CO2.

 2) Nature sources and sinks dwarf our output

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

The link above is sourced from the IPCC 2007 report which admits that 700 billion tons of gaseous carbon dioxide are produced and absorbed each year by nature, mostly in the biosphere.  We emit 26 billion tons or 3.7% of what nature does (3.6% of the total).

 3) The rate of CO2 increase is "unprecedented"

Using conversion ratio 7.7 gigatons = 1ppm CO2 air  (Wiki page says there is 3,000Gt in air / 387 ppm = 7.75 Gt/ppm) the annual CO2 flux is 90ppm.  If nature's sources of CO2 were turned off it would take 4 years for all the CO2 to be sucked from the atmosphere.  I hope this puts in perspective the huge capability nature has to neutralise our CO2.  Our emissions, estimated at 3.4ppm per year are just a bit player in this huge natural flux.

Consider this CO2 measurement from Mauna Loa (1, 2):

Note the huge seasonal variation of 6ppm - the seasonal squiggle (sawtooth waveform).  Every northern winter sources outweigh sinks to produce a gain of 20ppm/yr for several months (centre of red circle).  The yearly average increase of 2ppm is surpassed every northern winter by a factor of 10. It shows that nature is totally in charge of the CO2 content of the air.  It can easily account for our puny 3.4ppm/year.  Notions that nature is struggling to keep up with human CO2 are absurd.

And it's impossible to tell if the current yearly average increase is unprecedented because proxies for CO2 concentration such as dC13 can only be resolved in sediment samples to within a few thousand years (1).



Plus, I have heard Prof Ian Plimer say that the volcanic perturbations of CO2 are somehow "smoothed out" of the Mauna Loa "observations".





More posts on CO2 levels from me here and here.

 4) The first 50 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere does the heating

In Defence of ‘Heaven and Earth’

CO2 in the Atmosphere is Decreasing - How Will the Global Warming Crowd Explain THAT? UPDATED

Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming

http://www.plantsneedco2.org

 5) Global temperatures are level/declining

Dr Roy Spencer Latest Global Temperatures

One of the most amazing things to come out of this Climategate thing is that this line we've been fed that earth warmed over the 1900's appears to be totally falsified.  E.g. the NZ temp record is fudged.

Real temperature of New Zealand:

AGW faked temperature of New Zealand:

 

And yes, I have heard of the explanation from them about the need to tweak every single station as a result of a location changes at two stations and my answer is: why not just treat each station as a separate station? Why the need for any combined stations at all?  How can the application of a step function adjustment result in a gradual upward sloping?  It makes no sense.  It's a con job.

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

RAW v ADJUSTED GHCN Data

New Study: Hadley Center and CRU Apparently Cherry-picked Russia’s Climate Data

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

 6) The oceans are not rising

Sea Level Graphs from UC and some perspectives

 7) Antarctic glaciers are not melting

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away



Sea ice extent:



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 8) Himalayan glaciers are not melting

The glacier controversy

12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming



http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/02/18/12937041.html



http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/03/our-glaciers-are-growing-not-melting-more-falsehoods-from-al-gore/

 9) Greenland ice cap is not melting

Global warming ‘hoax’ will waste billions

 10) Floating north polar ice caps will not raise sea levels

See your local glass of water containing ice cubes.

 11) Warmer temperatures will not result in higher sea levels

There is slight thermal expansion with warmth but a melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets would be required to create any substantial rise and this would take thousands of years even if the air temp went up by 10C.

 12) The Maldives are not sinking

They're building an awful lot of new resorts there for a place that's sinking.

Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise



Hear Swedish scientist Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner describe how Australian scientists tore down the tree which showed that the sea level in the Maldives hasn't risen for 50 years on the Alex Jones Show here.

 13) Middle Ages warm period was 2 - 4C hotter than today

Grapes grown at Hadrian's Wall, farms in Greenland; it's an inconvenient truth Michael Mann tried to hide in his hockey stick graph.

 14) 4.5 billion years of climate change and only now we are to blame?



The following graph is from The Paleomap project:

As you can see we are in a cool period now.  And no worldwide death millions of years ago when the average temp was more than 10C warmer.



And these temperature proxy ice cores from Greenland and Vostok  only go back 450,000 years but you get the idea - the temp goes up and down.



As you can see from the gradient of the small uptick at the end of the above graph (linked ice core one) - the recent blade of the hockey stick - the gradient of temperature increase is mild compared to past events.  As also emphasised by this graph below (note this graph is flipped horizontally compared to the orientation in the previous link):

Above graph from here



Courtesy University of Texas





 15) Mt Kilimanjaro is not warming

Global Warming and Mt. Kilimanjaro 



Global Warming Not Behind Kilimanjaro Meltdown

 16) The oceans are not acidifying

Acid in the Oceans Fraud



Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control



Global Dynamic of Carbon Dioxide Production



  

The oceans can easily absorb any CO2 we produce.

 17) The hurricanes are not increasing

Global Hurricane Intensity NOT Increasing

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/wmo-we-cannot-at-this-time-conclusively-identify-anthropogenic-signals-in-past-tropical-cyclone-data/

 18) Outbound radiation increases with increasing surface temperature

Prof Richard Lindzen and Choi of MIT published a paper as recently as August of 2009 measuring changes in outbound radiation from earth as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite that outgoing radiation is keeping up with warming temperatures. The atmosphere is nowhere near as good as a glass panel on a greenhouse at trapping heat.



Consider that the moon's average temperature is -23C (-9.4F) - other estimates have it higher, like -10C, plus it varies by 6C from aphelion to perihelion, but it's a generalisation anyway cause in reality there is a dichotomy of -153C during the night to 107C during the day.   Earth is 15C, or 38C warmer than the moon   The entire earth atmosphere provides about 38C warming (on average).  The IPCC says that an increase of 280 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere, a doubling of pre-industrial levels, will produce 6C of warming. They expect us to believe a 7/25000 change in the atmosphere can produce 3/20 as much warming as the entire existing atmosphere!  (Although nitrogen and oxygen provide no greenhouse heating, so it is a 19/2000 change in actual greenhouse gas (including H2O and CO2) for 3/20 as much heating.)



The ERBES experiment shows the warming for a doubling of CO2 is at most 1C.  (This estimate concerns the ERBE data.  Better estimates for CO2 warming suggest a doubling of CO2 won't produce any noticeable rise.)

Cooler Heads Lindzen talk



Slides for Cooler Heads

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data



Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul



Slides accompanying Lord Monckton's lecture



Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change 



Global Warming Not Caused By CO2

 



 19) Water is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System 





Using the above link we produce about 0.28% of all greenhouse gases when water vapour is taken into account - not enough to sign our freedoms and liberties away for.

 



 20) Tipping points such as "clathrate guns" are not present today

No evidence as such, but wouldn't this "gun" have gone off during the Medieval Warm Period if it existed?





Consider the above Paleomap temperature  chart stretching back throughout 2 billion years of earth's history.  You'll see it maxes out at about 25C average - 10C warmer than today.  This shows a negative feedback, like a cap - a thermostat effect.  This is the opposite of a tipping point so promoted by AGW fear mongers.







 21) Even if we did have 1 - 2C warming it would be a good thing not a bad thing

Just like the Middle Ages warm period - a good time. 





 22) Drought in south Australia caused by Indian Ocean not global warming

Indian Ocean linked to Australian droughts

 



 23) CO2 rise lags warmth, not leads



CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages 

 24) Tree rings are not a good proxy for temperature

Tree-o-mometers are useless (i.e tree ring temp proxy data) because cosmic radiation affects tree ring growth more than anything:



Cosmic pattern to UK tree growth



That's why Micheal Mann had a divergence problem.  It's cause tree rings aren't even remotely a reliable temperature proxy, hence he used a trick to hide the decline by grafting on real temps where it suited. 





 25) The suns solar cycles affect cloud cover on earth



The Cloud Mystery 1/6



The Cloud Mystery

 26) Fossil fuels are not even fossil fuels

They are produced continuously deep underground by the earth:



CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECENT PREDICTIONS OF IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF PETROLEUM EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE.



Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.



MEASURABLE C14 IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS 





 27) "Scepticism is funded by big oil"

Take a look at this page with all the pigs lining up at the trough of global warming.



U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)



Update 17 Feb 2010: BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar have now pulled out of the US-CAP as it collapses due to climategate and the whole climate fraud being revealed daily.



Shell oil is still in at this point, one of the companies who funds CRU.  The CRU was started with funding by Shell and BP.  See this article and in particular the 5th comment by "Andrew" which says: 

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: The History of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, page 285, by Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste disposals people in the UK).

 28) Well then what is causing global warming?

On a macro scale the Milankovitch cycles control warming and cooling cycles of the ice ages, but what of shorter term changes?  Could sun changes be responsible? Maybe.  Could ocean changes be responsible? Probably.  Could land use changes be responsible? Yes, certainly.  An Australian physicist John Daly took the time to calculate the temperature anomaly and by excluding any measurement stations that were subject to the urban heat island effect he discovered no warming trend in the United States at all. Clearing the forest and building cities creates a local heating effect.  So, yes anthropogenic warming is real but it's fairly local and not global.

 29) Coral reefs not bleaching

Scientists 'crying wolf' over coral

Errata:

28 Dec 2009, Hi folks, I have made a few minor corrections/updates to this page such as (sections):



7) Thought was link to Antarctic land ice but it was sea ice.  I have found some land-related data here which I may include later.



14) The link to the Greenland ice core also has Vostok ice core data, I didn't realise.



18)  Lindzen says is it 1C at most for a doubling of CO2 (purely based on ERBS data). In an earlier doc of his Lord Monckton he says 1F not 1C but I think he later revised it to Lindzens estimate of 1C. In any case it would be much less than either of these.



19) Reverted to the original source's calculation - mine was out.

Peter Garrett and National Parks Australia to ban climbing of Uluru

This will be a huge blow for Australian tourism - an own goal.



I don't when or why Australia started going down this whole political-correctness-gone-mad route but it's got me irked. Giving a blank cheque to one group under the guise of "respect for culture" is not always useful.  This ban could in fact be a setback for the political cause of Aboriginal people.



Supporters of the ban have equated the rock to a European church or the Wailing Wall. They say: "Would you let people climb all over the Notre Dame or the Sistine Chapel?" They've left their logic at the door. A church is a building. It was built by humans for a purpose sacred to them on freehold land. It has an interior. No-one is expected to scale the outside of a building with grappling wires - sacred or not. A building is also temporary. It lasts maybe a few hundred years if you're lucky and then the function ends with the building. A rock is handed down by nature and lasts for thousands or millions of years. Who owns that? Past Aborigines had the most sensible answer: no-one. But their present day descendants have changed the rules for their own ends.



Supporters of the ban also cite tourists peeing and pooing on the rock. According to our modern culture it's uncivilised but in biological terms it's surely no worse than excrement from animals. Are we going to put a huge dome over the top to stop birds and lizards from peeing and pooing on it? No.

Beyond Thunderdome: Poo Dome