As for you Bryan, you seem to be particularly attracted to pseudo-intellectual drivel such as this which substitutes verbiage for actual content. The fact that you attempt to explain the incredibly poor efforts at communication by suggesting it is related to the authors experience of English as a second language is laughable.

The reason I asked John Ansell about it here was that he was posting on this thread and he seems to have an ability in cutting through this sort of stuff, something you seem to lack.

Their calculation is that it will take 25% off the profit for a dairy farmer, and add a lot of compliance issues.

Naturally, they are all very excited about this, especially as NZ is the only country outside of Europe pursuing such a scheme.

But since you challenged me, here goes (it helps to break the big Franco-Latin words down into little Anglo-Saxon ones):

"It calls for better global communication about natural or social sustainability crises and for a global initiative on the advancement of sustainability science, education and training" might mean: "All of us need to get better at explaining the crises that threaten the planet and its people. We need a worldwide plan to show people how science can keep our environment healthy."

(The original contained 7 words of three or more syllables. Mine had 2.)

And “The best young minds, especially those of women, need to be motivated to engage in interdisciplinary problem-solving, based on ever enhanced disciplinary excellence.” might mean: "We need to persuade the best young thinkers, especially women, to not only be brilliant specialists, but also use those skills to solve problems in fields allied to their own."

(Again, 6 multisyllables cut down to 2.)

But who knows?

no, you'll be none the wiser. those of us capable of evaluating information sources rationally are already the wiser.

There is no equivalent case in NZ, but I did blog about a judge adjudicating in a magazine debate back in September 2008. You might find the result and the judges comments interesting.

I suggest you check throughhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and see if you can spot any of the arguments you have read refuting AGW (hint they're all dealt with there) and read them before repeating said arguments.

the court case you cite above, did not change the game at all. denialists still claim victory despite the judge finding largely in favour of Gore. while certain mistakes were identified, it was acknowledged that the film was largely factually accurate. the people who brought the case certainly did not get what they wanted so could hardly claim victory.

no matter what, those with vested interests in the continuation of the status quo will fight it to the bitter end.

it's interesting that despite the fact that you claim you're still 'trying to make sense of' the arguments (a claim I'm skeptical of), you've decided that AGW is all about stealing from 'the people'. if you do discover that AGW is a serious threat will you acknowledge that those fighting against action are stealing a much more valuable thing from 'the people'.

I do know that Rodney Hide became an environmentalist because he was concerned about the 1970s revelations about global cooling being put about by the likes of Jim Hansen. So we can't blame him for being sceptical about the same NASA GISS people now warning of excessive warming.

As I've just posted elsewhere on this site, the best way to prove who's right and who's wrong is in a trial. I note that they've had one already and the judge found Monckton right and Gore wrong.

Now I think we need another one to test ALL the evidence for and against global warming and the action being proposed to deal with it.

A very public international trial is the only way for the millions whose pockets are being picked to know whether there's a problem, if so whether it's possible to solve it, and if so whether the cure is worse than the disease.

do you mean the judgement that found that despite some errors, An Inconvenient Truth largely presents the scientific understanding of AGW of the time accurately?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconveni… http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11…