Emission Trading and climate change

Page 144 of 377 FirstFirst ... 44 94 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 194 244 ... LastLast
Results 7,151 to 7,200 of 18819
  1. #7151
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A man's gotta have a hobby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    And to add - the Tax is so unbelievably Constitutionally valid, it is impossible to challenge. For all those who are unhappy with it; you will just have to wait until the next federal election. Sorry but, do something more constructive with your time.
    It will probably be a great thing if this fiasco is introduced.

    JuLIAR is history already, and after this farce goes ahead based on a lie, the Federal Labor Party will be a distant memory. They'll be holding a few dozen seats of they're lucky.

    What could be more constructive than pointing out the failure and ineptitude of this government, particularly with the introduction of a Carbon Dioxide Tax "under the government that JuLIAR leads".

  2. #7152
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You must be busy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Adding a graph that has been plucked from god knows where does not make your argument more persuasive or your ridiculous assertions easier to digest. "Not Joining-in" one; should not be hyphenated and two; displays the bias in the research. Please... Where did you get the 'research'?
    If you read the information correctly, you will see exactly where it came from.

    If you have alternative data, please post it.

    If you think cost of living pressures increasing for a lot of Australians, including power disconnections are ridiculous assertions, maybe you are too busy to stay in touch with reality.

  3. #7153
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What heinous action did he engage in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    This is the kind of journalist Bolt is

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...lena%20Popovic

    and not to mention the recent action against him for racism... He is a pathetic, sensationalist-type journalist.



    EDITED POST
    So what heinous action did he engage in? Did he use taxpayers money on a government trip to get smashed and have lap dances from strippers? Did he design a people-swap policy that treats human beings as cattle to be traded between countries?

    Why don't you share the reason for your ad hominem attacks?

    I love it when you guys start slinging mud, as it clearly demonstrates your weak ability to show any scientific credibility whatsoever.

    You should stick to your usual sliming tactics and accuse Andrew Bolt of teaching a Polar Bear to smoke cigarettes and drink crude oil.

  4. #7154
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Still can't distinguish between opinions and facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    Shame when we have to edit factual statements.

    While on Mr Bolt it isn't hard to find blogs pointing out his lies, as with this early 2010 link. Hardly current but there are plenty more, we could fill several pages from them along with the nongs that like to reference his fairy stories.
    Arctic ice was pushed out, rather than melted ę Andrew Bolt's Lies, Deceptions & Misrepresentations on AGW
    So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing all of the measured temperature increases?

    And then you also have empirical evidence that these temperature increases are causing all of the measured increases and decreases of ice over various parts of the Planet Earth?

    Or do you just have an opinion?

    Just like Andrew Bolt has an opinion, albeit more informed than yours.

    But not as many people read yours.

  5. #7155
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing all of the measured temperature increases?

    And then you also have empirical evidence that these temperature increases are causing all of the measured increases and decreases of ice over various parts of the Planet Earth?

    Or do you just have an opinion?

    Just like Andrew Bolt has an opinion, albeit more informed than yours.

    But not as many people read yours.

    I guess at least the Bogans and Morons need someone to write just for them, a task Bolt is very suited for.

  6. #7156
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So you believe there is no empirical evidence in medicine?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing all of the measured temperature increases?
    I see that you are being slippery with your words again...

    I suppose you believe that medicine has empirical evidence that smoking causes all cancers?
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  7. #7157
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing all of the measured temperature increases?

    And then you also have empirical evidence that these temperature increases are causing all of the measured increases and decreases of ice over various parts of the Planet Earth?


    Or do you just have an opinion?

    Just like Andrew Bolt has an opinion, albeit more informed than yours.

    But not as many people read yours.


    All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ.

    Try "contributing to" instead it might help you clear that fog that clouds your judgement.

    And just remember Bolt circulates to a wider audience as a result of the publications he writes for, this little frog pond doesn't count however he does not appear to be better informed just opinionated and bigoted, he writes opinion pieces that are enjoyed by his fans, you know, those bogans and dills we refer to.

  8. #7158
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    , this little frog pond doesn't count
    As the biggest Frog in this pond....I object to that.

  9. #7159
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    As the biggest Frog in this pond....I object to that.
    You're just a frog? I always thought you were the heron!!
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  10. #7160
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Nah..frogs have a lower carbon footprint

  11. #7161
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly
    Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural & man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural solar radiation) within the biosphere.

    Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic....all the tireless efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Sorry S&D there is NO proof of this statement, none whatsoever. Just computer models BS in BS out. It is simply what people have chosen to believe. If this statement is fact show us the proof.
    We know temps have risen we know co2 has also risen. We also know that co2 is a very small contributer to the GHG effect. We know water vapour is the main GHG. We know that man's contribution to the Co2 is tiny compared to that produced in nature.

    What we DONT know how much effect mans Co2 emissions has on temperature vs other natural events. At best we have guesswork. Hopefully over time the guesswork will become factual where it can be demonstrated in a way that is understandable to opposing scientists and the general population, (yes there are scientists who reject AGW therory for what it is).

    For crying out loud, without proper scientific evidence to prove this theory, how can anyone be so emphatic that co2 is the main driver of temperature change over the past 100 years, while there are so many other known drivers of temperature, that have a far greater effect than co2.

    It is beyond belief that so many people are sucked into having no doubt that co2 is the culprit.
    Rod....read the statement again. Essentially it is the hypothesis of AGW stated way back when - an assumption. We observe that atmospheric temperatures are rising. We also observe that concentrations of various GHGs are increasing. The hypothesis/assumption outlines the potential reasons or drivers behind these observation. It is a list of many of the things that can be tested to try and find fault with the hypothesis. To date, this hypothesis does, by and large, hold true. Unfortunately.

    Don't make yourself look wilfully ignorant by (yet again) asking for the evidence - there is a suite of critical papers that investigate each link in the chain of that hypothesis and find that it holds true - some of these papers are so fundamental that they date back decades. And they are all out there in the ether for your edificiation.

    We do know the proportion of GHGs in the atmosphere from humans vs that already there naturally (including water vapour) is relatively tiny. But what is already there represents a baseline....a year zero if you will. It is like coming across a barrel of water that is full to the brim with a tap at the bottom and an inflow at the top - water goes out at the same rate it comes in. And it remains full to the brim. Perfect balance. Our human analogue comes along and throws in just a cup of extra water....and the barrel overflows. Balance is broken - for a time. This is essentially what is happening in our atmosphere.

    As for what happens when that balance is broken....when it comes to our atmosphere and its physical response....what we have is I agree not much better than educated guesses. That doesn't make them wrong.

    Let's face it - you can probably tell many things about a plasterboard ceiling just by looking at it. Certainly many more things than the average punter. Many of them believe you because 'you're the expert'. In actual fact....you are making educated guesses....based on your experience and the data you've collected over time. And for the large part....your 'guesses' are probably right. But the average punter can't see (and may not necessarily trust) your experience and your dataset.

    I would humbly suggest that in this case......you may be the 'average punter'.

    Oh and just a hint......don't focus simply on CO2. There's much much more to GHG's than that. A far richer and more interesting brew. Such an epic focus on one ingredient lends your words far more simplicity than they deserve.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  12. #7162
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ.

    Try "contributing to" instead it might help you clear that fog that clouds your judgement.

    And just remember Bolt circulates to a wider audience as a result of the publications he writes for, this little frog pond doesn't count however he does not appear to be better informed just opinionated and bigoted, he writes opinion pieces that are enjoyed by his fans, you know, those bogans and dills we refer to.

    It seems that you are the one that cant grasp the argument, which is, man made co2 emissions and related emitting activities are causing blah blah blah - not contibuting to - but causing it, all of it. Everything else is natural and unchangable and therefore not a problem.

  13. #7163
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Nah..frogs have a lower carbon footprint
    Got any empirical evidence of that?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  14. #7164
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Got any empirical evidence of that?

    Yep....ever tried to light a frog???

  15. #7165
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You guys are awesome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    I guess at least the Bogans and Morons need someone to write just for them, a task Bolt is very suited for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I love it when you guys start slinging mud, as it clearly demonstrates your weak ability to show any scientific credibility whatsoever.
    Your scientific knowledge knows no bounds.

  16. #7166
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Numbers, not words.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I see that you are being slippery with your words again...
    I have asked you before to quantify the "contribution" that you believe anthropogenic emissions are responsible for and you ran away like a schoolgirl.

    Care to quantify what you believe to be a percentage of contribution?

    Or is "most of it" your best scientific effort you can muster?

    If so, I'll prefer to use "all", as "most of it" could be statistically indistinguishable from "all".

    If you're not careful, you'll be the one winning a Nobel Peace Prize with that kind of science.

  17. #7167
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Not too good at this, are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ.
    Someone doesn't "get it". Maybe if "someone" read the thread, they wouldn't make themselves look so foolish.

    And I didn't get this from Bolt, I got it from lots of other places. Here's one:

    "My understanding about Mr Abbott is he has been dismissive of the science that human activity causes climate change,"
    No opinion poll can change the fact that climate change is real. It is caused by human activity. And we must cut carbon pollution.
    cause

    a. The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.
    b. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.



    Guess who? Hint, she's a LIAR!

    And she also said this before the last election:

    "We will have that price on carbon when we have a deep community consensus."


    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    Try "contributing to" instead it might help you clear that fog that clouds your judgement.
    Try convincing JuLIAR first. Then she will likely dump this TAX fiasco until she figures out what "percentage" contribution it is. Until you convince JuLIAR, she'll keep living in that fog that clouds her judgement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    And just remember Bolt circulates to a wider audience as a result of the publications he writes for, this little frog pond doesn't count however he does not appear to be better informed just opinionated and bigoted, he writes opinion pieces that are enjoyed by his fans, you know, those bogans and dills we refer to.
    You mean bogans and dills like these two:

    BOGAN-VILLE remains contested territory, Kevin Rudd has admitted, and a "sensitive" subject for the former prime minister.

    In the backrooms of Canberra, Bogan-ville is said to be Mr Rudd's name for The Lodge since Julia Gillard and boyfriend Tim Mathieson moved in.


    On the eve of his "sack-iversary", as the opposition has dubbed it, Mr Rudd was asked, as Foreign Affairs Minister, when he planned to return to Bogan-ville.


    She may have meant the Papua New Guinean province of Bougainville, but the glint in Julie Bishop's eye suggested otherwise.


    "The Australian government remains deeply seized of the Bogan-ville peace process," Mr Rudd replied to his foreign affairs shadow and parliamentary chum.


    Who knows what the public gallery thought, but the parliament erupted.


    Mr Rudd continued, deadpan, that Australia must do all it could to further the peace process there.


    Kevin Rudd turns tables on Bogan-ville talks | The Australian

  18. #7168
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Sort yourselves out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    We do know the proportion of GHGs in the atmosphere from humans vs that already there naturally (including water vapour) is relatively tiny. But what is already there represents a baseline....a year zero if you will. It is like coming across a barrel of water that is full to the brim with a tap at the bottom and an inflow at the top - water goes out at the same rate it comes in. And it remains full to the brim. Perfect balance. Our human analogue comes along and throws in just a cup of extra water....and the barrel overflows. Balance is broken - for a time. This is essentially what is happening in our atmosphere.
    So your saying nature was balanced until humans came along and changed it, or "broke the balance"? So you are saying humans caused this "balance to be broken"? Cos if we weren't doing this, it would still be in natural balance. So you're saying we caused it.

    Otherwise your analogy would be that water was already tipping out, and we just contributed to that already imbalanced situation to some yet to be quantified degree.

    But sorry SBD, your pal Geno62 openly derides your lack of logic:

    Originally Posted by Geno62
    All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ.
    Do you two wanna sort yourselves out, then come back when you've actually figured out how this cult you "believe" in is supposed to work.

    No wonder the credibility of this farce is dropping like Labor's primary vote.

  19. #7169
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Well spotted.

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    It seems that you are the one that cant grasp the argument, which is, man made co2 emissions and related emitting activities are causing blah blah blah - not contibuting to - but causing it, all of it. Everything else is natural and unchangable and therefore not a problem.
    Yeh, it will be fun to watch SBD and Geno62 duke it out.

  20. #7170
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Ad hominem as nauseum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    This is the kind of journalist Bolt is

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...lena%20Popovic

    and not to mention the recent action against him for racism... He is a pathetic, sensationalist-type journalist.



    EDITED POST
    So, you engage in ad hominem smearing tactics, then run away without pointing out these heinous crimes anyway. You can't even engage in muck raking properly.

    But just for context, let's get another opinion to balance yours:

    Reader Dr Mark Sinclair, senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Technology, Sydney, writes:

    By the way, Iíve been following with some interest your public discussions of matters Indigenous.
    It happens that I ran a one-teacher school in a remote Aboriginal community in the NT in 1992-93. My Honours thesis was about this experience and was titled ďFrom B Effect to C Effect: The rhetoric and practice of Aboriginal self-determinationĒ. The thesis argues that, in the field of education, in matters of self-determination, Aborigines are not entirely victims. In simple terms the basic proposition here is that some (not all) of the misery that characterises Aboriginal lived experience is of their own making.
    Being a whitefella and writing about matters black in this way nearly got me kicked out of Griffith University in 1995ÖNonetheless, I was eventually awarded a Hons 1 and went on to do my doctorate on Social JusticeÖI expanded the victim concept to encompass the social justice market in its entirety. The doctorate was titled ĒSocial justice in education: A market in the production and reproduction of victim circumstancesĒ. The thesis was not well-received at the time (1999/2000), I suspect because its major finding was that the primary beneficiaries of social justice initiatives are advocates of social justice and that the ostensible target populations for whom social justice initiatives purportedly exist derive little or no benefit from them.
    While the report about the terrible state of affairs of indigenous affairs this century which led to John Howardís intervention in a sense vindicated what Iíd argued more than a decade earlier, it still troubles me deeply that things are not improving and if anything are getting worse. In part, the issues you are airing publicly highlight a contributing factorÖi.e. they are illustrative of what I call the victim market and its beneficiaries. I urge you to not let this matter drop from public discussion.



    On the danger of tackling victimhood | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    When our country gets to the point when we cannot even openly discuss contentious issues, then the politically correct censoring zealots easily create this type of waste and ineptitude:


    The Productivity Commission found gross inefficiency in spending on Indigenous policy. No surprises there. Will Labor ignore this latest evidence of its shortcomings on Indigenous affairs?


    "Dismally poor returns." Thatís the verdict of the Strategic Review on government expenditure on Indigenous policy prepared by the Productivity Commission for the Cabinet.

    "the explosive document calls for 25 programs to be shut down straight away. Excessive red tape, inefficient spending, flawed government logic and false assumptions all contribute to the failings."


    "In the Indigenous area, more than any other, there has been a huge gap between policy intent and policy execution, with numerous examples of well-intentioned policies and programs which have failed to produce their intended results because of serious flaws in implementation and delivery."


    Getting The Facts You Deserve | newmatilda.com
    So, to question billions of dollars being wasted is "racist"?

    And to question billions of dollars being wasted on fresh air is "denialist"?

    It's easy to label those you wish to silence.

    45 years ago, a few stood up to many and emerged victorious, and earned respect. And history has proven them right. Democracy is always worth the fight against those who seek to stifle dissent and free speech.

  21. #7171
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

  22. #7172
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You want a credibilty problem, try JuLIAR.

    So you want to hold a lowly journalist to account for his "ethics"?

    I guess you're going to go nuts smearing these two trying to bring in the Carbon Dioxide TAX?

    Liberal Senator George Brandis said this in Parliament yesterday about Labor backbencher Craig Thomson:

    Yesterday during Question Time in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister was asked by the Member for Mackellar whether she retained complete confidence in the Member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson. She was further asked whether she had conducted an investigation of her own into the allegations surrounding the Member for Dobell. The Prime Minister did not answer the second part of the question. However, she did tell the House of Representatives that she had complete confidence in the Member for Dobell, that in her opinion he was doing a fine job and that she was looking forward to him doing that job ďfor a very long, long, long time to comeĒ. Because the Prime Minister avoided answering the second part of the question, we do not know what, if any, investigations she has made into allegations concerning Mr Thomson. We do know that on Monday night Ms Gillard said:

    These matters have been and are in the process of being looked at through various investigations.

    She did not elaborate on what those various investigations were, but she did say that she had not held any detailed discussions with Mr Thomson.
    In view of the severity of the allegations that have been made about Mr Thomson, there are certain inquiries which the Prime Minister herself must make and certain questions which she herself needs to address. I know that Mr Thomson has denied allegations of wrongdoing made against him. Those who are observing the Thomson case carefully will be able to form their own conclusions about the credibility of those denials and about the credibility of the Prime Ministerís evident reliance upon those denials. But there are many facts now in the public arena which are not in dispute.
    Those undisputed facts include the following. Between 2002 and December 14, 2007, when he resigned after his election to the House of Representatives, Mr Thomson was the national secretary of the Health Services Union. In that capacity, Mr Thomson was issued with a corporate credit card held by the union, transactions upon which were paid for from union funds. On two occasions - on April 8, 2005 and August 16, 2007 - calls were made from Mr Thomsonís mobile telephone to the telephone number of Sydney Outcalls, an escort agency. On April 9, 2005 and August 16 2007, the HSU credit card issued to Mr Thomson was used to pay for services provided by Keywed Pty Ltd, which is the corporate entity which trades as Sydney Outcalls. The payments were in the amounts of $2,475 and $385 respectively. The credit card vouchers were signed in Thomsonís name, and a driverís licence number which corresponds to the number of Thomsonís driverís licence was endorsed upon the receipts. On April 7, 2009, Thomson denied allegations of improper use of the union credit card and told the Sydney Morning Herald that the allegations against him were the result of feuding in the unionís Victorian branches, with ďmore and more outrageous claims and counterclaims being madeĒ by his factional opponents. In the time since, Mr Thomson has continued to deny that he was responsible for the use of the union credit card to obtain escort services. As recently as the week before last, in the course of an interview with Michael Smith on radio 2UE in Sydney, Thomson asserted that the credit card had been used by a third party and not by him. Let me read into the record some extracts from that interview:


    Smith: Hang on, mate. Iím repeating it. Iím saying your signature is on that voucher. Your driverís licence has been transcribed on the back of it. How did all that get there?

    Thomson: Well, Iím not saying thatís my signature for a start. Thatís the first thing thatís thereÖ
    Smith: OK, so did someone forge your signature for the procurement of those services on your credit card?
    Thomson: Well, it certainly wasnít me and in fact on over half of the occasions that Iím alleged to have been using that card in those sorts of establishments, I actuallyÖ
    Smith: Letís talk about oneÖ
    Thomson: Iím not going to go through the details of stuffÖ
    The transcript proceeds after a few minutes:
    Smith: OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, werenít you?
    Thomson: Yes, I was.
    Smith: OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly, did you go and report it to the police?
    Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to use of credit cards at an escort agency.
    Smith: Did he forge your signature?
    Thomson: I donít know whether he forged my signature or who forged my signature...
    As is the practice in New South Wales, Thomsonís signature appears on his driverís licence. Paul Westwood OAM, a former director of the document examination section of the Australian Federal Police, who is a handwriting expert with 45 years experience as a forensic handwriting examiner, has compared the signature on Thomsonís driverís licence and the signature on the credit card voucher and has concluded that they were made by the same person.
    Photographs of Thomsonís driverís licence and the credit card voucher were reproduced in the Sydney Morning Herald on December 1, 2010, and they appear to the untrained eye to be identical. If Thomson did not sign the credit card voucher, then it was signed in his name by an expert forger who eluded Mr Westwood and who also had Thomsonís driverís licence.
    In the same interview with Michael Smith, Thomson admitted that in his capacity as the secretary of the HSU he had authorised the payment by the union to the credit card provider of the credit card accounts, which included debts for the services provided by Sydney Outcalls on both April 9, 2005 and August 16, 2007. Let me read a little more of Michael Smithís interview with Mr Thomson into the record:

    Smith: Ok. Craig, when you got the credit card statement for that month with $2,475 appearing Ė
    Thomson: Michael, Iíve said the difficulty we have in terms of going through these issues -
    Smith: Hang on a sec, mate, itís a simple question. A simple question, Craig. Did you authorise it getting paid?
    Thomson: UmÖ in terms of the actual bills that have been paid? Yes, I authorised all the credit card bills -
    In the same interview with Michael Smith, Thomson also asserted that an unnamed third party had repaid some $15,000 to the HSU in respect of escort services. Reading again from Michael Smithís interview:
    Smith: OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, werenít you?
    Thomson: Yes, I was.
    Smith: OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly? Did you go and report it to the police?
    Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to the use of credit cards at an escort agency.
    Smith: Did you go to the police though, Craig?
    Thomson: We have gone through the appropriate bodies in terms of that and you know there has been a person who has paid back some money.
    Smith: Who was that?
    Thomson: Well, I am not at liberty to say, again, because I am very careful in relation to defamation action. There has been a private agreement signed.
    In light of these facts and Mr Thomsonís assertions and admissions, the Prime Minister must satisfy herself in relation to the following matters. First, given the amounts of money involved and the entity to whom the credit card payments were made, why did Thomson not query the accounts before authorising them for payment? Secondly, given that Thomsonís mobile telephone number was used to contact the service provider and that his driverís licence was produced to verify payment, how did his credit card, driverís licence and mobile phone find their way into the possession of another person? Thirdly, why was their loss or misappropriation not reported? Fourthly, in what circumstances were they returned? Fifthly, as Mr Thomson now claims that his signature was forged, why was that matter not reported to the police? Sixthly, what is the name of the person who allegedly repaid $15,000 to the HSU and what was the reason for the repayment? Was that person an officer or employee of the union and is that person still employed by the union? Seventhly, if it is the case that another person has accepted responsibility for the fraudulent use of the credit card, why has that version of events not emerged from other sources and why was no evidence disclosed or adduced to that effect in the Fairfax defamation proceedings? Finally, if a third party accepted responsibility, why would a settlement of a matter in which Thomsonís reputation was potentially so gravely affected preclude him from taking any steps to protect his reputation? Moreover, the version of events given by Thomson on August 1 contains inconsistencies with Thomsonís previous versions of events. The Prime Minister must therefore satisfy herself of this: given that Thomson now admits that he personally authorised the payment of the credit card account, why did he allege that his enemies had falsified HSU records and does he still allege that?

    I regret to say that there is more that the Prime Minister should be asking the Member for Dobell in order to satisfy herself that he should have her confidence. In April 2009, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Thomson, when national secretary of the HSU, obtained cash advances on the HSU credit card totalling over $100,000. An external audit has not been able to locate any receipts or other records to justify those cash advances. Those matters, I understand, are currently being investigated by Fair Work Australia.
    Finally, yesterday the Sydney Daily Telegraph reported that New South Wales Labor Party headquarters had paid $40,000 towards legal fees which Mr Thomson had incurred in bringing his private defamation proceedings against Fairfax, the publishers of the Sydney Morning Herald. This morning the Melbourne Herald Sun reported that this amount was in fact $90,000. That payment was apparently made in May of this year. Thomson discontinued the proceedings on about April 28, having failed in December 2010 to prevent the disclosure of his credit card and telephone records. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that it is proper for the Australian Labor Party to contribute some $90,000 towards the memberís private defamation action against Fairfax, which claim he abandoned shortly after the court compelled the disclosure of his credit card and telephone records which appear to give the lie to his claim that his signature was forged?
    Finally, it was only yesterday, when this matter was brought to light, that the member for Dobell sought to amend his register of a memberís interests by lodging with the Register of Membersí Interests for the House of Representatives a letter that identified the payment of a sum of money in May 2011 by the Australian Labor Partyís New South Wales branch, in settlement of a legal matter to which I was a party. Why was that amendment made only after its disclosure was revealed?
    I have in the course of this speech suggested many questions that the Prime Minister must ask, but there is one simple question that she must answer for the Australian people: why does she continue to believe that the conduct of the Member for Dobell is acceptable, and how can she possibly continue to assert that he is doing, in her words, ďa fine jobĒ?
    Brandis on the Thomson case | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    There could be an election sooner rather than later:

    Embattled federal Labor MP Craig Thomson is being investigated over whether he misled industrial umpire Fair Work Australia.
    Fair Work Australia has previously found insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Thomson, the member for the NSW seat of Dobell.
    Seven News reported on Thursday the industrial body was now investigating whether Mr Thomson misled the initial probe into allegations his former union credit card was used to pay for prostitutes.
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard is understood to have been informed of the fresh inquiry, but continues to stand by the MP.


    Telstra BigPond News and Weather
    No wonder JuLIAR has been looking so worried this week.

  23. #7173
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You go Barnaby!

    Climate catechism? Alex Sloan on ABC 666 Canberra: Do you believe in climate change?

    Joyce: I believe the climate changes all the time. I believe in the work of Professor John Christie and Professor Roy Spencer. Do you believe all scientist believe in global warming?

    Sloan: I look to scientists who have been peer reviewed, Barnaby Joyce.

    Joyce: Do you believe Roy Spencer and John Christie were members of the IPCC, Alex?

    Sloan: Barnaby Joyce, let me go to . . .

    Joyce: Because they were. They were the lead atmospheric scientists of the IPCC. Why don't you read their stuff?

    Sloan: It's not because I choose not to. Barnaby Joyce, we lean on the peer review system in this country and in the world in terms of scientists. And that is about scientists asking questions of other scientists.

    Joyce: I've just given you two IPCC scientists and you've said that you don't recognise their work.

    Joyce: Do you believe that this tax will have any effect on the climate?

    Sloan: (four seconds of silence). Barnaby Joyce, what I suppose we're being told . . .

    Joyce: Well, why won't you answer that question?

    Sloan: Well, probably yes.

    Joyce: You're the only person in Australia who believes that.

    Sloan: I don't find Barnaby Joyce nasty. I find him feisty.


    We're not sure this interview has been peer-reviewed to be honest. But it gave us a laugh... | The Australian
    You've got to see it again:


    Joyce: Do you believe that this tax will have any effect on the climate?

    Sloan: Well, probably yes.

    Joyce: You're the only person in Australia who believes that.



    I'll have to point Barnaby to this site, he'll find a few more people "who believes that".

  24. #7174
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    It seems that you are the one that cant grasp the argument, which is, man made co2 emissions and related emitting activities are causing blah blah blah - not contibuting to - but causing it, all of it. Everything else is natural and unchangable and therefore not a problem.
    Man made emmissions are contributing to global warming, but it is not that simple. The scientists tackling this are creating predictive models that can replicate the past which then give us a guide but not certainty of the future. Take something like global ice melt, we have strong melting in the Artic but not in the Antartic, the effect of the ozone hole in the southern skies serves to cool so one lever effects different areas in different ways because of a counter balancing effect. Also glacier melt for example existed before warming, the warming is speeding it up but not the sole cause. Asia is not experiencing as much warming because of sulpher emmissions which serve to cool. The mass of the ocean moderates temperature rises as CO2 increases and also locks up some CO2 as well. The concern is the effect on fish and shellfish stocks and if eventually it tips the other way and goes from being a moderator to a contributor of warming.

    No one who has an open mind is saying greenhouse gas emmissions are causing all the changes alone, there are other natural and counter balancing cycles in play as well and it is the scientists not bloggists that give us the best chance of understanding those. However it is clear we do need to act, we are causing problems and those problems have the potential to make the world a less pleasant place to be in and we have nowhere else to go. Your take is typical of someone who is getting sucked in by the propaganda and has closed their mind off to new information.
    ,,

  25. #7175
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So your saying nature was balanced until humans came along and changed it, or "broke the balance"? So you are saying humans caused this "balance to be broken"? Cos if we weren't doing this, it would still be in natural balance. So you're saying we caused it.

    Otherwise your analogy would be that water was already tipping out, and we just contributed to that already imbalanced situation to some yet to be quantified degree.

    But sorry SBD, your pal Geno62 openly derides your lack of logic:



    Do you two wanna sort yourselves out, then come back when you've actually figured out how this cult you "believe" in is supposed to work.

    No wonder the credibility of this farce is dropping like Labor's primary vote.

    Nature is continually changing but over the last few thousand years in ways man can adapt to, what is happening now is that we are damaging the natural cycles and have the potential to make life on earth pretty miserable or possibly unlivable if we don't mend our ways. Neither SBD's or my comments contradict they are simply two approaches to explaining the same thing, something educators do all the time to get a message across.

    EDITED POST, removed personal belittling comments.

  26. #7176
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So you want to hold a lowly journalist to account for his "ethics"?

    I guess you're going to go nuts smearing these two trying to bring in the Carbon Dioxide TAX?

    [/I][/I]

    There could be an election sooner rather than later:



    No wonder JuLIAR has been looking so worried this week.
    This isn't about climate change it is about the financial and moral dealings of a member of parliament which has been brought into the public limelight by The Age initially. If this bloke falls on his sword it is a problem of his own making, don't attribute it to something it is not, that is just letting him off the hook, you wouldn't want that would you, after all it is a Labor bloke, you know, the ones you don't like.

    Also don't make the fools mistake of believing that anyone who is not an Andrew Bolt worshipper is a member of the Labor Party.

    EDITED POST, removed personal comments.

    We remind you again, PLAY THE BALL NOT THE MAN.

  27. #7177
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Yep....ever tried to light a frog???
    Not without cannabis and hydrocarbons. So you might have a point....
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  28. #7178
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So your saying nature was balanced until humans came along and changed it, or "broke the balance"? So you are saying humans caused this "balance to be broken"? Cos if we weren't doing this, it would still be in natural balance. So you're saying we caused it.
    In simplistic terms.....yes.

    Balance is a relative concept after all rather than an absolute and there have certainly been natural events (volcanic eruptions, peat & forest fires etc) in the past that will have tipped the balance for a short period. But nothing sustained like the fossil fuel burning that the human species has been doing since the Industrial Revolution....that's a wobble in the balance that will take some time to rectify.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  29. #7179
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    . The scientists tackling this are creating predictive models that can replicate the past which then give us a guide but not certainty of the future.



    . Your take is typical of someone who is getting sucked in by the propaganda and has closed their mind off to new information.

    ,,

    And there in lies the problem. We all know what happens when the alarmists start using predictive models.

    I am very well informed, just not as vocal as some about it on this particular issue. Do you know what snowball earth was ? If you do, you certainly would not be worrying about a bit of ice melt.

  30. #7180
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    Do you know what snowball earth was ?
    It was a little before my time. Can you tell me about it? What was it like?
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  31. #7181
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    ANNOUNCEMENT

    This thread will be temporarily closed over night

    The closure will occur later tonight.

    We have to clear out stuff
    &
    Maintain the Filters.


    Pardon our work ethic

  32. #7182
    Atilla
    Guest

    Default The Man who pays the Piper, calls the tune.

    For the over educated who are the only ones that can interpret the science.

    Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, retired, on scientistsí independence. ę No Carbon Tax Website

  33. #7183
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    For the over educated who are the only ones that can interpret the science.

    Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, retired, on scientistsí independence. ę No Carbon Tax Website
    WOT (Web of trust) rates that site as 'very poor' in most categories. I'm not going to risk loading it.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  34. #7184

  35. #7185
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Announcement

    The Thread is open again

  36. #7186
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    And there in lies the problem. We all know what happens when the alarmists start using predictive models.

    I am very well informed, just not as vocal as some about it on this particular issue. Do you know what snowball earth was ? If you do, you certainly would not be worrying about a bit of ice melt.
    Why reference snowball earth, wasn't that the period before life existed on earth some billions of years ago, even if it existed, I thought it was little more than a theory.

  37. #7187

    Behind the Scenes is Where it all Happens

    The Administration Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,245

    Default Update

    UPDATE

    During last night's enforced rest we discovered that the biggest problem with this thread is the amount of personal insults that you "contributors" get up to.


    We, ( The Admin Team) are constantly posting "Play the Ball Not the Man"

    SO
    The following rules will now apply to this thread

    1st Offence - Admin Warning

    2nd Offence - Banned for a Week

    3rd Offence - Banned for a Month

    4th Offence - Banned Permanently


    Please learn some Forum Decorum

    Note: The way we ban people permanently notifies all forums on the web of your IP, your Email, and your Username and blocks you from using any blog or forum with that ID. So be careful.

  38. #7188
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Why reference snowball earth, wasn't that the period before life existed on earth some billions of years ago, even if it existed, I thought it was little more than a theory.

    650 million years ago apparently. No theory, proven to have happened and very simple life forms survived it and evolved into what we are today. But basically, I referenced it because it shows what can happen when there is not enough co2 in the atmosphere and too much sea ice.

  39. #7189
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Is there any valid reason for anyone on this thread would want to engage in a discussion about "snowball earth"?

    The idea of an "snowball earth" is just an hypothesis. It has much less certainty than a theory. Scientists cannot agree if the earth was once a "snowball" or a "slushball" let alone if it was either.

    Tradies and home renovators on this thread certainly would not have any first hand evidence of a "snowball" or "slushball" earth. Any opinions posted here on this particular topic would certainly be information that the person found on the Internet and simply repeating here. No one on this thread is qualified to discuss the "snowball" earth hypothesis. Any claims made by an unqualified person on the topic would almost certainly be counter-claimed by someone else equally unqualified to comment on this. The discussion would be pointless, a case of the blind leading the blind.

  40. #7190
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    650 million years ago apparently. No theory, proven to have happened and very simple life forms survived it and evolved into what we are today. But basically, I referenced it because it shows what can happen when there is not enough co2 in the atmosphere and too much sea ice.
    I agree with Jack the Hammer, this is way out of the ball park, even the CO2 and sea ice part, also it is not proven by any stretch of the imagination. It is an idea formed to offer an explanation of why certain things exist along the lines of the big bang theory I guess except that the BB theory is more plausable in the possibility stakes.

  41. #7191
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    1
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Yep....ever tried to light a frog???
    Not without cannabis and hydrocarbons. So you might have a point....
    You guys don't know how to light a Frog?
    PLUG IT IN!
    frog-light.jpg

  42. #7192
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Ok then, let me explain it a bit better for you. Once upon a time, there was planet Earth. Before continental drift happened, the majority of planet Earth's land mass was situated around the equator. The equatorial region has the warmest climate and by far the most rainfall. At the time, there were no animals on Earth's land mass, therefore a delicate low level of co2. There were however, very simple, single celled microbes in the ocean which formed a slime on the seabed and absorbed co2 in the oceans. A series of massive rainfall events occured where the available co2, combined with the water vapour, created acid rain. This acid rain then fell at the equatorial region, which, at the time contained the majority of Earth's land mass. As a result of the rainfall, huge amounts of weathering occured to the Earths surface, releasing huge amounts of co2 and washing it into the oceans, where it is trapped to this day as limestone reefs ( exposed now as flinders ranges, the kimberly etc... or still submerged) The huge depletion of atmospheric co2 caused the temperature to plummet and over time the polar ice caps began to grow. With no means of replacing the lost co2, the Earth's temperature continued to drop. The polar ice was extending down towards the equator. Sea ice is the best natural reflector of light in the world and the open ocean is the worst. The ocean absorbs the sun's energy and keeps the planet warm. With the open ocean rapidly dissappearing and been replaced with the best reflector of sunlight, a unstoppable chain reaction was in progress. The Earth froze. It was covered by ice anywhere from a few hundred metres thick to a few kilometres thick. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Parent rock in the Flinders Ranges (AUS) and in Death Valley (USA) has been tested for magnetism. Each rock has its own magnetism that can pinpoint a latitude where that rock was formed. The testing proved that Australia was on or very near the equator, as was death valley. This is significant because large quantities of glacial drop stones have been found in both locations. A glacial drop stone is a rock ( upto the size of a bus) that is picked up by a glacier and moved sometimes thousands of miles before been deposited when the glacier melts. The fact that Australia was once at the equator, along with the fact that we have glacial drop stones, proves that there was ice at the equator. If there is ice at the equator - the worlds warmest region - then obviously the rest of the world is covered in ice aswell, hence snowball earth. The earth was released from the ice when a series of super volcanoes erupted through the ice and replenished the co2, warming the planet. And we all lived happily ever after.



    So there you have it JTH and johnc. Given the fact that the largest ice age the planet has ever experienced was caused by the atmosphere, I think its pretty relevant. If you disagree, well thats fine too.

  43. #7193
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    Ok then, let me explain it a bit better for you. Once upon a time, there was planet Earth. Before continental drift happened, the majority of planet Earth's land mass was situated around the equator. The equatorial region has the warmest climate and by far the most rainfall. At the time, there were no animals on Earth's land mass, therefore a delicate low level of co2. There were however, very simple, single celled microbes in the ocean which formed a slime on the seabed and absorbed co2 in the oceans. A series of massive rainfall events occured where the available co2, combined with the water vapour, created acid rain. This acid rain then fell at the equatorial region, which, at the time contained the majority of Earth's land mass. As a result of the rainfall, huge amounts of weathering occured to the Earths surface, releasing huge amounts of co2 and washing it into the oceans, where it is trapped to this day as limestone reefs ( exposed now as flinders ranges, the kimberly etc... or still submerged) The huge depletion of atmospheric co2 caused the temperature to plummet and over time the polar ice caps began to grow. With no means of replacing the lost co2, the Earth's temperature continued to drop. The polar ice was extending down towards the equator. Sea ice is the best natural reflector of light in the world and the open ocean is the worst. The ocean absorbs the sun's energy and keeps the planet warm. With the open ocean rapidly dissappearing and been replaced with the best reflector of sunlight, a unstoppable chain reaction was in progress. The Earth froze. It was covered by ice anywhere from a few hundred metres thick to a few kilometres thick. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Parent rock in the Flinders Ranges (AUS) and in Death Valley (USA) has been tested for magnetism. Each rock has its own magnetism that can pinpoint a latitude where that rock was formed. The testing proved that Australia was on or very near the equator, as was death valley. This is significant because large quantities of glacial drop stones have been found in both locations. A glacial drop stone is a rock ( upto the size of a bus) that is picked up by a glacier and moved sometimes thousands of miles before been deposited when the glacier melts. The fact that Australia was once at the equator, along with the fact that we have glacial drop stones, proves that there was ice at the equator. If there is ice at the equator - the worlds warmest region - then obviously the rest of the world is covered in ice aswell, hence snowball earth. The earth was released from the ice when a series of super volcanoes erupted through the ice and replenished the co2, warming the planet. And we all lived happily ever after.



    So there you have it JTH and johnc. Given the fact that the largest ice age the planet has ever experienced was caused by the atmosphere, I think its pretty relevant. If you disagree, well thats fine too.
    It is a HYPOTHESIS not FACT.

    You are only repeating something that you found on the Internet and not something that you research yourself. This is a useless discussion, nobody on this thread is qualified to comment on this topic. Even scientists cannot say for certain that "snowball" earth happen.

    Stick to what you know best, your particular trade skills and leave science to those who are qualified.

  44. #7194
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
    For the over educated who are the only ones that can interpret the science.

    Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, retired, on scientists’ independence. ę No Carbon Tax Website
    The man who pays the piper calls the tune. The US govt, ie taxpayer, continues to pay Roy Spencer and John Christy. Why? Also I believe Murray Salby still draws a salary at Melbourne Uni. I'm sure there a more examples, these were just the ones i can recall.

    Also I can't find much science in the Dr Art Raiche video, does he have anything published on climate science?

  45. #7195
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    It is a HYPOTHESIS not FACT.

    You are only repeating something that you found on the Internet and not something that you research yourself. This is a useless discussion, nobody on this thread is qualified to comment on this topic. Even scientists cannot say for certain that "snowball" earth happen.

    Stick to what you know best, your particular trade skills and leave science to those who are qualified.

    Well, given that it all happened 650 million years ago, I doubt someone took notes pal. AGW is hypothesis aswell, unless you hadn't noticed.

  46. #7196
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    AGW is hypothesis as well, unless you hadn't noticed.
    Actually, AGW is a theory - well beyond a hypothesis.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  47. #7197
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    Well, given that it all happened 650 million years ago, I doubt someone took notes pal. AGW is hypothesis aswell, unless you hadn't noticed.
    Actually it is not a given that it happened 650 milllion years ago that's the point.

    If we are going to take any notice of Watson at all then popping the word "pal" in like that is not quite in the spirit of turning over a new and more respectful leaf. Let's see if we can elevate the tone a bit there is no reason we can't all respect each others views.

  48. #7198
    Atilla
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    The man who pays the piper calls the tune. The US govt, ie taxpayer, continues to pay Roy Spencer and John Christy. Why? Also I believe Murray Salby still draws a salary at Melbourne Uni. I'm sure there a more examples, these were just the ones i can recall.
    It's the message PhilT2, the message.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Also I can't find much science in the Dr Art Raiche video, does he have anything published on climate science?
    It wasn't about climate science, it was about Government manipulation and control.

    Why else would Chrisp desperately try to steer people away from it?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    WOT (Web of trust) rates that site as 'very poor' in most categories. I'm not going to risk loading it.

  49. #7199
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Actually, AGW is a theory - well beyond a hypothesis.
    Originally the word theory as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation

    A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]



    The confusion over the use of the terms hypothesis and theory can be difficult to sort out.

    Popularly, hypothesis and theory are used almost interchangeable to refer to some idea which is vague or fuzzy and which seems to have a low probability of being true

    Thus, an idea is just a "hypothesis" when it is new and relatively untested or it is being actively tested and investigated. In other words, whenther probability of error and correction is still relatively high. However, one it has successfully survived repeated testing, has become more complex, is found to explain a great deal, and has made many interesting predictions, it achieves the status of "theory."
    Source http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/...pular+referrers

    In reality, however, such differentiation is notoriously difficult to make. Exactly how much testing is really required to move from hypothesis to theory? How much complexity is needed to stop being a hypothesis and start being a theory?


    Ok, this was pulled off the net - guilty. Clear as mud.

  50. #7200
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    It is a HYPOTHESIS not FACT.

    You are only repeating something that you found on the Internet and not something that you research yourself. This is a useless discussion, nobody on this thread is qualified to comment on this topic. Even scientists cannot say for certain that "snowball" earth happen.

    Stick to what you know best, your particular trade skills and leave science to those who are qualified.

    I can assure you JTH that I havent even googled snowball earth. My research is my own. I suggest turning over a new leaf that is not a stinging nettle

Page 144 of 377 FirstFirst ... 44 94 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 194 244 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •