Emission Trading and climate change

Page 47 of 377 FirstFirst ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 97 147 ... LastLast
Results 2,301 to 2,350 of 18819
  1. #2301
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Craig Loehle: Ah, yes, but it is in the IMPACTS that the alarms are supposed to be. The WG1 does not say what will happen, just what the climate will be. The entire scare is about water shortages and disease and droughts, which is where most of the non-peer-reviewed work is cited. Amazongate, himalayagate, etc.
    Cool. So we are apparently in agreement that the science is sound, and tells us 'what the climate will be'

    That's new.

    woodbe.


    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  2. #2302
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Cool. So we are apparently in agreement that the science is sound, and tells us 'what the climate will be'
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    That's new.

    I’m afraid Craig has you on ignore, Woodbe.
    .
    .
    .




  3. #2303
    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
    Rather than post other people's opinions, why not read the source of all these opinions yourself, and make up your own minds on what you read.
    The opinions I have quoted are not just anyone's opinion, but rather the stated opinions of international recognised scientific bodies.

    With all the ranting and raving we read from the deniers, one might think the science is wide open on AGW - it isn't.

    Me thinks some people have very strong political biases on this issue, that they are trying to convince themselves that the science has somehow been corrupted, rather than accept the scientific opinion of major scientific organisations.

  4. #2304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I'm just watching the 4 Corners report on the insulation debacle (we're a bit slower over here in the west). If the letters from Garret to Rudd over this are leaked, this government is toast. Saving the climate but knowingly risking and costing lives is a poor cost benefit analysis. This is just one problem with rushing climate schemes based on this fiction.

    For those who missed it, the whole episode is here:
    .

    Four Corners - A Lethal Miscalculation
    .
    It was good, but tended to concentrate mainly on the deaths of the young installers and the fact that Rudd and Garrett didn’t have any standard of care or safety. The hundreds of house fires weren’t really covered much at all, though they touched upon it, interviewed firemen, and showed how the fires start. We didn’t see much concerning all the burnt houses – just two or three. It could have been a lot more damming – I think they let Rudd and Garrett off lightly, but that’s the ABC for you.
    .
    I suppose they’ll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labor’s bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods.
    .
    .
    .

  5. #2305
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Here, Woody.................I'll do a quote so that you can see how lucky you are..........
    Thanks Headpin.

    You won't believe this, but Craig has actually gone up in my estimation after this exchange. haha.

    As for being on ignore, tell someone who cares.

    woodbe

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  6. #2306
    Small Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Over the rainbow
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allen James View Post
    .
    .


    .
    I suppose they’ll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labor’s bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods.
    .
    .
    .
    Another comment showing just how ignorant and stupid you really are, keep it coming...

  7. #2307
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by andy the pm View Post
    Another comment showing just how ignorant and stupid you really are, keep it coming...

    You obviously have no idea what is going on in Australia, Andy. The Federal and State Labor Parties, along with most local governments, forbid the removal of dangerous trees from around properties, to appease greenies. It is a common problem, and any man and his dog can tell you stories about it. My neighbour for instance, here in Qld., had many huge and dangerous eucalyptus trees that were hanging over the road, and could easily have fallen on passing pedestrians or cars. They were also a fire hazard, and caused his house damage from their roots. Yet when he contacted the local council they told him that State and Federal laws forbid him to remove the trees. He pointed the danger of them falling on people and the council said, “Tough luck. If they do it will be your responsibility,” meaning he would have to pay the costs. In the end he had to break the law and cut them down. Luckily the Labor Government didn’t find out or he would have been fined many tens of thousands of dollars.
    .
    This mental disease isn’t restricted to Queensland; it’s all over Australia. Are you seriously telling me you haven’t heard about the guy who was fined $50,000 for saving his house by chopping down trees?
    .
    Here is some of an article from The Daily Telegraph, 2009 [Emphasis mine]:
    .
    .
    Start with Judge Leonard Stretton's 1939 inquiry into the Black Friday fires, fast forward to the 1984 review of the Ash Wednesday fires the previous year, the report on fire prevention by the Auditor-General in 1992, the CSIRO fire management paper prepared by Phil Cheney in 1994, the Victorian inquiry and the federal inquiry - A Nation Charred - in 2003, and you will find that the principal problem constantly identified over the span of your life as a determinant in the ferocity of the fires is the level of fuel available.
    .
    Every basic firefighter is taught the "fire triangle" - its three components are fuel, oxygen and a heat source.

    Each of the inquiries I have mentioned made note of the fuel levels with your predecessor, Judge Stretton, noting: "The amount of (controlled) burning which was done was ridiculously inadequate,'' in 1984, the level of reduction burning was found to be "too low", in 1992, the "failure'' of the Victorian Department of Conservation and Environment to meet its fuel-reduction targets was found to have made the forests "more susceptible" to fires, and this story is repeated in various forms right through 2003 and, without pre-empting your findings, remains the case today.
    .
    The Victorian Government, and local councils, have ignored all the warnings.
    .
    What's more, the experienced farmers, foresters and residents of bushfire prone areas have been reviled as rednecks for merely stating the obvious, and convicted of criminal behaviour if they take the necessary steps to protect their property from the wilful failure of the authorities to take measures to reduce the risk.
    .
    Liam Sheahan and his wife Dale, for example, were dragged through the courts by their local Mitchell Shire Council and fined $50,000 for clearing the trees around their home in 2002.
    .
    Today, the Sheahans' home is the only one standing in a 2km radius after fires swept through last week.
    .
    "Labor has pandered to minority green groups to get over the line, but now we hope that what happened to us might be a catalyst for change,'' Liam said.
    .
    "The situation is the same from Adelaide to southern NSW."
    .
    Reedy Creek is an easy hour's drive from Melbourne. Two hours further north, in Tawonga South, just over the 895m high Tawonga Gap, Allan Mull, a former farmer, former fire brigade captain, prospector, developer and now alpine activist campaigns for safer forests from his eco-friendly home surrounded by an organic garden and covered in solar panels.
    .
    A founding member of the small but vocal Alpine Conservation and Access Group, he has studies and reports which show the need for regular burning to keep the alpine forests healthy.
    .
    "Aborigines used to start fires on the ridge lines as they came down after feasting on bogong moths every year," Mull, a fourth generation member of a Kiewa Valley family, told me.
    .
    "When the forests were commercially logged and under the control of the old Forestry Commission, the forestry workers did the same thing.
    .
    "But the state government since the days of (former Labor premiers) John Cain and Joan Kirner have allowed green ideologues to take over. The forests have been locked up, the fire trails have been closed, they are full of weeds and feral animals. The state has failed in its duty of care. Our national parks and reserves are now national disasters, whether burnt or not.''
    .
    Mull also blames the city media for not listening to rural voices, saying that urban green groups are never questioned but experienced country representatives are mocked.

    "The state boasts that its parks and reserves are 'protected' lands but the opposite is true," he said.
    .
    Burning issue top's judge Bernard Teague's inquiry agenda | The Daily Telegraph
    .
    You can read more about Liam Sheahan (and see his photo) here:
    .
    VEXNEWS 2010© | DOING FINE: A patriot’s vision saved his house despite persecution from enviro-bureaucrats
    .
    ..
    .
    .
    .

    .



  8. #2308
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Well, kids if you didn't already believe Mr James had lost his marbles, there's no denying it now..............


    Lost his marbles? - I think you are assuming that he had some in the first place


    However, I suspect that Mr James has a thing for "
    environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist" - and especially has a thing for them if he finds all three in the one person!

    Did anyone check his claim that SourceWatch is ran by Patricia Barden (the, heaven forbid, environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist)?

    From SourceWatch:
    "The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) publishes SourceWatch"
    (from SourceWatch:Purpose - SourceWatch )
    The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) was established by:
    "CMD is led by Lisa Graves and was founded by John Stauber in 1993."
    (from: About CMD | Center for Media and Democracy )
    So who is Patricia Barden?
    "The Center for Media and Democracy's IT Director Patricia Barden"
    (from: Patricia Barden | Center for Media and Democracy )
    Yep, she is the IT Director. It seems to me that you had to look hard to find a environmentalist/gay/lesbian in SourceWatch and that you seems to use the "environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist" handle to discredit people or organisations?

    Why have you got such a hang-up with environmentalists/gays/lesbians Allen? After all it's not their fault - maybe it is something that can prevented with home schooling?



  9. #2309
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Woody, how big can you make that signature of yours. I believe we may have another addition for you.
    Well, I dunno, there must be a limit I guess.

    Hate to ruin a good story and point out that the burning and tree removal restriction issues have been supported by governments of both Labor and Liberal persuasions, State and Federal for decades, so you can't single out Labor for that one. It was probably even around before the greenies!

    woodbe.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  10. #2310
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Allen James View Post
    .I suppose they’ll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labor’s bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods..

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    You gotta love the line "directly responsible" typical uneducated, uninformed response from everyone's friend, Mr James...................

    The bushfires we ‘suffer’, as in the bushfires that come racing right up to our houses, causing panic and forcing people to evacuate or risk their lives, using hoses to fend off flames. That suffering is unnecessary because back burning, tree removal and clearing of fuel is all that is needed to avoid this, and most government departments forbid such activity thanks to greenie legislation. The lost lives and houses are also unnecessary for the same reasons.
    .
    .
    I guess the idiot running around with a lighted match and a can of petrol is just co-incidental to the fact that the bushfire started.......... and had no real bearing on the bushfire?

    That idiot could not create the carnage we are talking about here, Headpain, if people were allowed to remove dangerous fire hazards and look after their own properties. Only environmental bureaucrats can cause this kind of carnage, by preventing the same, thus making it easy for arsonists to kill hundreds. It would be no different if the government banned burglar alarms and door locks. This would allow burglars and rapists free reign. Would you then blame burglars, or the government?
    .
    This isn’t rocket science.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    Well, kids if you didn't already believe Mr James had lost his marbles, there's no denying it now..............Someone really should tell his Mommy that's he's playing around on her computer again................Woody, how big can you make that signature of yours. I believe we may have another addition for you.

    As for the rest of your trolling, you’re only making yourself and Watson look bad, so carry on, by all means.
    .
    .
    .

  11. #2311
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    So who is Patricia Barden?
    "The Center for Media and Democracy's IT Director Patricia Barden"
    (from: Patricia Barden | Center for Media and Democracy )
    Yep, she is the IT Director. It seems to me that you had to look hard to find a environmentalist/gay/lesbian in SourceWatch and that you seems to use the "environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist" handle to discredit people or organisations?

    Why have you got such a hang-up with environmentalists/gays/lesbians Allen? After all it's not their fault - maybe it is something that can prevented with home schooling?
    Good pick up Chris, The other point is that the content on Sourcewatch is user contributed by Joe Public, just like Wikipedia - So even if the IT Director were all those things (and who cares anyway) she's just keeping the systems up and running while the users post their information.

    You'll even find that both Sourcewatch and Wikipedia are powered by the same opensource wiki engine:

    woodbe.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  12. #2312
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Well, I dunno, there must be a limit I guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Hate to ruin a good story and point out that the burning and tree removal restriction issues have been supported by governments of both Labor and Liberal persuasions, State and Federal for decades, so you can't single out Labor for that one. It was probably even around before the greenies!


    Sure, Mr. "Probably".
    .
    Since the 60’s greenies have been preventing the building of dams and back-burning, etc., to “save trees”, which is nonsense, as more trees are destroyed as a result. Labor has steadfastly supported the greens in this endeavour. Liberal governments may not have removed all such legislation, because it would have been contested and blocked by Labor, and would have lost votes for the Liberals. However, they are not the cause, and two wrongs don’t make a right anyway. Today the Labor government is in charge, both Federally and in every State, and is very gung ho about its greeenie approach to killing Aussies, whether it be in bush fires, or in insulation debacles. They are also salivating at the prospect of adding huge taxes on top of that, to fund Communists overseas. This will also kill Aussies, as health is affected by wealth.
    .
    .
    .


  13. #2313
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allen James View Post
    Today the Labor government is in charge, both Federally and in every State
    Is this another one of those "Mr James facts"?
    "Colin James Barnett (June 15, 1950 (age 59)), Australian politician, is the leader of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Premier of Western Australia since the 2008 electionTreasurer of Western Australia since 27 April 2010."
    (from: Colin Barnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

  14. #2314
    Small Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Over the rainbow
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allen James View Post
    .
    .

    .
    Since the 60’s greenies have been preventing the building of dams and back-burning, etc., to “save trees”, which is nonsense, as more trees are destroyed as a result. Labor has steadfastly supported the greens in this endeavour. Liberal governments may not have removed all such legislation, because it would have been contested and blocked by Labor, and would have lost votes for the Liberals. However, they are not the cause, and two wrongs don’t make a right anyway. Today the Labor government is in charge, both Federally and in every State, and is very gung ho about its greeenie approach to killing Aussies, whether it be in bush fires, or in insulation debacles. They are also salivating at the prospect of adding huge taxes on top of that, to fund Communists overseas. This will also kill Aussies, as health is affected by wealth.
    I knew it wouldn't be long before the communists made an appearance in one of your hysterical posts...

    Here's a link to the back burning activities carried out in NSw recently...

    Hazard Reduction Burns - NSW Rural Fire Service

    On another note, its really quite funny how you are so quite to cry troll when you see a post you don't like but are quite happy to troll along yourself...

  15. #2315
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Haha, it seems the sceptics no need of Science, they don't need their own words either

    Amazing that two documents are so alike (PDF)

    The hole just got deeper and stinky. Yes Sceptics, this is the way to win the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by deepclimate
    Clearly, the problems I have exposed here go well beyond lack of proper attribution. Wegman et al have followed closely Bradley’s exposition, but have still managed to introduce mistakes and even gross distortions.
    That such a shoddy misrepresentation of another author’s work has been used as part of a baseless, politically motivated attack on that author is beyond shameful. Perhaps it is time to interrupt the incessant braying about so-called Climategate, and examine a real outrage for once. “Sound science” indeed!
    woodbe.
    Last edited by woodbe; 28th Apr 2010 at 07:29 PM. Reason: added quote from deepclimate

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  16. #2316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Having worked on the ground firefighting and doing fire protection/prevention works for over 30 years, I have seen many instances of fires started that the government was not directly responsible for.

    You may have misread me, or perhaps I could have been clearer. I haven’t claimed the government starts fires. I maintain that the government prevents people back-burning, removing trees and removing fuel from the scrub around their houses and communities. When the fire rushes up to their back fence, they suffer, and the government is directly responsible for that. As for harmless bush fires, which will start for a variety of reasons, of course no government is responsible.
    .
    .
    I think this is more a result of local council policies than federal governments.

    I think it is a mixture of all three; federal, state and local.
    .
    .
    I think the greens have been a very convenient process for governments to reduce expenditure on fire protection works in the good name of conservation.

    I agree about the excuse part, but I would not call building a fire trap around towns “good conservation”, and I’m sure you wouldn’t either. Just to clarify.
    .
    .
    In all fairness to Mr James, the powers that be in this location changed their way with Bushfires about 20 years ago from fire protection to fire suppression, I'm not convinced that was the best decision.

    I agree, but I think you are too kind. The guy who was fined $50,000 for saving his own house is an example of the Monty Python madness of the green laws now in place around our country.
    .
    .
    .

  17. #2317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Is this another one of those "Mr James facts"?
    "Colin James Barnett (June 15, 1950 (age 59)), Australian politician, is the leader of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Premier of Western Australia since the 2008 electionTreasurer of Western Australia since 27 April 2010."
    (from: Colin Barnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
    Oops - thanks for picking up that error Chrisp. Yes, one down and a few more to go.
    .
    .
    .

  18. #2318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by andy the pm View Post
    I knew it wouldn't be long before the communists made an appearance in one of your hysterical posts...

    You mean we’re supposed to let Rudd and his merry men send our money to communists overseas, and never mention it? I think it is important to mention it, especially in an ETS thread.
    .
    .
    Here's a link to the back burning activities carried out in NSw recently..

    Thanks, and I am aware back burning happens. It’s just that it is woefully retarded across the country, by the green legislation mentioned previously. Aussies are prevented from removing trees on their properties across this land, even when they are fire traps. Backburning only happens in some lucky areas, and is prohibited in many, many others.
    .
    .
    On another note, its really quite funny how you are so quite to cry troll when you see a post you don't like but are quite happy to troll along yourself...

    Please point to any trolling I have done. If you are referring to cartoons I did in response to a troll’s trolling; that is not the same thing.
    .
    .
    .

  19. #2319
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Closed for cleaning.
    Mind the floor its slippery!!

  20. #2320
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Seconds Out.....Box on..Ding

  21. #2321
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    It would be nice if we could get back on topic.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  22. #2322
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default



    boy-praying.jpeg

  23. #2323
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    It would be nice if we could get back on topic.
    Have a look at post 2667

    woodbe.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  24. #2324
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Have a look at post 2667

    woodbe.
    Your point is?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  25. #2325
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Your point is?
    I'm not making a point, I'm reporting tactics that are low, even by sceptic standards.

    woodbe.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  26. #2326
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Lost his marbles? - I think you are assuming that he had some in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    However, I suspect that Mr James has a thing for "environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist" - and especially has a thing for them if he finds all three in the one person!
    Nope – as explained, I was merely following your lead, in pointing out the lack of qualifications of those pointed to, in response to the science presented. You and Woodbe did that quite often with Rod, so lap it up. Patricia Barden, who runs SourceWatch, is indeed unqualified. On this page you can see her references, and none of them include anything to do with climate science:
    .
    Patricia Barden | Center for Media and Democracy
    .
    She is a web-designer, and an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist. Her interests include bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with her Jack Russell terrier, Dixie Doodle.
    .
    .
    Did anyone check his claim that SourceWatch is ran by Patricia Barden (the, heaven forbid, environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist)?

    When did I say there was anything wrong with being an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist? Chrisp doth protest too much, methinks.
    .
    Regarding SourceWatch, and Patricia’s role, go to Better Whois: The WHOIS domain search that works with all registrars. and do a search for sourcewatch.org:
    .
    Registrant Name:Patricia Barden
    Registrant Organization Center for Media and Democracy
    Registrant Street1:520 University Avenue, Suite 227
    Registrant City:Madison
    Registrant State/Province:Wisconsin
    Admin Name:Patricia Barden
    Admin Email:Patricia@prwatch.org
    Tech Name:Patricia Barden
    Tech Email:Patricia@prwatch.org
    Name Server:NS1.QUICKSERVE.COM
    Name Server:NS0000.NS0.COM
    .
    Sourcewatch was formerly prwatch.org, and was sponsored by prwatch.org. So what does betterwhois.com says about them?
    .
    Registrant Name:Patricia Barden
    Registrant Organization Center for Media and Democracy
    Registrant Street1:520 University Avenue, Suite 227
    Registrant City:Madison
    Registrant State/Province:Wisconsin
    Admin Name:Patricia Barden
    Admin Email:Patricia@prwatch.org
    Tech Name:Patricia Barden
    Tech Email:Patricia@prwatch.org
    .
    My, my, what a surprise.


    From SourceWatch:
    "The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) publishes SourceWatch
    Well, maybe that’s because the so called “Center for Media and Democracy” is none other than prwatch.org, which was covered above.


    Why have you got such a hang-up with environmentalists/gays/lesbians Allen?

    No hang-ups here, pal - I’m just delivering information. Sounds like you may have some hang-ups about it though...
    .


    After all it's not their fault - maybe it is something that can prevented with home schooling?

    Huh? What’s not whose fault?


    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    You crazy mixed up kid, Bedford.
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    You'll have to excuse Bedford, Mr James. I don't know why he would think you
    said that the government was directly responsible for bush fires...............
    You deleted the words ‘we suffer’. Also, I explained the meaning of this three times already. Obviously we don’t suffer bushfires in their own right, because the bush needs to burn from time to time. Ask the aborigines. By contrast, when green governments forbid people to remove inflammable trees from beside their homes, or to back burn, or to clear the fuel from the scrub around their towns, in the baking heat of summer, when the well stocked bush is itching to burst into flame, then yes, by hook or by crook, you will suffer bushfires, and yes, the government will be directly responsible. So to repeat:
    .
    The government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year.
    .
    .
    .

  27. #2327
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Seriously, defending the hockey stick again?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I'm not making a point, I'm reporting tactics that are low, even by sceptic standards.

    woodbe.

    The fact is that your tactics are even lower. You are funding a government (via taxes) to produce blatant lies in relation to this issue. Unfortunately, so are most of us. Then you claim to be an ardent scientific proponent, yet remain silent on these lies.

    If you are so outraged about poorly represented science, why are you so strangely silent about this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    So I think I'll focus on reminding everyone that AGW Theory is theoretical and hypothetical, but certainly not a fact. What is a fact is that the climate changes all the time, and we don't know why.

    What we do know is that we have an entire federal government department called The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that promotes AGW Theory as a fact. Here is a statement from, and link to their website:


    See, no ambiguity, no theory, it is largely responsible.

    Our taxes are paying for this rubbish.
    Mann-made climate change and his hockey stick have less credibility than Rudd. Are you seriously arguing that you support the reintroduction of this farce into AGW Theory after the IPCC themselves have removed it from their own publications?

    But based on form so far, attacking tooth fairies is all proponents of this theory have left I guess?

  28. #2328
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Whoo hoo!

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Is this another one of those "Mr James facts"?
    "Colin James Barnett (June 15, 1950 (age 59)), Australian politician, is the leader of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Premier of Western Australia since the 2008 electionTreasurer of Western Australia since 27 April 2010."
    (from: Colin Barnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
    Glad to see you guys actually know we exist over here in the west. We're used to the east coast just stealing our mining royalties and reducing our GST revenues to prop up failed state governments on your side of Oz.

    At least we get to keep our GST. Dunno how much you guys are gonna get slugged in new state taxes after Rudd squanders your GST he is stealing.

    We have regularly polled against the ETS over here in the west, and we even sacked our treasurer just for banging a greenie.

    Our federal environment minister still has his job after overseeing the deaths of four people, the burning down of over 120 houses, and the rendering potentially dangerous or lethal of nearly a million aussie homes.

    Different strokes for different folks I guess.

  29. #2329
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Opine away.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The opinions I have quoted are not just anyone's opinion, but rather the stated opinions of international recognised scientific bodies.

    With all the ranting and raving we read from the deniers, one might think the science is wide open on AGW - it isn't.

    Me thinks some people have very strong political biases on this issue, that they are trying to convince themselves that the science has somehow been corrupted, rather than accept the scientific opinion of major scientific organisations.
    Ooooooh, a really, really, really, really special opinion? What was I thinking? At least these guys had the sense not to try and dress up their opinion with a fake probability number just to feign credibility.

    And I accept many opinions for consideration, but don't take any on faith. Let he who is opining make his case, because in the absence of facts or evidence, opinions are just opinions.

    But if you add assumptions to opinions, you can make a computer model. Read all about it here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    You hold up working group 1 as your holy grail of science underwriting this theory, and chapter 9 is where they pin this on us pesky humans. This chapter is where it all starts folks. Count the number of models used, then present your science? Show us all that science that supports this theoretical idea.


  30. #2330
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default And how many emissions from this?

    Office of Hot Air costs you $90m

    TAXPAYERS will fork out $90 million a year to keep more than 400 public servants employed within the federal Climate Change Department - despite most now having nothing to do until 2013. More than 60 of them are classified as senior executive staff on salaries between $168,000 and $298,000 a year.


    It's OK, we'll just borrow this as well and add it to the debt.

  31. #2331

  32. #2332
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Spin this.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Chrisp, you're right. its all smoke and mirrors.

    woodbe.
    Mr Bolt seems to agree.

    First Rudd announced he’d stop these emissions to stop the world from burning up:

    But he lacked the courage. So now, to distract you, he’ll crack down on these emissions instead, to stop a few Australians from lighting up:

    True. Rudd has downscaled his gandiose ambitions from saving the entire planet to saving just a few smokers:
    CIGARETTES will be sold in plain packages from January 2012 as Kevin Rudd introduces the world’s most draconian anti-smoking laws in a move likely to spark a legal challenge from big multi-national tobacco companies.
    The new laws will prohibit the use of tobacco industry logos, colours, brand imagery or promotional text of tobacco product packaging.
    But, in fact, Rudd is treating voters with complete contempt. The very next day after his humiliating backdown on his emissions trading scheme he announces a trivial campaign on smoking, banking that it’s enough to change the topic from his deceit and cowardice, and talk instead of hios being “tough” and “bold”.



    It’s as transparent as it’s pathetic.


    More here.

    Hey Woodbe, did you email Kev and convince him that if he destroys the tobacco industries massive funding of people like me, then AGW Theory can be real again?

    Doh, there goes my Cayman Island accounts.

  33. #2333
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The fact is that your tactics are even lower. You are funding a government (via taxes) to produce blatant lies in relation to this issue. Unfortunately, so are most of us. Then you claim to be an ardent scientific proponent, yet remain silent on these lies.


    My tactics are lower than taking a scientist's own work, plagiarising and distorting it, and using it in an attempt to discredit that scientist? I've suffered a few insults in this thread, but that rates up near the top Doc.

    My tactics are to point out that the weight of scientific research falls on the side of AGW, and to point out where the sceptics offer opinion or junk science as fact. Until the weight of scientific research falls the other way, I will continue to do so.

    If you are so outraged about poorly represented science, why are you so strangely silent about this:

    Quote Originally Posted by What we do know is that we have an entire federal government department called The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that promotes AGW Theory as a fact. Here is a statement from, and link to their website:

    [LEFT
    [/left]

    See, no ambiguity, no theory, it is largely responsible.

    Our taxes are paying for this rubbish.
    I'm sure you would like the Government to be sceptical, but even if they were able to ignore the science, the weight of public opinion still requires that they do something about AGW despite the mountain of misinformation from the sceptics.

    woodbe.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  34. #2334
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    What was the topic again, Rod?
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post

    I thought we were now discussing how the government is directly responsible for bushfires.

    Mr James is a riot. Some of my aquaintances down at the club almost doubled up in laughter after I told them about that line.

    You’re trolling, spamming and lying, and this just makes you and Watson look bad. By all means keep it up.
    .
    You deleted the words ‘we suffer’ for the second time. Obviously we don’t suffer bushfires in their own right, because the bush needs to burn from time to time. Ask the aborigines. By contrast, when green governments forbid people to remove inflammable trees from beside their homes, or to back burn, or to clear the fuel from the scrub around their towns, in the baking heat of summer, when the well stocked bush is itching to burst into flame, then yes, by hook or by crook, you will suffer bushfires, and yes, the government will be directly responsible. So to repeat:
    .
    The government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year.
    .
    .
    .



  35. #2335
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Allen James: I suppose they’ll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labor’s bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Headpin View Post
    This line is proving very popular at my place of employment..................It's a cracker............

    This is old news. Tell them to read more, or just get out and talk with Aussies.
    .
    .
    From the Sydney Morning Herald:
    .
    .
    Green ideas must take blame for deaths
    .
    Miranda Devine
    Sydney Morning Herald columnist
    .
    February 12, 2009
    .
    It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.
    .
    So many people need not have died so horribly. The warnings have been there for a decade. If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.
    .
    Governments appeasing the green beast have ignored numerous state and federal bushfire inquiries over the past decade, almost all of which have recommended increasing the practice of "prescribed burning". Also known as "hazard reduction", it is a methodical regime of burning off flammable ground cover in cooler months, in a controlled fashion, so it does not fuel the inevitable summer bushfires.
    .
    In July 2007 Scott Gentle, the Victorian manager of Timber Communities Australia, who lives in Healesville where two fires were still burning yesterday, gave testimony to a Victorian parliamentary bushfire inquiry so prescient it sends a chill down your spine.
    .
    "Living in an area like Healesville, whether because of dumb luck or whatever, we have not experienced a fire since about 1963. God help us if we ever do, because it will make Ash Wednesday look like a picnic." God help him, he was right.
    .
    Gentle complained of obstruction from green local government authorities of any type of fire mitigation strategies. He told of green interference at Kinglake - at the epicentre of Saturday's disaster, where at least 147 people died - during a smaller fire there in 2007.
    .
    "The contractors were out working on the fire lines. They put in containment lines and cleared off some of the fire trails. Two weeks later that fire broke out, but unfortunately those trails had been blocked up again [by greens] to turn it back to its natural state. Instances like that are just too numerous to mention. Governments have been in too much of a rush to appease green idealism. This thing about locking up forests is just not working."
    .
    The Kinglake area was a nature-loving community of tree-changers, organic farmers and artists to the north of Melbourne. A council committed to reducing carbon emissions dominates the Nillumbik shire, a so-called "green wedge" area, where restrictions on removing vegetation around houses reportedly added to the dangers. In nearby St Andrews, where more than 20 people are believed to have died, surviving residents have spoken angrily of "greenies" who prevented them from cutting back trees near their property, including in one case, a tea tree that went "whoomp". Dr Phil Cheney, the former head of the CSIRO's bushfire research unit and one of the pioneers of prescribed burning, said yesterday if the fire-ravaged Victorian areas had been hazard-reduced, the flames would not have been as intense.
    .
    Kinglake and Maryville, now crime scenes, are built among tall forests of messmate stringy bark trees which pose a special fire hazard, with peeling bark creating firebrands that carry fire five kilometres out. "The only way to reduce the flammability of the bark is by prescribed burning" every five to seven years, Cheney said. He estimates between 35 and 50 tonnes a hectare of dry fuel were waiting to be gobbled up by Saturday's inferno.
    .
    Fuel loads above about eight tonnes a hectare are considered a fire hazard. A federal parliamentary inquiry into bushfires in 2003 heard that a fourfold increase in ground fuel leads to a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire.
    .
    Things are no better in NSW, although we don't quite have Victoria's perfect storm of winds and forest types. Near Dubbo two years ago, as a bushfire raged through the Goonoo Community Conservation Area, volunteer firefighters bulldozing a control line were obstructed by National Parks and Wildlife Service employees who had driven from Sydney to stop vegetation being damaged.
    .
    The poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria is highlighted by the interactive fire map on the website of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Yesterday it showed that, of 148 fires started since mid-January, 120 started in state forests, national parks, or other public land, and just 21 on private property.
    .
    Only seven months ago, the Victorian Parliament's Environment and Natural Resources Committee tabled its report into the impact of public land management on bushfires, with five recommendations to enhance prescribed burning. This included tripling the amount of land to be hazard-reduced from 130,000 to 385,000 hectares a year. There has been little but lip service from the Government in response. Teary politicians might pepper their talking points with opportunistic intimations of "climate change" and "unprecedented" weather, but they are only diverting the blame. With yes-minister fudging and craven inclusion of green lobbyists in decision-making, they have greatly exacerbated this tragedy.
    .
    There is an opening now in Victoria for a predatory legal firm with a taste for David v Goliath class actions.
    .
    .
    Green ideas must take blame for deaths
    .
    .
    .
    .

  36. #2336
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    OK.........the "fire's" out now.
    Back on topic please.
    ETS

  37. #2337
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    PM delays emissions trading scheme as inconvenient political truth
    .
    Dennis Shanahan Political Editor
    The Australian April 27, 2010
    .
    .
    AFTER months of avoiding even mentioning an emissions trading scheme Kevin Rudd has formally dumped Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least after the next election, and possibly the one after that.
    .
    After months of refusing to defend or promote the answer to the greatest moral and economic challenge “of our time” or to propose an alternative the Prime Minister has simply put it off as an inconvenient political truth and tried to blame the Coalition and the Greens for obstruction in the Senate.
    .
    The simple fact of the matter is that Rudd over-politicised and over-dramatised the importance of an ETS, put all his political capital into one policy that would split the Coalition and provide a campaign platform and had no answer when it failed.
    .
    Rudd's insistence the Senate pass the CPRS legislation before the Copenhagen climate change meeting in December now looks completely hollow and Australia's stance friendless and isolated internationally.
    .
    An ETS is no longer in the “lexicon” of the Obama administration and China and India are not budging on binding agreements after the expiration of the 2012 Kyoto agreement.
    .
    The demands for “business certainty” that drove Rudd's insistence are now empty rhetoric and the threats of a double-dissolution or an early election meaningless.
    .
    Rudd has now adopted the policy of the Tony Abbott-led Coalition and will not act until other nations do and will take “direct action” to cut greenhouse gas emissions and keep (and meet) the existing Kyoto targets without an ETS.
    .
    After attacking the Coalition on an ETS and destroying Malcolm Turnbull's Liberal leadership with hollow threats of early elections Rudd has shown less conviction than the former Opposition leader, who actually crossed the floor to support legislation Labor won't even be putting back into this Parliament.
    .
    Rudd had a political victory over Turnbull but lost the policy debate with the public while ending up with a double-dissolution trigger he couldn't use.
    .
    Today's declaration has hollowed out Rudd's climate change conviction and adopted the Coalition's “wait-and-see” approach which meets none of the demands Rudd made before Copenhagen last year.
    .
    All of the dire predictions of electoral disaster for the Coalition on climate change are unfulfilled with Rudd simply wanting to talk about health and hospitals for the next six months.
    .
    .
    PM delays emissions trading scheme as inconvenient political truth | The Australian
    .

    .

  38. #2338
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    OK.........the "fire's" out now.
    Back on topic please.
    ETS
    What ETS Watson??

    Rudd has canned it and replaced the urgency of Co2 to cigarette smoke!!!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  39. #2339
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    and tonight at midnight he's gonna put fags up by 25%...I think that's to pay for the plain wrappers.
    The mind fair boggles.

  40. #2340
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    What ETS Watson??
    Sorry Rod I should have answered that.
    An Emission Trading Scheme is two 14 year old boys swapping handkerchiefs

  41. #2341
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Sorry Rod I should have answered that.
    An Emission Trading Scheme is two 14 year old boys swapping handkerchiefs
    At least that has more hope of success.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  42. #2342
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Interesting that none of the fag purveyors in our little town could contact any of the reps that sell fags......like all day. No answer....no reply .
    Anyway..beat me...I'll admit it

  43. #2343
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Observations, not insults.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    The fact is that your tactics are even lower. You are funding a government (via taxes) to produce blatant lies in relation to this issue. Unfortunately, so are most of us. Then you claim to be an ardent scientific proponent, yet remain silent on these lies.
    My tactics are lower than taking a scientist's own work, plagiarising and distorting it, and using it in an attempt to discredit that scientist? I've suffered a few insults in this thread, but that rates up near the top Doc.

    My tactics are to point out that the weight of scientific research falls on the side of AGW, and to point out where the sceptics offer opinion or junk science as fact. Until the weight of scientific research falls the other way, I will continue to do so.




    Originally Posted by

    If you are so outraged about poorly represented science, why are you so strangely silent about this:

    What we do know is that we have an entire federal government department called The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that promotes AGW Theory as a fact. Here is a statement from, and link to their website:



    See, no ambiguity, no theory, it is largely responsible.

    Our taxes are paying for this rubbish.

    I'm sure you would like the Government to be sceptical, but even if they were able to ignore the science, the weight of public opinion still requires that they do something about AGW despite the mountain of misinformation from the sceptics.

    woodbe.
    My friend, this is not an insult, it is an observation. You may take offense, but I didn't give it.

    I have continually pointed out that it is a good thing that these clowns argue about this stuff. That is what happens continually in all areas of science. You never hear about the other areas because they are not chasing billions of dollars in funding via publicity generating fear mongering.

    But a few seppo's arguing about a piece of science fiction based on proxy data, already discredited, is not anywhere near the level of lies that you currently remain silent on. As I said, the longer you remain silent on the lies shown above, the more you damn yourself. This bureaucratic white elephant that is costing us $90 million dollars a year is publishing blatant scientific lies and you do not care. Our own national government is publishing blatant scientific lies and you do not care. But you are outraged by a seppo paraphrasing in his criticism of a scientific "hockey stick" farce? I think it is you who are insulting the intelligence of the readers here.

    By the way, I don't want the government to be sceptical, I want them to be the opposition. But until then, they could at least create a veneer of scientific honesty and credibility.

    As for your green poll...

    And as for your weighty science, as has been demonstrated, it is a combination of spurious correlations, confected probabilities, conjecture, climate models and opinion. I have posted links to chapter nine, which is the foundation for this weighty science. Still no cut and pastes from you yet with this sheer weight of science. Not much left in there after you take out the assumptive and arbitrary models, is there?

    So in summary let's compare:

    Scenario 1: Some seppo's arguing over an already discredited science fiction based on proxy data, cherry picking and padding out their agenda's.

    Scenario 2: An Aussie tacitly defending our own government wasting our own money publishing scientific lies against our own citizenry.

    Tough call mate, but my vote goes to scenario 2 for having the lowest tactics. But if I was a seppo, maybe my call would be different.

    P.S. I use seppo as a term of endearment. Our two nations have stood side by side on too many occasions to do otherwise.

  44. #2344
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default RUDD is a poll dancer, learned this at Scores.

    Originally Posted by woodbe

    I'm sure you would like the Government to be sceptical, but even if they were able to ignore the science, the weight of public opinion still requires that they do something about AGW despite the mountain of misinformation from the sceptics.

    woodbe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    As for your green poll...
    CHRIS UHLMANN: But perhaps the Government's going cold on emissions trading because its polling shows the electorate's cooling on global warming. What was a huge political positive in 2006 is becoming a liability. Since 2006, the Lowy Institute has conducted a yearly poll which asks whether Australians should take action on climate change, even if it involves significant cost. 68 per cent of those polled agreed with that proposition in 2006. That's now down to 46 per cent.



    MICHAEL WESLEY, LOWY INSTITUTE: I think back in 2006-2007 when we were polling there was a combination of factors. There was the Al Gore movie, there was the Stern review, there was wide-ranging drought and fires and so on and people I think had started to make the connection between climate change and some of these natural disasters that were happening. I think roll forward a few years, you've got the problems with the Copenhagen climate change talks, you've got some doubts raised about the science around climate change and the fact that the - the drought's no longer with us and it's started to rain again. So, I think all of those sorts of things play into public expectations and perceptions.

    Rudd switched from being a poll dancer to smoking polls.

  45. #2345
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Was this a debate?

    The 7PM Project - Video

    It's amazing how quickly these daft claims fall apart when simply questioned by common sense.

  46. #2346
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?
    I just love sheepies!

  47. #2347
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So in summary let's compare:

    Scenario 1: Some seppo's arguing over an already discredited science fiction based on proxy data, cherry picking and padding out their agenda's.

    Scenario 2: An Aussie tacitly defending our own government wasting our own money publishing scientific lies against our own citizenry.

    Tough call mate, but my vote goes to scenario 2 for having the lowest tactics. But if I was a seppo, maybe my call would be different.

    P.S. I use seppo as a term of endearment. Our two nations have stood side by side on too many occasions to do otherwise.
    I don't defend the government, but I do defend the science when it's unreasonably attacked by various junk and opinion not based on science.

    As far as I am concerned the ETS proposed by Rudd wasn't near good enough. I didn't vote for him either, but this thread is not about your political preferences.

    The 'Seppos' are not arguing, one of them appears to be unable to come up with an independant paper debunking the original scientist's research, so he has copied the original paper and adjusted it to suit his conclusion. I know a sceptic is happy to ignore or approve that, but for everyone else, its worth posting as yet another example of dirty tricks.

    woodbe.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  48. #2348
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    and tonight at midnight he's gonna put fags up by 25%...I think that's to pay for the plain wrappers.
    The mind fair boggles.

    .
    .
    .
    .

  49. #2349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?

    I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter, Dazz, old mate. Looking at the much greater amount of CO2 in our atmosphere at various times in the past, when vegetation was lush and abundant, and animal life was prolific; it’s not really an exercise worth bothering with. This is the kind of thing you don’t have to worry about for a few centuries, and by then our power producing technology will be so squeaky clean it won’t matter.
    .
    If you are still concerned you could ask Patricia Barden, who runs sourcewatch.org and prwatch.org. Woodbe and Chrisp like to direct sceptics to her sites for the good dope. If she doesn’t know an answer to something, her dog Dixie Doodle might.
    .
    www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios.php/Patricia_Barden
    .
    Or you could ask Rudd. Today he’s very busy changing the prices on cigarettes from $13.50 to $20.00, to help Aussie battlers, so you may not get through. On the other hand Al Gore might be available, if he’s not busy re-decorating his newly acquired seaside mansion, which he insists will be under 20 feet of water soon.
    .
    The AGW alarmists have many good people who are willing to help you figure out what is going on with CO2, even though most of them don’t know what CO2 is. They pride themselves in giving advice, regardless.
    .
    Here are some other Gore lovers, who want to ban water:
    .
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw"]YouTube - Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition[/ame]
    [Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition]
    .
    .
    .

  50. #2350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Age
    64
    Posts
    431

    Default

    .
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I don't defend the government

    You have staunchly defended the Labor Government’s position on AGW and other environmental tomfoolery, and that is very much defending the government.
    .
    .
    , but I do defend the science when it's unreasonably attacked by various junk and opinion not based on science.

    I’ve watched you all the way through this thread steadfastly ignore science that opposes AGW, while pretending to be objective. You’ve used many logical fallacies, like the tobacco by-line you proudly publish with each post, in place of logical debate. You point us to irrelevant political activist websites instead of science, and sneer when presented with real science. Dixie Doodle will be proud!
    .


    I didn't vote for [Rudd] either

    A vote for the Greens is mostly a vote for Labor, since they often give their preferences to Labor. So you get to have your cake and eat it too.
    .
    .
    .

Page 47 of 377 FirstFirst ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 97 147 ... 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
  •