Emission Trading and climate change

Page 58 of 377 FirstFirst ... 8 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 108 158 ... LastLast
Results 2,851 to 2,900 of 18819
  1. #2851
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default We need more modelling.

    Too little too late Kev:


    Once again, future policy? What happened to the urgency Kev? Look dude, I understand you got beaten by a girl and had a cry about it, but that's no excuse for lying again to the Australian people.

    If anyone believes Kev, please explain how his CPRS is/was going to make a "real difference" to [climate change].

    And he is recommending it commencing in the next term of government. But treasury still hasn't done any calculations on how the CPRS Tax and the RSPT Tax will fight against each other in the real world as opposed to Ken Henry's and Wayne Swan's theoretical models. Will the RSPT increase coal production like Swan claims, or will the coal production go down according to the CPRS design?

  2. #2852
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    This time it wasn't me, PM Joolia did it!



    But she doesn't believe in AGW Theory either.





    In the future? Not now? No urgency? Everyone sentenced to death in five years? What the?

    We've never had a community consensus yet! But she's going to wait for one.

    Definitely a closet sceptic!!!
    With a bit of luck she wont be there long enough for it to be her problem.

    As a side. I won a $50 bet with my business partner. The bet was that Rudd would not contest the next election and that he will be axed and Gillard would take over.

    When did I make that bet? Election day last election.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  3. #2853
    HELLO Make it work's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in Sydney
    Age
    59
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Wow Rod, you should be a political speculator. How long will Prime Minister Elmo last if the poles do not improve?
    Cheers

    Alan M

  4. #2854
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Make it work View Post
    Wow Rod, you should be a political speculator. How long will Prime Minister Elmo last if the poles do not improve?
    To me it was always on the cards with Rudd.

    It just took longer for people to see through him. As for any more predictions. I don't have any!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  5. #2855
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    In my usual manner............will she do well as full forward for the "doggies".
    Her comments re the ETS still worry this little black duck.

  6. #2856
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  7. #2857
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Now even I'm confused!

    First she said this:

    Then she did this:

    Now she says this:

    Let’s see:

    1- If elected;
    2- Reprosecute the case;
    3- Develop deep and lasting consensus.

    Then after all this magic, she will start working on a policy to deal with AGW Theory.

    Phew! At least we've confirmed she has no current policy.

  8. #2858

  9. #2859
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Renewable PM, but no renewable energy.

    What's not going up? Investment in viable renewable energy.



    Full story here (as Rod has previously pointed out):

    If we relied on wind power, Australia would have shut down | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    We can't afford this because of what is going up:

    This:



    And this:



    Full story here:

    Joyce: Gillard Set To Outspend Rudd Barnaby Is Right

    I think the pictures are easier than explaining all the waste of our money, particularly chasing carbon dioxide fairies, that could instead be spent on developing viable renewable energy sources.

    WOMBAT

  10. #2860
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Should have put them away Kev.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I knew he shouldn't have left those sharp objects lying around. Poor bloke probably turned around to pin up another policy and got hammered from behind.

    But seriously, he was an idiot and his CPRS debacle would have crippled this country. But he should have answered to the Australian people. We should pick our Prime Minister's and dismiss them, not vote for a party and have them chop and change Prime Minister's according to their political infighting.

    NSW has to put up with this garbage, but this is our country for goodness sake!

  11. #2861
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Sceptics are dead either way.

    CSIRO said we are all dead if don't act within five years.

    Now sceptics could be dead a lot sooner for uncovering the truth about AGW Theory scams:


    "Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.
    Says Calzada:
    Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.
    The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in Expansion (a Spanish paper similar to the Financial Times). A minister from Spain’s Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University — Dr. Calzada’s employer — seeking Calzada’s ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzada’s think tank — Instituto Juan de Mariana — was associated.

    As I have previously reported at PJM (here and here), Spain’s “green jobs” program was repeatedly referenced by President Obama as a model for what he would like to implement in the United States. Following the release of Calzada’s report, Spain’s Socialist government has since acknowledged the debacle — both privately and publicly. This month, Spain’s government instituted massive reductions in subsidies to “renewable” energy sources."

    Fulls story here:

    Pajamas Media BREAKING: ‘Green’ Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts

    Talk about an argument blowing up in your face!

  12. #2862
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Chk Chk Boom Girl.

    The CPRS was a hard reform, and always will be without USA, China and India joining in.
    It’s looking less likely every day that this is going to happen.

    Therefore, according to the CSIRO we are all dead!

    Who's the real Chk Chk Boom Girl?

    Clare Werbeloff or Penny Sackett?


  13. #2863
    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
    And this:



    Full story here:

    Joyce: Gillard Set To Outspend Rudd Barnaby Is Right

    I think the pictures are easier than explaining all the waste of our money

    What a lot of biased and unsubstantiated opinion and rumour you have been posting.

    Fancy quoting Barnaby "Millions, um no, Billions, um no, Trillions, um a number with lots of zero" Joyce for projections on government spending when Gillard has only been in office one day

  14. #2864
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Who killed the ETS, and who killed Kevvy.

    "At yesterday's caucus meeting Rudd stood up and said he believed Gillard and he had worked out a compromise in their first meeting last night. "I thought we were capable of working our way through but when she returned she called it on."

    He was implying that the factional bosses had pushed it - and killed a potential compromise.

    He also effectively blamed Gillard and Wayne Swan for the decision to shelve the emissions trading scheme, a key policy reversal which triggered his decline in the polls. He blamed the troubled resources super-profits tax on Swan.

    He gave a sombre speech, which was both "statesmanlike" but also dug the knife into Gillard and Swan - essentially blaming them for the RSPT and the abandonment of an ETS.

    He stopped two or three times to fight back tears."

    Full story here:



    Oh my God! They killed Kevvy!



  15. #2865
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Yep, thoroughly confused!

    “THE federal government has been accused of sending a bad signal on climate change policy after one of its first acts was to back the first major deal to export Victorian coal.

    From 2014, the Victorian company expects to export 2 million tonnes of dried brown coal a year to burn in Vietnamese power stations, eventually rising to 20 million tonnes a year.

    Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne said the federal government could not be serious about reducing emissions if was willing to open up a ''massive polluting'' export industry.

    She called on Prime Minister Julia Gillard to tell Mr Crean to focus on export deals that helped the climate.

    ''Brown coal is the most polluting fuel we have. Pumping energy into transforming it into the equivalent of black coal will only increase pollution at home and overseas,'' she said.

    Government insiders say Ms Gillard, while understanding climate change, has not been engaged with the issue.”

    Full story here:

    The word “hypocrite” does not even come close!

  16. #2866
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Good pick up Mr Watson.

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    In my usual manner............will she do well as full forward for the "doggies".
    Her comments re the ETS still worry this little black duck.

    On radio station 3AW, when asked by Neil Mitchell whether she could promise that she would not be leader before the next election, she said "You may as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars." Which, no, apparently she wasn't.

    When Fairfax Media's Tim Lester interviewed Gillard on the National Times website, an even better fantasy analogy was embraced. If "Steven Spielberg rang me from Hollywood and asked me to star opposite Brad Pitt in a movie, would I do it? Well, I'd be a little bit tempted but you know what, I don't reckon Steven Spielberg is going to give me a call." No leadership, no calls from Spielberg, got it.

    Then on 2GB radio, another hypothetical, when the Deputy was asked had there been a Howard/Costello deal done with Rudd, she responded with something equally as topical as leadership. Gillard said : "I know we’ll be welcoming Jessica [Watson] back to Sydney this weekend after her round the world epic feat. I tell you, I think there’s more chance of me going round the world sailing solo a dozen times than this chatter in the media becoming anything more than that."

    Then on Monday she reinforced the point once again, apparently "there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party."

    So just to recap, if Julia does get the PM spot, she will also be sailing around the world solo a dozen times, starring in a Spielberg production alongside Brad Pitt, adventuring into outer-space and playing professional football.

    Full story here:


  17. #2867
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Nothing new here.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What a lot of biased and unsubstantiated opinion and rumour you have been posting.
    Business as usual for me.

    But if I stopped posting biased and unsubstantiated opinion and rumour, then I would have to also stop referring to the IPCC.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Fancy quoting Barnaby "Millions, um no, Billions, um no, Trillions, um a number with lots of zero" Joyce for projections on government spending when Gillard has only been in office one day
    Seriously, we don't run the country's finances on a daily basis (unlike most households). The gang of four have set down these numbers already years in advance. Admittedly, if Gillard scraps the RSPT and leaves the CPRS off the table (ie. no massive new taxes), then the situation will get even worse. Or if she announces massive spending cuts, then it will get better. Will this happen months from an election given recent events.

    But if you don't trust good 'ol Barnaby, you can work it out for yourself.

    Just start here:

    AOFM – Home

    (Total Commonwealth Government Securities
    on Issue - $147,133m)


    Then go here:

    Budget Paper No. 1: Budget Strategy and Outlook 2009-10 - Statement 3: Fiscal outlook

    (An underlying cash deficit of $40.8 billion is expected in 2010‑11, compared with an estimated deficit of $46.6 billion at MYEFO. In accrual terms, a fiscal deficit of $39.6 billion is expected for 2010‑11.)

    Then do a bit of jiggery pokery numbers stuff, and you too will come up with the truth.

    Good 'ol Barnaby sums it up here:

    Can We Even Pay The Interest? Barnaby Is Right

    Now, back to the issue at hand, how much spare money do we have to spend on renewable energy R&D.

  18. #2868
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default CPRS legislation simplified.

    The ETS explained for us every day citizens.

    The slideshow takes a few minutes, but much better than reading the legislation.

    Emissions Trading 101

  19. #2869
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Wow you have been busy Doc.

    Great reading material!

    Cheers Rod
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  20. #2870
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Wow I thought this was ETS thread ..not a party political rant from WA.

    I think Canboring is missing a spin doctor...pmsl

  21. #2871
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jago View Post
    Wow I thought this was ETS thread ..not a party political rant from WA.

    I think Canboring is missing a spin doctor...pmsl
    I'm pleased to see someone else has noticed the politicising of this thread too.

    It is quite ironic in a way, from his posts, it seems to me that the Doc seems to think that Labor has copped a hiding due to proposing the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc. where as it seems to me that they have copped a hiding for doing too little on the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc.

    Maybe it is just the different perspectives from WA to Vic?


  22. #2872
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Asked and answered.

    Quote Originally Posted by jago View Post
    Wow I thought this was ETS thread ..not a party political rant from WA.

    I think Canboring is missing a spin doctor...pmsl
    This is an ETS thread, and the ETS is a political policy response to a perceived environmental theory. Therefore, if I rant against the ETS and all those who support its introduction, it is well within the remit of this thread. Occasionally many of us have strayed from the path, and the good Mr Watson has pulled us into line. Once Tony Abbot is running the country , I will pursue him with just as much vigour to remove his window dressing of a policy called "direct action". But right now, this is the much lesser of two evils.

    But I have made my views clear before:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post


    Political themes have been underlying this debate for a long time:

    Indeed, it strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process… We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists whose credentials should rest solely with their scientific qualifications for the tasks involved… Similarly, scientists should be appointed because of their scientific credentials, and not because they take one or other view in the climate debate… At the moment, it seems to us that the emissions scenarios are influenced by political considerations ...

    But I don’t care what gets traded (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen...), as long as I don’t have to pay taxes for it.


    For the record, I don’t care what political party tries to tax me for fresh air, I will reject this. Malcolm Turnbull is one of the best lawyers, entrepreneurs and businessman in the country, but I would vote against him every day of the week that he supports this fiasco.

    Thankfully he is gone and we now have a limited choice. But as you raise Mr Abbott, let’s hear his thoughts on the subject (just for balance).

    He admitted that there were times when he had ‘‘stuffed up’’ politics but said that when someone became a leader, they had made a new start.

    ‘‘I think that climate change is real and that man does make a contribution,’’ he said.


    But he said there was argument about the level of that contribution and what should be done about it.


    Mr Abbott said the argument was about how to deal with climate change.

    ‘‘The last thing we should be doing is rushing through a great big new tax just so that Kevin Rudd can take a trophy to Copenhagen,’’ he said.


    Take note that I said limited choice. There is no mainstream party willing to stand up and say that this sham is a disgrace to science, politics and common sense.

    And I am always willing to spin the fact that there is no scientific evidence proving AGW Theory, and that the Labor Party is using this sham as a massive tax grab to pay for its ever growing debt problems.

    Do you believe they really buy this farce when they restrict uranium sales and use, yet increase brown coal production and use?

    Whose really spinning here, and whose falling for it?

  23. #2873
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Thanks champ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Wow you have been busy Doc.

    Great reading material!

    Cheers Rod
    Yeh, been an interesting week.

    Historical change in Australia. Now if we vote for the Labor party, the union leaders pick the PM and the policies. Just like the NSW debacle. Paul Howes (AWU) was on Lateline Wednesday night announcing that Kevin Rudd was no longer the PM. Very brave before a single vote had been cast. The caucus then capitulated to this on Thursday morning. Very interesting times indeed.

    Perhaps we could ask Mr Howes what the next climate policy will be?

  24. #2874
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Let's try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I'm pleased to see someone else has noticed the politicising of this thread too.
    AGW Theory = Scientific Issue (Barely )
    ETS = Political Response

    The thread is not being politicised, by definition the response to the issue is political.


    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It is quite ironic in a way, from his posts, it seems to me that the Doc seems to think that Labor has copped a hiding due to proposing the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc. where as it seems to me that they have copped a hiding for doing too little on the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc.
    Wholeheartedly agree here. Rudd lost popularity because he promised to save the world (literally ) and people believed him. Then he said it was too much paperwork to go to a double dissolution election when the Greens Party, the Liberals, and other non-Labor senators said his policy (political response) was useless.

    Most supporters felt gutted that the world was now going to end, but just a few asked the question "If this really was as serious as Rudd made out, why would he just walk away from it?"

    I congratulate those few.

    Gillard is still walking away...

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    Maybe it is just the different perspectives from WA to Vic?

    Many people over here don't want to pay tax for fresh air. Some do.

    My guess is Victoria is probably the same.

  25. #2875
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default This guys good, four out of four.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Yeh, been an interesting week.

    Historical change in Australia. Now if we vote for the Labor party, the union leaders pick the PM and the policies. Just like the NSW debacle. Paul Howes (AWU) was on Lateline Wednesday night announcing that Kevin Rudd was no longer the PM. Very brave before a single vote had been cast. The caucus then capitulated to this on Thursday morning. Very interesting times indeed.

    Perhaps we could ask Mr Howes what the next climate policy will be?
    30 April 2010

    PAUL HOWES: This climate change is an issue that Labor will continue to focus on into the future. It's not all about the ETS.

    PAUL HOWES: I reckon the election'll be some time in 2010 and I have no idea when it's gonna be...Definitely, definitely some time in 2010.

    Full story here (VERY telling interview all round, well worth a read):

    24 June 2010

    JULIA GILLARD: My leadership will be about talking to the Australian people about climate change. I believe that we have got to therefore change the way we do things and that this nation will in the future need a price on carbon.

    JULIA GILLARD: Kerry, I can absolutely rule out next year. The election will be in 2010.

    Full story here:

    The 7.30 Report - ABC

    So in summary:

    1- Rudd gone.
    2- "ETS" dropped for "price on carbon".
    3- Timetable changed from urgent to "in the future".
    4- Election definitely in 2010.

    I guess it’s just a coincidence that the union faction leaders are excellent at predicting the future.

    Maybe we should be asking them what the next climate policy will be?

  26. #2876
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Dr Freud

    Whats the answer?

  27. #2877
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Does this have a familiar ring to it?

    This is a posted comment on this page. Amazongate: the missing evidence - Telegraph

    RickBradford
    1 minute ago


    Warmists have an urgent psychological need to be right the whole time, which fuels their whining outrage when they are shown to be wrong, their desperate, blind scrambling to try to shore up their position, and their triumphal glee when they think they have scored a point.

    It's all about 'winning' for them, and nothing to do with truth in research leading to sensible policy-making.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  28. #2878
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Does this have a familiar ring to it?

    This is a posted comment on this page. Amazongate: the missing evidence - Telegraph
    Sound familiar? It sure does!

    Fancy posting a comment (read "opinion") on an opinion article - i.e. an opinion on an opinion to support your position!

    It would sounds more convincing if the denialists could produce some credible scientific evidence to support their position. Oh well, I suppose opinions - and opinions on opinions - is as good as their 'evidence' gets.

  29. #2879
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Reality is the answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by jago View Post
    Dr Freud

    Whats the answer?
    I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions.

    Kwai Chang Kaine.


    Question: Are human's really "causing" all of the measured half degree warming of the last 150 years?

    Answer: We don't know.

    Question: IF we are, do we believe failed computer models that tell us against all historical measurements to the contrary, that this warming is catastrophic and will end civilisation as we know it?

    Answer: No.

    Question: IF we ignore the flawed data and all the failed scientific theory in this area of research, but ideologically still decide that AGW Theory might be real, so want to act anyway, will the CPRS legislation introduced in Australia stop the entire planet's anthropogenic CO2 contribution?

    Answer: No.

    My answer: Let all scientists (ie. geologists, physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, paleontologists, chemists, climatologists etc.) all go away quietly into the night and tell them when they have some idea of how the planet really works to let us know.

    IF I was an AGW proponent - answer:
    We need to get the whole world to act to cease ALL CO2 production immediately. If this means billions of people dead through disease, famine or war, so be it. If the chief scientists pushing this theory are right (including the CSIRO), then the entire human species is about to be wiped out. A few billion dead people means nothing when our entire species is at threat of extinction.

    It's not the answer, but it's my answer.

  30. #2880
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default From the horses mouth.

    Julia Gillard’s interview with Laurie Oakes this morning.

    I must have missed the bit about “urgency” and the “end of the world”.

    Make up your own mind if the ETS is dead or not.


    LO: You’ve now been pinged along with Wayne Swan as responsible for the shelving of the Emissions Trading System, the decision more than anything else shredded Kevin Rudd's credibility. Do you accept responsibility for that?

    JG: I accept my fair share.

    LO: It sounds like the lion's share from the reports we have on the dispatch …

    JG: I accept my fair share of the responsibility for all of the decisions that happened when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister. I accept my fair share, for the good things and the bad things.

    LO: But you did argue that the ETS should be dumped because it was hurting Labour politically, is that true?

    JG: Laurie, I was concerned that if you were going to do something as big to your economy as put a price on carbon, with the economic transformation that implies, with changing the way in which we live, you need a lasting and deep community consensus to do it. And I don't believe we have that lasting and deep community consensus now. Now I believe we should have a price on carbon, and I will be prepared to argue for a price on carbon to lead, so that we get to that lasting and deep community consensus, but we are not there yet. We can take practical measures on climate change, I believe in climate change, I believe it’s caused by human activity, and I believe we have got an obligation to act. And I'll be make some statements about some further things we can do to address the challenge of climate change as we work to that lasting and deep community consensus.

    LO: You didn't actually say this, Kevin Rudd did, this is a great moral challenge of our time, but you did as recently as December say that delaying the ETS was the same as climate change denial. Are you a deny-er?

    JG: Well no Laurie, I am not a denier, I am not a denier, but I'm someone who believes that you have got to take the community with you when you make lasting and deep changes. Now as Prime Minister, as a leader, I have an obligation to have the conversation, to have the discussion to indicate the attitudes, and I'm doing that today. I believe in the future of this nation, we will have a price on carbon. I believe we will transform our economy the way that that price imply, I believe there will be ways in which we live that are different. But that's something that the community has to have a part in the decision, a part in the conversation, and we have got to drive the consensus for change.

    LO: It seems to me and to a lot of other people, that in terms of policy, the three things, the three big problems the Rudd government had were asylum seeker policy, the ETS back flip and the mining tax, now Kevin Rudd basically followed your asylum seeker policy, he did what you wanted on the Emissions Trading System, I don't know if you can be blamed for the mining tax, but two out of three ain't bad.

    Full story here:


  31. #2881
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Sound familiar? It sure does!

    Fancy posting a comment (read "opinion") on an opinion article - i.e. an opinion on an opinion to support your position!

    It would sounds more convincing if the denialists could produce some credible scientific evidence to support their position. Oh well, I suppose opinions - and opinions on opinions - is as good as their 'evidence' gets.
    It is an observation of another's opinion. Oh well I guess you cant get that. Kinda confirms the observation don't you think?

    LOL
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  32. #2882
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Right ammo, wrong target.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Does this have a familiar ring to it?

    This is a posted comment on this page. Amazongate: the missing evidence - Telegraph
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Sound familiar? It sure does!

    Fancy posting a comment (read "opinion") on an opinion article - i.e. an opinion on an opinion to support your position!

    It would sounds more convincing if the denialists could produce some credible scientific evidence to support their position. Oh well, I suppose opinions - and opinions on opinions - is as good as their 'evidence' gets.
    So let me get this straight:

    The article ( I assume your read it) is about one dudes opinion, that gets adopted by a green group as their opinion, that gets published by the IPCC as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence".

    Opinion on an opinion sold to us as evidence!

    Then Rod quotes a dudes opinion about a media article, and clearly explains that it is just a comment, and never purports that this is peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

    Observation on an opinion clearly explained as just that!

    And you have no issues with the IPCC, but have issues with Rod?

    As for my evidence, I think I'll stick with reality. If you care to argue with reality, why don't you spend the next few nights sleeping outside and let me know how you go.

    Oh yeh, the old "weather isn't climate" stuff. Then please spend every winter sleeping outside for the next twenty years and let me know how you go. If you start enjoying balmy nights under the stars I guess you guys are right, if you keep freezing your b--lls off, I guess you guys are wrong.

    Reality bites.

  33. #2883
    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 let me get this straight:

    The article ( I assume your read it) is about one dudes opinion, that gets adopted by a green group as their opinion, that gets published by the IPCC as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence".
    Yep, I read it.

    Let's see, it's an article in The Daily Telegraph by one of their opinion writers by the name of Christopher Booker. And someone, "RickBradford", posted a comment of support (quoted by Rod).

    So who is Christopher Booker? Wikipedia provides some insight:
    Booker, a prominent global warming sceptic, has claimed in his long-running column in the Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming", and that government policy aimed at dealing with this issue will be ruinously expensive.
    Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health, stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero".
    Booker has also claimed that

    • "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist";
    • there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans".
    • Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
    • BBC Radio 4's Today Programme "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the theory of Intelligent Design and Darwinians and "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists".
    Hardly what I would consider to be a reputable source.

    Did you read the article?

  34. #2884
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,218

    Default Brrrrrrrrrrrrr!

    Would it be alright to throw some more wood on the fire?

    Coldstream weather forecast, Bureau of Meteorology Warnings & rainfall
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails frost-004.jpg   frost-006.jpg  
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  35. #2885
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Yep, I read it.

    Let's see, it's an article in The Daily Telegraph by one of their opinion writers by the name of Christopher Booker. And someone, "RickBradford", posted a comment of support (quoted by Rod).

    So who is Christopher Booker? Wikipedia provides some insight:
    Booker, a prominent global warming sceptic, has claimed in his long-running column in the Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming", and that government policy aimed at dealing with this issue will be ruinously expensive.
    Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health, stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero".
    Booker has also claimed that

    • "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist";
    • there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans".
    • Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
    • BBC Radio 4's Today Programme "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the theory of Intelligent Design and Darwinians and "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists".
    Hardly what I would consider to be a reputable source.

    Did you read the article?

    So I guess you would say whatever this guy writes can't be right correct?

    You amaze me more and more. certainly confirms what RickBradford had to say.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  36. #2886
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So I guess you would say whatever this guy writes can't be right correct?

    You amaze me more and more. certainly confirms what RickBradford had to say.
    I don't think he can't be right, but rather as he biased, what he writes is likely to be wrong or a misrepresentation.

    Also, his reasoning on those other topics (Oops, it seems that smoking causes cancer rears its head again ), makes his logic and conclusions very questionable.

    He could possibly be right, but I'd very much doubt what he writes.


  37. #2887
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Oh, that pesky reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Would it be alright to throw some more wood on the fire?

    Coldstream weather forecast, Bureau of Meteorology Warnings & rainfall
    Yeh, I too have been scraping ice from the windscreen for the past week. Enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. I empathise with poor Chrisp sleeping outside waiting for it to warm up. And remember we also have the rest of the worlds empathy for our extreme temperature plight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    "Only an empathic sense for the suffering of people in Pakistan, Nigeria, China and Australia, to name just a few countries already being severely affected by climate change, will motivate us to take the strong and immediate action needed."

    Suffer in your jocks lads and ladies. Crank those air-cons tonight, while the rest of the world "empathises" with us frying to death.

    Full sordid propaganda here (it hurts me to direct people to these sites ):

    How Do Empathy and Dangerous Climate Change Relate? | Global Climate Change Information
    That CO2 stuff is magic, really warms the place up when the Sun comes out!

  38. #2888
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What the?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Yep, I read it.

    Let's see, it's an article in The Daily Telegraph by one of their opinion writers by the name of Christopher Booker. And someone, "RickBradford", posted a comment of support (quoted by Rod).

    So who is Christopher Booker? Wikipedia provides some insight:
    Booker, a prominent global warming sceptic, has claimed in his long-running column in the Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming", and that government policy aimed at dealing with this issue will be ruinously expensive.
    Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health, stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero".
    Booker has also claimed that

    • "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist";
    • there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans".
    • Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
    • BBC Radio 4's Today Programme "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the theory of Intelligent Design and Darwinians and "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists".
    Hardly what I would consider to be a reputable source.

    Did you read the article?
    For crying out loud, do you guys have an on-line course that trains you how to go off on a tangent in ad-hominem attacks. Is it www.smearthesceptic.com? (not real). Or is it Al Gore's little climate brigade training (can't be bothered looking it up).

    If you prefer a Pro-AGW Theory website argument about the subject, try:

    Comparing what the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests

    If you want to find the main reason trees are disappearing (people chopping them down, duh ), start here:

    Deforestation in Amazonia - Encyclopedia of Earth

    But seriously, can't the dude have an opinion contrary to the Church of AGW, without being personally attacked for irrelevant attitudes to other issues. He is possibly anti-abortion, patriarchial, bi-sexual, and needs viagra to get it up? He may even believe in Santa Claus, or thought he once saw a UFO? But what the hell does this have to do with the dude having a contrary opinion to AGW Theory?

    The more you guys carry on like this, the more you validate the opinion of an opinion on this opinion piece:

    Warmists have an urgent psychological need to be right the whole time, which fuels their whining outrage when they are shown to be wrong, their desperate, blind scrambling to try to shore up their position, and their triumphal glee when they think they have scored a point.

    It's all about 'winning' for them, and nothing to do with truth in research leading to sensible policy-making.
    Yeh, I read it too. But like all stuff I read, it didn't trigger any insecurities in my opinion of this farce!

  39. #2889
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Clones or clowns?

    How do you negate the lack of a climate policy?

    Adopt a "me too" strategy.

    "Ms Gillard's position on emissions trading has been ambiguous since she replaced Kevin Rudd on Thursday. She has said she supported a carbon price, but declined to back Mr Rudd's timetable of reviewing whether to introduce emissions trading in 2012.

    ''I will be prepared to argue for a price on carbon, to lead so that we get to that lasting and deep community consensus, but we're not there yet.''

    She promised announcements about ''practical measures'' on climate change while the government worked on building a consensus."

    Gillard's not even going to argue for a price on carbon (I assume dioxide), but she "will be prepared to" one day...

    Gee, "practical measures", better not call them "direct action".

    Clowns, the lot of them.

    Full story here:

    Parties 'clones' on climate

  40. #2890
    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
    But seriously, can't the dude have an opinion contrary to the Church of AGW, without being personally attacked for irrelevant attitudes to other issues. He is possibly anti-abortion, patriarchial, bi-sexual, and needs viagra to get it up? He may even believe in Santa Claus, or thought he once saw a UFO? But what the hell does this have to do with the dude having a contrary opinion to AGW Theory?
    There is nothing wrong with the guy, and anyone else, having an opinion - we all have them.

    However, it seems that the anti-AGW fraternity seems to use opinions as if they are facts to underpin their views on anti-AGW.

    If you can't find any reputable science to support your view, then I'd suppose that you would have to make do with opinions instead. Never mind the science, don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory or a political rant.

  41. #2891
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    For crying out loud, do you guys have an on-line course that trains you how to go off on a tangent in ad-hominem attacks. Is it www.smearthesceptic.com? (not real). Or is it Al Gore's little climate brigade training (can't be bothered looking it up).

    But seriously, can't the dude have an opinion contrary to the Church of AGW, without being personally attacked for irrelevant attitudes to other issues. He is possibly anti-abortion, patriarchial, bi-sexual, and needs viagra to get it up? He may even believe in Santa Claus, or thought he once saw a UFO? But what the hell does this have to do with the dude having a contrary opinion to AGW Theory?
    Yep. It's called 'Risk Assessment 101'. You can do it at most reputable adult education centres. Highly recommended. Nothing to do with Al Gore either.

    The bloke can have an opinion....even about climate change but given that all of his other opinions have been found to 'incorrect' then (using your risk assessment training) you can pretty easily determine the likelihood of the dude being wrong.

    ....well.....I can. But it is just an opinion.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  42. #2892
    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
    CSIRO said we are all dead if don't act within five years.
    Hey Doc,

    What is your source for the above quote? I'm curious to read it.

  43. #2893
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's called reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    There is nothing wrong with the guy, and anyone else, having an opinion - we all have them.

    However, it seems that the anti-AGW fraternity seems to use opinions as if they are facts to underpin their views on anti-AGW.

    If you can't find any reputable science to support your view, then I'd suppose that you would have to make do with opinions instead. Never mind the science, don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory or a political rant.
    I don't use opinions to underpin the fact that AGW Theory is just a theory. I use the fact that it is called AGW Theory, to know that it is a theory. As I have mentioned numerous times, there are countless theories in many areas of science, and none of them are proven, that is why they are called theories. As for this particular debacle, it unfortunately taints other theories that are much more credible.

    With all due respect to your "science", what you are referring to are computer models programmed with flawed assumptions, supported by enviro-fascist opinion.

    I get my science from a place called reality. You too can access this vast database, walk outside and gather as much as you want.

  44. #2894
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Lost in translation.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Hey Doc,

    What is your source for the above quote? I'm curious to read it.
    And here I was thinking you were hanging off my every word and furiously note-taking from all my posts.

    My source is the other Penny, more on the ministerial one next!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The CSIRO has threatened all Australians with the death penalty if we do not believe in their computer modelling climate gods.

    Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming. Six years.

    Full story here (a year old tale of woe, down to five years now):

    Poor prognosis for our planet

    Melting icebergs ... a symptom of global warming. Photo: Reuters



    You see people, icebergs never melted prior to the industrial age. They've been floating around the planet for 4 billion years waiting for humans to invent cars so they could finally melt...and become a symptom of "global warming", or "climate change", or "carbon pollution".
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    A pretty green outfit now...



    Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem.

    "The public must be provided with the best possible advice," Professor Sackett said.

    Like this?

    We've got 5 years to save world says Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett

    I liked the world more when there was only one green muppet.



  45. #2895
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Oh dear.

    Remember now, this person is not only a federal senator, but our Minister for Climate Change (and energy blah blah).

    "For too long, those who deny climate change is real have muddied the debate. For too long, they have hijacked this issue to pursue their own agenda. Today, I want to play my part in setting the record straight on the science.

    ...It is because of you that we understand climate change is real. It is because of you that we understand that climate change is happening now. It is because of you that we understand that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions...

    ...Those that deny the reality of climate change – let’s call them the climate change opposition - cannot agree on an alternative theory. And they are even less likely to concede that they might be wrong. Some say the earth is not warming. Some say it has stopped warming. Others say the earth is warming – but because of natural variability.

    When it comes down to it, the climate change opposition have not put forward one alternative, coherent explanation as to how the climate is changing and why it is changing. And when weighing their theories it is reasonable to ask about the relevance of their qualifications and the extent of their willingness to be peer reviewed.

    Publicity does not equate to scientific weight...

    ...Apart from this, we must acknowledge that the climate change consensus is underpinned by the peer review process. It is important that the public understands how this system works...It is robust. It is trustworthy...

    ...We have all been taught that there are two sides to every story. The difference is that climate change is not a story. Climate change is fact. And it is irresponsible to try to tell people that climate change does not pose a risk...

    ...For example, we should remind ourselves that:


    • Scientists have found that it is at least 90 per cent likely that the observed global warming has been caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change....

    ...If we do not take action on climate change, the impact on the Murray Darling Basin will be catastrophic...

    ...If the Australian Greens had not teamed up with the Coalition to sink the legislation, we would be moving towards a price on carbon...

    ...Because no fair-minded person could be presented with the weight and extent of the science and not conclude that we have to act..."

    Full story here (You can trust it guys, it's a greenie site. It's even green):

    Penny Wong speech at Climate Adaptation Futures Conference - A Climate For Change

    I seriously don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.

  46. #2896
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Ignorance = Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Yep. It's called 'Risk Assessment 101'. You can do it at most reputable adult education centres. Highly recommended. Nothing to do with Al Gore either.

    The bloke can have an opinion....even about climate change but given that all of his other opinions have been found to 'incorrect' then (using your risk assessment training) you can pretty easily determine the likelihood of the dude being wrong.

    ....well.....I can. But it is just an opinion.
    Two points you missed.

    given that all of his other opinions have been found to 'incorrect'
    First, you can read his bio as well as the next guy, so you can see he's got some stuff right and he's got some stuff wrong, haven't we all. My point was, highlighting only the things he has gotten wrong in an attempt to smear his reputation is cheap (as is saying all his opinions are incorrect).

    Second, you once again make the mistake of a lot of AGW Theory supporters in thinking that peoples opinions of the facts at hand are the issue, then you try to discredit the person and thereby their opinion.

    I provided the extra link to the greenie site (again below) so people could go there and see a version of the facts at hand played out. Then they can form their own opinion (or research further as they see fit). That way, each persons own brain can kick in and form an opinion, then they dont have to rely on someone else's. You see, us sceptics don't "believe" in authority figures or accept any opinion as dogma. But as this is what AGW Theory relies on, I understand why AGW Theory supporters continue to make this false assumption.

    In spite of the continued efforts of AGW Theory supporters to stifle debate and limit information (as demonstrated by Penny Wong above), the best way to reduce risk is to reduce ignorance.

    But I'm sure your ubeaut adult education course would have taught you that.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    If you prefer a Pro-AGW Theory website argument about the subject, try:

    Comparing what the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests
    P.S.

    I'd also be curious as to whether you apply your risk assessment approach to climate models? You see, all climate models been found to be incorrect in predicting future weather patterns, let alone the accumulation of these weather patterns over decades.

    Can you also pretty easily determine the likelihood of these models being wrong?

  47. #2897
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Sceptics disclaimer

    WARNING: The text below is commentary from a website cited below that should be regarded as the opinion of the writer only and in no way reflects on the credibility of the author of the article whatsoever, or the editors of said article, notwithstanding any statutory restrictions applicable to the censoring of aforementioned opinions, but may reflect on the credibility of the poster to this thread as cogent and explicit action was required to present this information in this format, albeit as an example of an aforementioned axiom expressed in previous posts with an indirect yet pertinent relation to the comments contained herein.

    In a nutshell: It's peoples (Brisbanian's) opinions, don't take it too seriously, and please don't dig up all their sordid histories in an attempt to discredit them.

    "All these really concerned environmental people think nothing of dashing to the otherside of the world in fuel guzzling aircraft, taking a plethora of assistants with them and staying in some super duper energy sucking resort - Rudd & Copenhagen - and they want to speak for us serfs!
    Rusty | Tamworth - June 29, 2010, 10:46AM

    Here we go again, Copenhagen was a flop, no one is going to sign up to anything. It wont stop all these so called scientists wanting to re-visit the whole thing. Prior to people finding out that a large proportion of the data was tainted, these scientists and environmental hangers-on never had it so good in all their puff. All they had to do was put climate change or global warming on their submission papers and they would get their grant post haste. Nothing has changed, the world is still turning, the sun comes up the rain comes down, Al Gore has beach front property. Given a chance these scare mongerers will again have all the dopes running around declaring the sky is falling. Carbon is not a pollutant.
    masmanster@gmail.com
    - June 29, 2010, 11:27AM

    For crying out loud, just plant more trees and EVERYTHING will be fine. AND we'll have lots of forest products for GENERATIONS to come. This is not news, remember the New Forest in Britain? Or is this too old fashioned for us?!
    TEKNIX
    | Holloways Bch - June 29, 2010, 12:02PM

    Abbott is right. Climate change is complete cr*p.

    Blah Blah
    - June 29, 2010, 12:25PM"


    Julia Gillard Wants Carbon Trading Scheme Says Penny Wong

    Good onya Blah Blah!

  48. #2898
    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
    CSIRO said we are all dead if don't act within five years.
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Hey Doc,

    What is your source for the above quote? I'm curious to read it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    And here I was thinking you were hanging off my every word and furiously note-taking from all my posts.

    My source is the other Penny, more on the ministerial one next!
    Doc,

    Thanks for that. I followed the link to the newspaper article Poor prognosis for our planet and having the date of the talk cited, I managed to find the actual speech given by Penny Sackett.

    What she actually said was:

    • Perhaps most importantly, to meet the 2 degree C warming goal, global CO2 emissions must not grow after 2015.
    • That gives us 6 years to go from increasing global emissions every year, to decreasing them every year.

    She did not say that "we are all dead if don't act within five years".

  49. #2899
    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
    WARNING: The text below is commentary from a website cited below that should be regarded as the opinion of the writer only and in no way reflects on the credibility of the author of the article whatsoever, or the editors of said article, notwithstanding any statutory restrictions applicable to the censoring of aforementioned opinions, but may reflect on the credibility of the poster to this thread as cogent and explicit action was required to present this information in this format, albeit as an example of an aforementioned axiom expressed in previous posts with an indirect yet pertinent relation to the comments contained herein.





    I love it!


  50. #2900
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Damn scaremongering media lied to us again!

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Doc,

    Thanks for that. I followed the link to the newspaper article Poor prognosis for our planet and having the date of the talk cited, I managed to find the actual speech given by Penny Sackett.

    What she actually said was:

    • Perhaps most importantly, to meet the 2 degree C warming goal, global CO2 emissions must not grow after 2015.
    • That gives us 6 years to go from increasing global emissions every year, to decreasing them every year.

    She did not say that "we are all dead if don't act within five years".

    Good pick-up.

    Damn media scaremongering again!

    That crazy journalistic outlet called the Sydney Morning Herald actually verballed poor Penny and printed this outlandish scaremongering :

    "Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming."


    You see, when I read "unstoppable global warming", I generally thought that it will keep getting hotter and hotter, and...well...never stop! Being a reasonably sensible person, I figured all life on Earth would end in a fireball.

    But I have read Penny's real speech now (thanks for the link) and we obviously have nothing to worry about. Install a few aircons, pipelines and change a few immigration policies and everyone's happy. I could do with a few degrees warmer right now anyway.

    Now, we just have to get these damn journalists to stop scaremongering!!!

Page 58 of 377 FirstFirst ... 8 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 108 158 ... 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
  •