Is anyone surprised?

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Bearman

Yep, hypocrisy is rife among these fruit loops.

hyprocrisy is certainly rife, but i am not convinced the greens and others truly believe in what they preach. i think there is an amount of "selling their souls" to get elected. let's face it, recently, there has been at least one prominent politician that has sold their soul to remain in their previous position

power is everything to some and there seems to be many who will do whatever it takes to gain it

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

If its Brown, flush it down.

subtle, made me laugh.

I'd love to stop using my car and take public transport anywhere (as long as its VLine, none of this Metro crap), unfortunately theres no train station near my town, closest is 30km down the road, and theres no train station near my work, unless I want to go to Southern Cross, then from Southern Cross to Broadmeadows (stop here, no damn way) then from Broadmeadows by bus to KFC on Mickleham road, then walk like 5km to work from there.

More chance of me flying to the moon in my house.

One of my workmates does 100km plus on a pushbike, but theres something wrong with that guy.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by Bearman

What a bunch of muppets. Yep, hypocrisy is rife among these fruit loops.

I never voted these idiots in.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think you will find that environmentalists/greens are not about wanting to go back and live in caves, they want to maintain a decent standard of living but not at the expense of the environment.


You seem to want to have it both ways, stop progress into developing other forms of transport, energy, renewables etc(continue cheap fossil fuels) and then want to scream abuse when they have no alternative but to use fossil fuels to get themselves around get a cold drink whatever.

I for one couldnt care, ill drive my fossil fuel drinking car until there is no more, im not progressing into other forms of transport.
Environmental issues do not interest me.

Yeah this might upset a few but once again i dont care, i live for today not the future.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by DJM83

I for one couldnt care, ill drive my fossil fuel drinking car until there is no more, im not progressing into other forms of transport.
Environmental issues do not interest me.

Yeah this might upset a few but once again i dont care, i live for today not the future.

I don't know that I want to see some of the inhabitants of this country running around nude when the fossil fuel is gone... ...

On the upside, obesity might go down...?

I'm all for 'reducing' but this is a little ridiculous - they're extremists all of them, one will give it all away, and the other will squirrel it all away for themselves. Not one of them has found a decent middle ground yet...I wonder why?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

Greenies are like a cult these days. Best example is there treatment of lord monckton. He has been able to prove the science behind global warming( oops sorry its called climate change now because the earth isn't actually warming) is flawed but the greenies and scientists that are getting a pay cheque to tell governments what they want to hear have tried to censor him.
They didn't want him making a speech at a university in Australia. I wonder why? He has regularly called leading climate change advisors and scientists liars and committing fraud. He has backed up his opinion with his own research and said anyone he has accused to sue him if they can prove his research wrong in a court of law. Not one has tried suing him yet.

Poor treatment of? how so? Im sure if you or I applied to give a lecture/performance on how all the leading scientists in the world are frauds and liars then they would like to see some sort of credible background to support the claims, when they look to see what Monckton brings, all he has is an inherited title.

Yes, having Monckton speak at a place of education is just insulting to anyone who has bothered to take education in their field.
Monckton has not done any research or undertaken any study in the field of the science of climate change that warrants him taking the stage in academia.
Still, if he had some solid theories/explanations in which to challenge the current science, he may indeed be welcome. Unfortunately, any one with an understanding of the science that has followed his track record has observed that he misquotes and misrepresents the current science to make his own likeable conclusions as well as introducing studies/facts that may seem to support his case, but when examined in the cold light of day, indicate exactly the opposite or simply dont even exist.

Basic translation: snake oil salesman
If private enterprise(insert Gina Rinehart) whats him to spin a lovely story on what they want to hear, they are most welcome to pay for that and conduct it in their own private venues.

Suggest you have a read about the righteous Lord Monckton here, his list of lies and misrepresentations are just too numerous for one person to remember: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-...ons-rap-sheet/

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by anto

mark my words the greens will ruin this country !!

Yup, idiot minority (as usual) calling the shots. We have handed the keys to the country to some dope smoking, inner city clowns who have no concept of the working class.
Some things to learn from the current situation. We have two parties to vote for, thats it. The best it gets is swinging between the two and living in a marginal seat.

[Ford17]

Originally Posted by ray38l

Greenies are like a cult these days. Best example is there treatment of lord monckton. He has been able to prove the science behind global warming( oops sorry its called climate change now because the earth isn't actually warming) is flawed but the greenies and scientists that are getting a pay cheque to tell governments what they want to hear have tried to censor him.
They didn't want him making a speech at a university in Australia. I wonder why? He has regularly called leading climate change advisors and scientists liars and committing fraud. He has backed up his opinion with his own research and said anyone he has accused to sue him if they can prove his research wrong in a court of law. Not one has tried suing him yet.

T
^^^ this - and a very insightful observation too.

Without the likes of Lord Monckton, we'd only get one side to the story.
What sort of debate would that be?

The 'Greens' have Appropriately been described as the Watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. Little wonder they're teaming up with Labor at any given opportunity.

Also, a question to ponder: how many (climate change) scientists are actually employed by the private sector? If not many, then who are they then reporting to?

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Basic translation: snake oil salesman
If private enterprise(insert Gina Rinehart) whats him to spin a lovely story on what they want to hear, they are most welcome to pay for that and conduct it in their own private venues.

Suggest you have a read about the righteous Lord Monckton here, his list of lies and misrepresentations are just too numerous for one person to remember: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-...ons-rap-sheet/

I'm sorry, but I feel I have to point this out...

One of the 'contributors' to that webpage is on 'newly formed American Sociological Association Task Force on Climate Change' - says it all really...

Try a peer reviewed article next time, something that has some basis and 'intelligent' data behind it, as opposed to some slanderous campaign by few...web pages just don't cut it in the world of 'educational establishments'...you should know that...

This is a little bit more like it...

The widely accepted view that global warming is man-made and largely due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been disputed in a powerful and closely argued "critique" reviewed here, including some retraction by James Lovelock. Attention is drawn to a new online video on the life and contributions of the economist Adam Smith, and to development of the smallest-ever diamond transistor...The main finding is that currently accepted views of anthropomorphic global warming are subject to serious doubt. Practical implications - It seems likely that the "greenhouse" effect of carbon dioxide can be discounted, allowing major revisions of energy policy and increased exploitation of fossil fuel resources, though with attention also to renewable sources that will be needed when the fossil fuels run out. The diamond transistor will eventually allow increase in speed in digital devices. Originality/value - It is hoped this is a valuable periodic review.

"Second thoughts on global warming"
Alex M. Andrew. Kybernetes. London: 2011. Vol. 40, Iss. 1/2; pg. 327

And I'm sure you're aware that there are scientists suing because of the following:

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I'm sorry, but I feel I have to point this out...

One of the 'contributors' to that webpage is on 'newly formed American Sociological Association Task Force on Climate Change' - says it all really... :

So someone who actually takes an interest in climate change is not allowed to point out the bs that Monckton spews forth? Are they wrong about what they point out, now that would be interesting if you could provide some evidence of that, but suspect you dont understand the science well enough to even attempt that.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Try a peer reviewed article next time, something that has some basis and 'intelligent' data behind it, as opposed to some slanderous campaign by few...web pages just don't cut it in the world of 'educational establishments'...you should know that...
:

Recognised academics and experts in the field have gone on record discrediting the claims Monckton makes, Pinker et al. Don't know if you understand the current mechanisms of publishing papers, but Unfortunately peer reviewed papers are not put together for the sake of exposing crackpots.

Slanderous?, Monckton has made such noises, but just all bluff to try and save face, he is not going to sue anyone because he has been caught out.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

This is a little bit more like it...



"Second thoughts on global warming"
Alex M. Andrew. Kybernetes. London: 2011. Vol. 40, Iss. 1/2; pg. 327

And I'm sure you're aware that there are scientists suing because of the following:

Really, perhaps you can explain what it is saying(ive no idea) and how the science is wrong and who indeed this maths professor has had his claims peer reviewed by.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Forda

T
^^^ this - and a very insightful observation too.

Without the likes of Lord Monckton, we'd only get one side to the story.
What sort of debate would that be?

The 'Greens' have Appropriately been described as the Watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. Little wonder they're teaming up with Labor at any given opportunity.

Also, a question to ponder: how many (climate change) scientists are actually employed by the private sector? If not many, then who are they then reporting to?

If you want to think of it as a story fine. However, there is only the scientific view that supports to obervations and facts and then there are those trying to discredit/muddy that view by any means they see fit.
They'll tell us the modelling is wrong because its all done by computers.....and there are so many variables(yes there are, that's why they use computers, but we should believe the denialsts as to what will happen(nothing according to them) because they've nutted it all out without any resources at all(despite the thousands of variables).......yeh go with that.

Originally Posted by Forda

Also, a question to ponder: how many (climate change) scientists are actually employed by the private sector? If not many, then who are they then reporting to?

There are outfits such as this:http://www.weatheraction.com/, many people pay for the almanac services.

Elsewhere, are next to no private companies that research the atmosphere, its left to governments to look after the long term interests of their constituents.......that's why the CSIRO was started in the 1st place (or you believe it was started all that time ago so they could invent a mystery tax that the pollies could use to fleece us with? )

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Not defending oll of politician's actions, but most of you do realise these guys are probably working on the phone, on the computer or having meetings, doing media interviews while being driven in a car.

I believe most of these people would be working from the time they get up to the time they go to sleep 7 days a week.

Less work they do, better off the public is

[MethodX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH_MBwQhGgA

Truth you think?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The government of the day decides on the what cars all the pollies will be shipped around in and does the deal with the car companies, Im sure the green senators have had no input in that to date.

Regardless, if the green's managed to get prius's or something that burns less fossil fuels , the denialist tribe would still be jumping up and down telling us the hybrids cause more damage, batteries, take jobs from Australians..cost the tax payer more money.... yada yada, its all a stunt.....wanting to have it both ways all the time.

The government of the day doesn't dictate how the vehicles are used. If the greens want Australian citizens to use their vehicles less why are they not setting an example and using public transport?

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So someone who actually takes an interest in climate change is not allowed to point out the bs that Monckton spews forth? Are they wrong about what they point out, now that would be interesting if you could provide some evidence of that, but suspect you dont understand the science well enough to even attempt that.

Recognised academics and experts in the field have gone on record discrediting the claims Monckton makes, Pinker et al. Don't know if you understand the current mechanisms of publishing papers, but Unfortunately peer reviewed papers are not put together for the sake of exposing crackpots.

Slanderous?, Monckton has made such noises, but just all bluff to try and save face, he is not going to sue anyone because he has been caught out.


Really, perhaps you can explain what it is saying(ive no idea) and how the science is wrong and who indeed this maths professor has had his claims peer reviewed by.

Dear oh dear, someone points out something to the contrary of what you believe in, and they have no idea...what a surprise...


Perhaps if you took more than two seconds to read, you might understand...I'm sure a man of your callibre has access to university documents...instead of following the rhetoric, actually use some critical analysis...at least enough to see both sides, not just the one that suits (yet another) political agenda...

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So someone who actually takes an interest in climate change is not allowed to point out the bs that Monckton spews forth? Are they wrong about what they point out, now that would be interesting if you could provide some evidence of that, but suspect you dont understand the science well enough to even attempt that.

Recognised academics and experts in the field have gone on record discrediting the claims Monckton makes, Pinker et al. Don't know if you understand the current mechanisms of publishing papers, but Unfortunately peer reviewed papers are not put together for the sake of exposing crackpots.

Slanderous?, Monckton has made such noises, but just all bluff to try and save face, he is not going to sue anyone because he has been caught out.


Really, perhaps you can explain what it is saying(ive no idea) and how the science is wrong and who indeed this maths professor has had his claims peer reviewed by.

Stop setting out to ruin every thread im sick of it.

Political threads are also a no no, although this wasnt much of one but it has gone that way.
Maybe some members need to re read the site T&C again