Climate science SMACK DOWN.


Quote:

Climate science audit slams sceptics Michelle Grattan and Adam Morton May 23, 2011 THE government-established Climate Commission has dismissed the sceptics and warned of dire consequences if adequate action to cut emissions is not taken in this ''critical'' decade. In a review of the scientific evidence, released today, the commission says: ''We know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gasses are the primary cause.'' It also says this year's Queensland and Victorian flooding ''raised the question of a possible link between the floods and human-induced climate change''. Advertisement: Story continues below The government, embattled over the carbon tax, will use the report to bolster its case for action and to discredit critics. Prime Minister Julia Gillard set up the independent commission to give the public information as part of her move to price carbon. The audit of the science was done by one commissioner, climate scientist Will Steffen, and extensively reviewed by other experts. Professor Steffen hit out at sceptics yesterday, telling The Age that Australia and the United States were ''the two parts of the world where there is still significant media debate about the science''. There was no debate within the credible scientific community. Professor Steffen, of the Australian National University, said the deniers were making a very emotional attack on the science - it was not a rational criticism. ''A lot of people who understand psychology say vocal denialism has less to do with the science but is more about a world view,'' he said. Commission chairman Tim Flannery would not be drawn on the report's political implications, in particular between the Gillard carbon tax and Tony Abbott's direct action: ''It underlines the need for a carbon price; it doesn't talk about the mechanism used to deliver that.'' But he stressed the need for a robust policy. Fossil-fuel emissions had to be dealt with directly - it would not be adequate just to allow polluters to offset their emissions into agricultural sequestration, such as forestry and soil carbon, he said. The report says the impacts of climate change are already being felt in Australia and elsewhere, with less than 1 degree of global warming; the economic, environmental and societal risks of future change are serious. ''Minimising these risks requires rapid, deep and ongoing reductions to global greenhouse gas emissions. We must begin now if we are to decarbonise our economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050.'' The report also canvasses a ''budget approach'' to reducing emissions as an alternative to the present targets-and-timetables approach. This would set an amount of emissions consistent with a certain level of containment of global warming. It ''allows more flexibility in the economic and technical pathways to emissions reductions'', it says, but warns ''the fact that we have already consumed over 30 per cent of our post-2000 budget means that much of that flexibility has been squandered if we wish to avoid the escalating risks associated with temperature rises beyond 2 degrees''. Highlighting the problems for Australia, the report points out that in the past 50 years, the number of record hot days has more than doubled, increasing the risk of heatwaves and associated deaths. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-science-audit-slams-sceptics-20110522-1eyy8.html#ixzz1N7nohVEC

Quote:

Sea-level fright as climate report goes public May 23, 2011 - 7:36AM Comments 28 Global warming is real, man made, and could cause the world's sea level to rise a metre by the end of the century, much higher than previously thought, according to the federal government's Climate Commission. Melbourne faces extreme and more frequent flooding, while higher sea levels are already "bad news" for fragile areas including Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef, says Commissioner Will Steffen. The commission's first major report, The Critical Decade, is released today. Advertisement: Story continues below It also says this year's Queensland and Victorian flooding ''raised the question of a possible link between the floods and human-induced climate change''. "A plausible estimate of the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared to 2000 is 0.5 to one metre," the report says. ''While a sea-level rise of 0.5 metre … may not seem like a matter for much concern, such modest levels of sea-level rise can lead to unexpectedly large increases in the frequency of extreme high sea-level events,'' it said. The sea-level forecast is higher than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's top range of 0.18m to 0.76m. Commissioner Will Steffen, a Canberra-based climate scientist, made the assessment after surveying the existing literature and speaking to experts. "Some people may take issue with that - but that's my judgment," Professor Steffen said ahead of the report's release at Parliament House. The report states that even a rise of 0.5m could lead to an increase in extreme flooding events for coastal areas of Sydney and Melbourne "by factors of 1000 or 10,000 for some locations". The global sea level has risen by about 20cm since the 1880s. But the rises aren't uniform - they vary according to ocean currents and the local conditions on the land. In Australia, sea levels are rising fastest on the northern coastline. Around Arnhem Land it's rising by more than seven millimetres a year while the global average is 3.2mm. Prof Steffen notes that's bad news for Kakadu. "It is low-lying and already we're seeing some salt water intrusion into some of the fresh water wetlands," he said. When it comes to damage to the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian National University academic argues the report contains "solid data that says we are indeed starting to see some of these affects on calcifying organisms". The commission, established by Labor to spruik the case for tackling dangerous climate change, is also calling for a fresh approach to reducing carbon emissions. It suggests that, rather than focusing on interim targets based on percentage cuts, governments should commit to emitting no more than an agreed carbon dioxide "budget" by 2050. This so-called budget approach would allow greater flexibility and encourage investment in the most-effective technologies rather than quick-fix solutions. Prof Steffen said he hoped the report would refocus the political debate on the risks posed by climate change. "The costs of not doing something about climate change will almost surely be far, far greater than the costs of doing something about it," he said. When it comes to taking action, the report suggests focusing on limiting emissions to an agreed global budget. "The strategic challenge (then) changes from whether the 2020 target is a five per cent, 25 per cent or 40 per cent reduction against a particular baseline to how do we implement the transition to a low- or no-carbon economy by 2050 with the least economic and social cost while staying within the budget," the report states. For humanity to have a 75 per cent change of limiting temperature rises to two degrees Celsius it would need to emit no more than one trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2000 to 2050. Some 30 per cent of that budget has already been spent. The report acknowledges the difficulty with this approach would be allocating the global budget to individual countries. But Prof Steffen points out the new method "really focuses attention on the endgame which is to decarbonise economies by the middle of the century". The report argues this would encourage investment decisions to be taken from a long-term perspective. AAP Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/sealevel-fright-as-climate-report-goes-public-20110523-1ezd8.html#ixzz1N7puRtMp

Yes we know man made climate change scientist are clutching at straws too keep funding. The more people who wake up to this urban myth of "Man made Climate Change" the more desperate these people get to protect their funding.

How can someone so ignorant of science (ie. can't tell the difference between centigrade and joules, smacking numpty! ;D), yet still hold such strong opinions?  8-)

How can someone so ignorant of science?

easy being those pushing the climate change agenda and the same people who profit.

This is no different too when the churchs use to sell indulgences

we have no choice then but to stop selling coal and ore... simple as that.

it has to be done NOW>. not LATER.. NOW..

in the next decade... bugger we missed the last one.. when we had a decent chance of saving the planet..

however ripper we are b eing given a second chance...

its this decade that will matter not the last one..

nothing less than 40%.. so bugger off China..no more coal no more ore..it stays in the ground..

we havent a moment to lose..


there done and dusted.. I am all for it rip..but we either do it or we pussyfoot around pretending to do it with TAXes .. which we all know is a joke..

its the only way.or its doomsday.

From TODAYS news,


Quote:

Rising sea levels ... climate change. SYDNEY will be the Australian capital most vulnerable to extreme flooding events, the Climate Commission says. While the likelihood of damaging floods, storm surges and king tides will increase around the coast, Sydney can expect to see ''extreme events'' once a month by 2100, the commission's report The Critical Decade says. ''While a sea-level rise of 0.5 metre … may not seem like a matter for much concern, such modest levels of sea-level rise can lead to unexpectedly large increases in the frequency of extreme high sea-level events,'' it said. Advertisement: Story continues below Confirmed sea-level rise around Australia's coast amounts to a few millimetres per year since the early 1990s, with the highest levels of about eight millimetres recorded off Western Australia and the far north. Off Sydney, the rise has been much more moderate, at an average of just 1.8 millimetres a year - not noticeable to unaided observation. However, the report notes, even tiny amounts of sea-level rise can have a big impact on king tides, storm surges and flooding. ''The observed sea-level rise of about 20 centimetres from 1880 to 2000 should already have led to an increase in the incidence of extreme sea-level events,'' the report said. The Climate Change Department says a moderate sea-level rise this century will cost $63 billion in terms of changes to infrastructure and housing locations. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sealevel-rise-to-hit-sydney-worst-warns-climate-report-20110522-1ez0x.html#ixzz1NCHuivVW

The flat earth society have a lot to answer for, oh how I pine for the good old days when the loonies were just locked up or put down.

''A lot of people who understand psychology say vocal denialism has less to do with the science but is more about a world view,'' he said.

Well to politicians it is about more taxes and to environmentalists it is about environmentism and to the normal joe, it is about wanting proof. There is none. There is only rhetoric, some theories, some model that couldnt model a chook raffle and a scare campaign.

and Skippy what proof do you have this has nothing to do with tidal changes. could you please provide data on the moons orbit?

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:29am:

and Skippy what proof do you have this has nothing to do with tidal changes. could you please provide data on the moons orbit?

Wasnt the moon at its closest this year.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:24am:

''A lot of people who understand psychology say vocal denialism has less to do with the science but is more about a world view,'' he said. Well to politicians it is about more taxes and to environmentalists it is about environmentism and to the normal joe, it is about wanting proof. There is none. There is only rhetoric, some theories, some model that couldnt model a chook raffle and a scare campaign.

that what I think pro..

I mean to me its like the bible.. the Incas..Atlanta.. its all in the interpretation of what is written... we have no other way of knowing..

scientists dont show us the science, they tell us... its all passed on via a book/magazine if you dont mind... grafs suddenly appear all made by humans..and they make sense to some so it must be true..

some dont see the fine print where is says.. we assume..or we believe this will happen. put bloody great words to something .. all man made of course.. and it must be sooooo...

but when something, when its all melted down comes down to MONEY and more and bigger TAXEs.. I kind of switch off.

if it was this BIG and this imperative.. they would just be doing it.. NOW>..

not taxing it and spending heaps of time figuring out a way of doing it without getting voted into oblivion..............

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:33am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:29am: and Skippy what proof do you have this has nothing to do with tidal changes. could you please provide data on the moons orbit? Wasnt the moon at its closest this year.

r.u. telling me the sun and the moon have something to do with our tides.?????... cant be we humans are the only ones with the POWER..

When is Astro going to tell us who he really is, since he has been accussing people of being mellie on this board, yet mellies last post was over a month PRIOR to Astro's joining.

How many other nicks do you have Astro?

How about we put together some BS science figures coming out of the church of climatology

Just to help start off
GISS BS information
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hansen_september_the_hottest_october/

Or how about the, we do not know what we are doing NASA
2. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:47am:

How about we put together some BS science figures coming out of the church of climatology Just to help start off GISS BS information http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hansen_september_the_hottest_october/

I could have swore scientists didnt make mistakes..

Some reasons why people want more information. Scientists that are not convinced
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=9tOFoFx7S6M

Biography of Robert (Bob) M. Carter
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ?

Wally wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:02am:

Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ?

I dont understand why you ask about groups, then lump one name of one person?

Wally wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:02am:

Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ?

The confusionalists here, like cods and co would believe Monkton,nuf said I know.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:03am:

Wally wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:02am: Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ? I dont understand why you ask about groups, then lump one name of one person?

Because Monkton is the high priest of confusionalism, duffer.

skippy. wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:04am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:03am: Wally wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:02am: Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ? I dont understand why you ask about groups, then lump one name of one person? Because Monkton is the high priest of confusionalism, duffer.

I dont think so, but what he does do is get people thinking to look further into the church of climatology. And just to point out why using just one name is wrong, is because there could be thousands of name listed that do not comform to the church of wacky theories and fearmongering (yeh I got to use it, thanks Juliar)

I don't know why we keep having this argument?  It's clear that for muppets like progessiveslol no amount of studies will be enough to stop their blind denial, and persistence to ignore for the sake of their own greed.

The Future Fund doesn't seem to be worried about climate disasters affecting Brisbane waterfront . . .or maybe it figures they've had their 1/100 year catastrophe for a while:


Future Funds pays $216m for Brisbane Waterfront tower May 23, 2011 - 10:29AM
.The Future Fund bought a 50 per cent stake in a 36-level office building Waterfront Place in Brisbane for $216.4 million from real estate firm Stockland's unlisted property fund, Stockland said on today.

The sale comes as the Future Fund snapped up property assets in recent years to diversify its portfolio and boost returns. Its allocation to property increased to 6.1 per cent at the end of March from 5.5 per cent at end-December last year. As of March 31, the Future Fund had $75 billion in assets.

The Future Fund has also agreed to buy from Stockland a 50 per cent interest in the adjacent Eagle Street Pier in Brisbane, a waterfront precinct with restaurants, for $16 million, Stockland said.

Stockland is putting more focus on retail, retirement villages and residential, while it plans to trim other non-core assets.

Australia established the Future Fund in 2006 to assist future governments meet the cost of public sector superannuation liabilities.

Reuters


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/future-funds-pays-216m--for-brisbane-waterfront-tower-20110523-1ezkg.html#ixzz1N8Jzic8t

Quick, somebody better tell Al Gore.
He'd be pretty annoyed if the ocean rose by a metre and his new $8.9 million luxury beachfront villa in California went under.
Or perhaps Al isn't too concerned about what the soothsayers say nowadays.
Maybe they just need to make new predictions the old fashioned way.
Guessing just doesn't seem to cut it anymore.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 11:04am:

I don't know why we keep having this argument?  It's clear that for muppets like progessiveslol no amount of studies will be enough to stop their blind denial, and persistence to ignore for the sake of their own greed.

Likewise, so what you gonna do. Back to the he said she said, well bring it on.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 11:04am: I don't know why we keep having this argument?  It's clear that for muppets like progessiveslol no amount of studies will be enough to stop their blind denial, and persistence to ignore for the sake of their own greed. Likewise, so what you gonna do. Back to the he said she said, well bring it on.

Nope, I'm just going to go about my normal life, accept that climate change policy will be enacted, and ignore foolish nuffs nuffs like you.  Because your song has simply become old and frustrated.

astro_surf wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:02am:

Commission chairman Tim Flannery

Did you believe Timmy in 2005 when he prophesied that Sydney's dams might run dry by 2007?


Climate change 'will prolong' drought conditions
Last Update: Saturday, June 11, 2005. 6:47am

Leading environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery has warned that Australia is now entering long-term climate change, which could cause longer and more frequent droughts.

He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.

Professor Flannery, who is the director of the South Australian Museum, has told ABC TV's Lateline that global warming is threatening Australia's chance of returning to a regular rainfall pattern.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 11:04am: I don't know why we keep having this argument?  It's clear that for muppets like progessiveslol no amount of studies will be enough to stop their blind denial, and persistence to ignore for the sake of their own greed. Likewise, so what you gonna do. Back to the he said she said, well bring it on. Nope, I'm just going to go about my normal life, accept that climate change policy will be enacted, and ignore foolish nuffs nuffs like you.  Because your song has simply become old and frustrated.

Thats another likewise. Maybe now you may get the time to challenge the establishment at your church.

Total available storage as at 3pm Thursday, 19 May 2011 is 73.8%, a decrease of 0.3% since last Thursday.

http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2012/19-may-2011


SO now it's inundation scare from Timmy.

AGW - the disaster scenario that keeps giving, no matter what actually happens. Brilliant.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 11:04am: I don't know why we keep having this argument?  It's clear that for muppets like progessiveslol no amount of studies will be enough to stop their blind denial, and persistence to ignore for the sake of their own greed. Likewise, so what you gonna do. Back to the he said she said, well bring it on. Nope, I'm just going to go about my normal life, accept that climate change policy will be enacted, and ignore foolish nuffs nuffs like you.  Because your song has simply become old and frustrated. Thats another likewise. Maybe now you may get the time to challenge the establishment at your church.

Oh Great :) Good to see that you accept climate change policy will be enacted.  

Don't go getting too upset about it. ;D

Soren wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:21pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:02am: Commission chairman Tim Flannery Did you believe Timmy in 2005 when he prophesied that Sydney's dams might run dry by 2007? Climate change 'will prolong' drought conditions Last Update: Saturday, June 11, 2005. 6:47am Leading environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery has warned that Australia is now entering long-term climate change, which could cause longer and more frequent droughts. He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years. Professor Flannery, who is the director of the South Australian Museum, has told ABC TV's Lateline that global warming is threatening Australia's chance of returning to a regular rainfall pattern. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm

Good news actually, as this obviously then means that Australia will be returning to a regular rainfall pattern sooner rather than later.
Anything Flannery states needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because Australia's leading environmentalist has had zero luck in his prediction making.
He needs to get some new cats intestines, the old ones are off.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:09pm:

Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:21pm: astro_surf wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:02am: Commission chairman Tim Flannery Did you believe Timmy in 2005 when he prophesied that Sydney's dams might run dry by 2007? Climate change 'will prolong' drought conditions Last Update: Saturday, June 11, 2005. 6:47am Leading environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery has warned that Australia is now entering long-term climate change, which could cause longer and more frequent droughts. He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years. Professor Flannery, who is the director of the South Australian Museum, has told ABC TV's Lateline that global warming is threatening Australia's chance of returning to a regular rainfall pattern. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm Good news actually, as this obviously then means that Australia will be returning to a regular rainfall pattern sooner rather than later. Anything Flannery states needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because Australia's leading environmentalist has had zero luck in his prediction making. He needs to get some new cats intestines, the old ones are off.

Flannery is just a scaremonger, fearmonger, scare campaigner.

skippy. wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:03am:

Wally wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:02am: Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ? The confusionalists here, like cods and co would believe Monkton,nuf said I know.

lol... well said from the resident.. ignoramus..

strangely enough I believe in my own commonsense.

who do you believe skippy????????.. apart from Al Gore of course..

I mean it is all about" WHO YOU BELIEVE ISNT IT"???.

your no scientist anymore than I am...so we are at the mercy of someone else..or at least you are..

I look at the conflicting evidence! and yes there is a lot of conflict it isnt all cut and dried as some would have it..

so I then look at Mother Nature.. whom most believers dont believe in, and my money is still on her. I am afraid..

I dont know what confusionalist about that.......you might wish to explain if you can.

cods wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:23pm:

skippy. wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:03am: Wally wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:02am: Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ? The confusionalists here, like cods and co would believe Monkton,nuf said I know. lol... well said from the resident.. ignoramus.. strangely enough I believe in my own commonsense. who do you believe skippy????????.. apart from Al Gore of course.. I mean it is all about" WHO YOU BELIEVE ISNT IT"???. your no scientist anymore than I am...so we are at the mercy of someone else..or at least you are.. I look at the conflicting evidence! and yes there is a lot of conflict it isnt all cut and dried as some would have it.. so I then look at Mother Nature.. whom most believers dont believe in, and my money is still on her. I am afraid.. I dont know what confusionalist about that.......you might wish to explain if you can.

You define confusionalist in every post you make cods. :D

Soren wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 12:24pm:

Total available storage as at 3pm Thursday, 19 May 2011 is 73.8%, a decrease of 0.3% since last Thursday. http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2012/19-may-2011 SO now it's inundation scare from Timmy. AGW - the disaster scenario that keeps giving, no matter what actually happens. Brilliant.

what I dont get soren is that if we ask questions... which I think are quite reasonable....we get the name calling the ridicule.I was even accused of not giving a damn about my grandchildren.this goes back to those years on yahoo... yet here we are years later and nothing has changed for all the mudslinging... not a thing is any different....

all thats changes are the goal post keep getting moved further apart... now its 2020/50..

instead of 2013/15

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:09pm:

Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:21pm: astro_surf wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:02am: Commission chairman Tim Flannery Did you believe Timmy in 2005 when he prophesied that Sydney's dams might run dry by 2007? Climate change 'will prolong' drought conditions Last Update: Saturday, June 11, 2005. 6:47am Leading environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery has warned that Australia is now entering long-term climate change, which could cause longer and more frequent droughts. He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years. Professor Flannery, who is the director of the South Australian Museum, has told ABC TV's Lateline that global warming is threatening Australia's chance of returning to a regular rainfall pattern. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm Good news actually, as this obviously then means that Australia will be returning to a regular rainfall pattern sooner rather than later. Anything Flannery states needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because Australia's leading environmentalist has had zero luck in his prediction making. He needs to get some new cats intestines, the old ones are off.

I have great respect for Tim Flannery.......in the fields of mammalogy and palaeontology..which he has training and qualification in.....as for climate activism......well not so much

Something all deniers should realise:

Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper.

So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on.

Cheers.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:03am:

Wally wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:02am: Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ? I dont understand why you ask about groups, then lump one name of one person?

oops, sorry, I will add Alan Jones. hehe

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers.

Alevine......even 'deniers' agree that climate change is real......It's MAN-CAUSED climate change that we are sceptical about...

And they ARE very different things..

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:35pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. Alevine......even 'deniers' agree that climate change is real......It's MAN-CAUSED climate change that we are sceptical about... And they ARE very different things..

And the government and opposition both support that man-caused climate change is real, considering they BOTH have a policy to deal with it.

So again, conservatives need to take a deep breath, realise that no amount of whining is going to change the fact that either main party will enact action.

Poor progessiveslol :( I hope the period of change doesn't impact you like the introduction of cars and computers did... ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers.

The debate is what I say the debate is. Thanks anyway.

Wally wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:03am: Wally wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:02am: Who do you believe - Climate scientists, politicians, journalists or Christopher Monckton ? I dont understand why you ask about groups, then lump one name of one person? oops, sorry, I will add Alan Jones. hehe

Not enough. Add some climate scientists like Robert Carter and others.

How about you add the oh my god non-credible scientists.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:41pm:

The debate is what I say the debate is. Thanks anyway.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Actually no. the debate has moved on to how BEST to deal with Climate change.  Not whether man-made climate change is real or not.

I know you like to live in the past, but seriously move on.  

And on that note, for someone who is so intent on bringing back the 1920's, why use modern items? Go back to that era yourself! Lose your car. Lose your computer. and live life like you wish it be.

;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:41pm: The debate is what I say the debate is. Thanks anyway. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Actually no. the debate has moved on to how BEST to deal with Climate change.  Not whether man-made climate change is real or not. I know you like to live in the past, but seriously move on.   And on that note, for someone who is so intent on bringing back the 1920's, why use modern items? Go back to that era yourself! Lose your car. Lose your computer. and live life like you wish it be. ;D ;D ;D

Actually no. The debate is what I say the debate is.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. Alevine......even 'deniers' agree that climate change is real......It's MAN-CAUSED climate change that we are sceptical about... And they ARE very different things.. And the government and opposition both support that man-caused climate change is real, considering they BOTH have a policy to deal with it. So again, conservatives need to take a deep breath, realise that no amount of whining is going to change the fact that either main party will enact action. Poor progessiveslol :( I hope the period of change doesn't impact you like the introduction of cars and computers did... ;D ;D ;D

And why is it unusual for a political party to float a policy (that they don't 'personally' believe ) that is 'popular' with a certain percentage of the voters???

Witness the Carbon Tax..

Oh and BTW, I'm NOT progressiveslol...

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:40pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. Alevine......even 'deniers' agree that climate change is real......It's MAN-CAUSED climate change that we are sceptical about... And they ARE very different things.. And the government and opposition both support that man-caused climate change is real, considering they BOTH have a policy to deal with it. So again, conservatives need to take a deep breath, realise that no amount of whining is going to change the fact that either main party will enact action. Poor progessiveslol :( I hope the period of change doesn't impact you like the introduction of cars and computers did... ;D ;D ;D And why is it unusual for a political party to float a policy (that they don't 'personally' believe ) that is 'popular' with a certain percentage of the voters??? Witness the Carbon Tax.. Oh and BTW, I'm NOT progressiveslol...

You sock puppet you  ;)  :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:45pm:

And why is it unusual for a political party to float a policy (that they don't 'personally' believe ) that is 'popular' with a certain percentage of the voters??? Witness the Carbon Tax.. Oh and BTW, I'm NOT progressiveslol...

Never said you were progressiveslol.  Just wanted to add that bit to my reply in general, but aimed for him not you. Derr.

Uh, policies are introduced because the party believes that is the correct course of action. End of story.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:45pm: And why is it unusual for a political party to float a policy (that they don't 'personally' believe ) that is 'popular' with a certain percentage of the voters??? Witness the Carbon Tax.. Oh and BTW, I'm NOT progressiveslol... Never said you were progressiveslol.  Just wanted to add that bit to my reply in general, but aimed for him not you. Derr. Uh, policies are introduced because the party believes that is the correct course of action. End of story.

The correct course for what. The best interest for the country lol. Best interest for the party more like it.

They feel cornered a bit at the moment, but the debate is still on because I say so.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. Alevine......even 'deniers' agree that climate change is real......It's MAN-CAUSED climate change that we are sceptical about... And they ARE very different things.. And the government and opposition both support that man-caused climate change is real, considering they BOTH have a policy to deal with it. So again, conservatives need to take a deep breath, realise that no amount of whining is going to change the fact that either main party will enact action. Poor progessiveslol :( I hope the period of change doesn't impact you like the introduction of cars and computers did... ;D ;D ;D

It really is a long time in political world until the next election.
And what the conservatives have on the issue is a statement only, we still get to wait until just prior to the election for the Coalitions policy.
I know you would wish for the issue to be so cut and dried, but it is not so.

cods wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:27pm:

Soren wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 12:24pm: Total available storage as at 3pm Thursday, 19 May 2011 is 73.8%, a decrease of 0.3% since last Thursday. http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2012/19-may-2011 SO now it's inundation scare from Timmy. AGW - the disaster scenario that keeps giving, no matter what actually happens. Brilliant. what I dont get soren is that if we ask questions... which I think are quite reasonable....we get the name calling the ridicule.I was even accused of not giving a damn about my grandchildren.this goes back to those years on yahoo... yet here we are years later and nothing has changed for all the mudslinging... not a thing is any different.... all thats changes are the goal post keep getting moved further apart... now its 2020/50.. instead of 2013/15

I was even accused of not giving a damn about my grandchildren

Anyone that says that to me I would have to accuse them of not being in a relationship that can create a child. They obviously dont know the bond of a father to their children and lineage.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:49pm:

The correct course for what. The best interest for the country lol. Best interest for the party more like it. They feel cornered a bit at the moment, but the debate is still on because I say so.

;D ;D ;D

The correct course in battling man-made climate change, which each party has to agree exists because they HAVE A POLICY for it.  

Get over yourself, progressivesnuff, the debate on man-made climate change is over in this country - the parties have decided and they've decided to act.

;D ;D ;D

You poor sod - once again change is being enacted! Oh No!  Hide!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:12pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:49pm: The correct course for what. The best interest for the country lol. Best interest for the party more like it. They feel cornered a bit at the moment, but the debate is still on because I say so. ;D ;D ;D The correct course in battling man-made climate change, which each party has to agree exists because they HAVE A POLICY for it.   Get over yourself, progressivesnuff, the debate on man-made climate change is over in this country - the parties have decided and they've decided to act. ;D ;D ;D You poor sod - once again change is being enacted! Oh No!  Hide!

Hey nuffnuts. You are debating me right now nuffnuts. That makes the debate what I want it to be.

:D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:17pm:

Hey nuffnuts. You are debating me right now nuffnuts. That makes the debate what I want it to be. :D ;D

Not really. I've set up the agenda for this debate, not you. You're simply responding to it.

Poor nuff nuff.

;D  

You still using pigeons, or is that too advanced?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:34pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Hey nuffnuts. You are debating me right now nuffnuts. That makes the debate what I want it to be. :D ;D Not really. I've set up the agenda for this debate, not you. You're simply responding to it. Poor nuff nuff. ;D   You still using pigeons, or is that too advanced?

lol still in my debate. Love it.

So we are supposed to swallow what Julia's "Help me get my carbon tax through commission" says as gospel.  Well I don't swallow it.

Flannery to head Climate CommissionPublished on Thu, 10/02/2011, 05:50:12


|
By Angela Dorizas

The Federal Government has established an independent Climate Commission, chaired by leading environmentalist and author, Professor Tim Flannery.

Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, today announced the creation of the new Commission and the appointment of former Australian of the Year, Professor Flannery as Chief Commissioner.

Mr Combet said the Climate Commission would provide an “authoritative, independent source of information” on climate change to the Australian community.“It will provide expert advice on climate change science and impacts, and international action,” he said.        Yeah right !!!!!!!!

“It will help build the consensus about reducing Australia’s carbon pollution.”  Considering it is comprised only of alarmists, of course it will

Professor Flannery said the Commission would have a public outreach role and help build greater understanding of climate change and its impacts.

"The Climate Commission will fulfil a key information and education role, enabling the Australian community to have a more informed conversation about climate change," he said.Such as  There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,  but I lied and I need an excuse for lying, and I formed this commission for that reason.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 2:39pm:

lol still in my debate. Love it.

Nice to see you go so quiet on your original denials.  Realised you're fighting a pointless battle and are just made to look ridiculous over and over and over again? nuffs?

Maeve wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 3:01pm:

So we are supposed to swallow what Julia's "Help me get my carbon tax through commission" says as gospel.  Well I don't swallow it. Flannery to head Climate CommissionPublished on Thu, 10/02/2011, 05:50:12 | By Angela Dorizas The Federal Government has established an independent Climate Commission, chaired by leading environmentalist and author, Professor Tim Flannery. Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, today announced the creation of the new Commission and the appointment of former Australian of the Year, Professor Flannery as Chief Commissioner. Mr Combet said the Climate Commission would provide an “authoritative, independent source of information” on climate change to the Australian community.“It will provide expert advice on climate change science and impacts, and international action,” he said.        Yeah right !!!!!!!! “It will help build the consensus about reducing Australia’s carbon pollution.”  Considering it is comprised only of alarmists, of course it will Professor Flannery said the Commission would have a public outreach role and help build greater understanding of climate change and its impacts. "The Climate Commission will fulfil a key information and education role, enabling the Australian community to have a more informed conversation about climate change," he said.Such as  There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,  but I lied and I need an excuse for lying, and I formed this commission for that reason.

You don't have to swallow it, but one way or another you will have to swallow the fact that action on man-made climate change from coalition or labor will come about within the next 3 years.

You don't have to swallow it, but one way or another you will have to swallow the fact that action on man-made climate change from coalition or labor will come about within the next 3 years. [...quote]



Perhaps so,  but not on the basis of a biased commission formed by a government wanting to tax us out of existence to attempt to cover  their profligate and irresponsibly, wasteful spending.

Since when have quacks and mad scientists ever been rational beings?

On top of old horror hill, in a secret laboratory, Professor weirdo and count kook were in their monstrous glory...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cejvyvKaBGI :D ;D :D

This thread is a pointless as the laugh that maqqa started. The whole point of what was said today is that it is enough of this rubbish. it is time to move onto what are we going to do about it.
Many say the tax wont reduce carbon, why? It is also said that Abbott's plan will make it worse, Why?
Is it not time to stop worrying whether this will cost and realise it will, no matter who puts it in place and what that plan is. So lets work together and develop the best plan not the politically favourable one.

nairbe wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:51pm:

This thread is a pointless as the laugh that maqqa started. The whole point of what was said today is that it is enough of this rubbish. it is time to move onto what are we going to do about it. Many say the tax wont reduce carbon, why? It is also said that Abbott's plan will make it worse, Why? Is it not time to stop worrying whether this will cost and realise it will, no matter who puts it in place and what that plan is. So lets work together and develop the best plan not the politically favourable one.

The report which this thread is based on is from the IPCC

Committee members are Gillard, Swan, Brown, Milne, Oakshott and Windsor.

It has an advisory board headed by Garnaut

All Climate Science nuts and weirdos

MANY SAY THE TAX WONT REDUCE WORLD TEMPERATURE

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:47pm:

nairbe wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 6:51pm: This thread is a pointless as the laugh that maqqa started. The whole point of what was said today is that it is enough of this rubbish. it is time to move onto what are we going to do about it. Many say the tax wont reduce carbon, why? It is also said that Abbott's plan will make it worse, Why? Is it not time to stop worrying whether this will cost and realise it will, no matter who puts it in place and what that plan is. So lets work together and develop the best plan not the politically favourable one. The report which this thread is based on is from the IPCC Committee members are Gillard, Swan, Brown, Milne, Oakshott and Windsor. It has an advisory board headed by Garnaut All Climate Science nuts and weirdos MANY SAY THE TAX WONT REDUCE WORLD TEMPERATURE

I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related.

That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!  

This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this
document,the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept noliability for the
accuracy of or inference.

Guildford wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 8:34pm:

This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document,the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept noliability for the accuracy of or inference.

So its a useless document. Could be full of errors, of which should not be relied upon.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:09am:

Yes we know man made climate change scientist are clutching at straws too keep funding. The more people who wake up to this urban myth of "Man made Climate Change" the more desperate these people get to protect their funding.

 Statements like this are very helpful, for classification purposes, as any who espouse such views can be added to the "dumber than dirt" category, of denialists.

What a maroon!!!

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 8:47pm:

Guildford wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:34pm: This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document,the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept noliability for the accuracy of or inference. So its a useless document. Could be full of errors, of which should not be relied upon.

Did you already forget that the argument for whether man-made climate change is real or not is over?  My nuffy friend, no matter what you wish to debate just understand that there will be action, one way or another.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers.

While that is true, Alevine, the denialists also know that Abbott is a denialist also, just like them, and probably even shares their ridiculous conspiracy theories, and they know that any government he leads will only pay lip service to tackling lowering Carbon emissions, as evidenced by the inadequate policy the Libs are putting forward.

These denialists know that he is lying to the Australian public when he says that a government he leads will reduce emissions by 5%, through direct action plans.
He lied today that the report just released was a vindication of his policy, when it quite clearly stated that direct action plans like he suggests, would prove to be inadequate to achieve the emission cuts promised by the Libs.

These denialist like the fact that he is lying to the aussie public, because they have an abiding passion for promoting lies, and confusion, about the climate change issue, and having Abbott lie  as well, just helps their campaign of mistrust, division, and confusion.

His stance on climate change has been contemptible.

mozzaok wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:13pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. While that is true, Alevine, the denialists also know that Abbott is a denialist also, just like them, and probably even shares their ridiculous conspiracy theories, and they know that any government he leads will only pay lip service to tackling lowering Carbon emissions, as evidenced by the inadequate policy the Libs are putting forward. These denialists know that he is lying to the Australian public when he says that a government he leads will reduce emissions by 5%, through direct action plans. He lied today that the report just released was a vindication of his policy, when it quite clearly stated that direct action plans like he suggests, would prove to be inadequate to achieve the emission cuts promised by the Libs. These denialist like the fact that he is lying to the aussie public, because they have an abiding passion for promoting lies, and confusion, about the climate change issue, and having Abbott lie  as well, just helps their campaign of mistrust, division, and confusion. His stance on climate change has been contemptible.

All I'm saying is that when no one in mainstream politics is left to support their cause publicly, and agenda on both sides of politics in Australia has moved towards action on man-made climate change, regardless of how strong or weak, it's time for conservative denialists to shut up.  Just like their forefathers, who shut up about their vile opposition to civil rights, women's rights, slavery, and so on.    

The cause is lost - Either way money on man-made climate change will be spent.  The question is do we go ahead and waste $15Billion for the sake of it, or do we actually put in a market mechanism that has some hope?

Its AMAZING how far these climate change nazis in the field of science, politics and media have all come together to push this human caused climate change nonsense.

It almost has this ORWELLIAN feel about them, as they push this propaganda that we must bring in this carbon tax OR IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR THE EARTH,

;D ;D ;D ;D I MEAN ITS JUST DEAD SET RUBBISH THAT THEY WANNA FORCE FEED DOWN OUR THROATS AND BRAINWASH OUR MINDS.

Astro boy, Not everyone can be as low and STUPID like a LEFTARD to swallow this human caused climate changing nonsense.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:00pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:47pm: Guildford wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:34pm: This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document,the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept noliability for the accuracy of or inference. So its a useless document. Could be full of errors, of which should not be relied upon. Did you already forget that the argument for whether man-made climate change is real or not is over?  My nuffy friend, no matter what you wish to debate just understand that there will be action, one way or another.

How could I forget, your debating it right now lol nuff nut.

I am happy to see the debate is live and well in Australia.

mozzaok wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:13pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. While that is true, Alevine, the denialists also know that Abbott is a denialist also, just like them, and probably even shares their ridiculous conspiracy theories, and they know that any government he leads will only pay lip service to tackling lowering Carbon emissions, as evidenced by the inadequate policy the Libs are putting forward. These denialists know that he is lying to the Australian public when he says that a government he leads will reduce emissions by 5%, through direct action plans. He lied today that the report just released was a vindication of his policy, when it quite clearly stated that direct action plans like he suggests, would prove to be inadequate to achieve the emission cuts promised by the Libs. These denialist like the fact that he is lying to the aussie public, because they have an abiding passion for promoting lies, and confusion, about the climate change issue, and having Abbott lie  as well, just helps their campaign of mistrust, division, and confusion. His stance on climate change has been contemptible.

You following Juliar Gillards lie gives you no credibility in the argument you presented.

Quote:

Just like their forefathers, who shut up about their vile opposition to civil rights, women's rights, slavery, and so on.

Alevine

Excellent point Alevine, and the wackos around today, who still oppose those things you listed are very much of the lunatic fringe type, and the most extreme and strident of the AGW denialists will hold onto their silly ideas, and take their position on that lunatic fringe with those others of their kind.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:33pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:13pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. While that is true, Alevine, the denialists also know that Abbott is a denialist also, just like them, and probably even shares their ridiculous conspiracy theories, and they know that any government he leads will only pay lip service to tackling lowering Carbon emissions, as evidenced by the inadequate policy the Libs are putting forward. These denialists know that he is lying to the Australian public when he says that a government he leads will reduce emissions by 5%, through direct action plans. He lied today that the report just released was a vindication of his policy, when it quite clearly stated that direct action plans like he suggests, would prove to be inadequate to achieve the emission cuts promised by the Libs. These denialist like the fact that he is lying to the aussie public, because they have an abiding passion for promoting lies, and confusion, about the climate change issue, and having Abbott lie  as well, just helps their campaign of mistrust, division, and confusion. His stance on climate change has been contemptible. All I'm saying is that when no one in mainstream politics is left to support their cause publicly, and agenda on both sides of politics in Australia has moved towards action on man-made climate change, regardless of how strong or weak, it's time for conservative denialists to shut up.  Just like their forefathers, who shut up about their vile opposition to civil rights, women's rights, slavery, and so on.     The cause is lost - Either way money on man-made climate change will be spent.  The question is do we go ahead and waste $15Billion for the sake of it, or do we actually put in a market mechanism that has some hope?

You wish buddy. I know you are happy with all your little mushrooms that follow a failed science, but the Australian people want answers, and they are still debating against your wishes of mushroomville.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:53pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:47pm: Guildford wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:34pm: This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document,the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept noliability for the accuracy of or inference. So its a useless document. Could be full of errors, of which should not be relied upon. Did you already forget that the argument for whether man-made climate change is real or not is over?  My nuffy friend, no matter what you wish to debate just understand that there will be action, one way or another. How could I forget, your debating it right now lol nuff nut. I am happy to see the debate is live and well in Australia.

Actually no.  I'm not debating it at all. I'm saying there is no point debating it. Not trying to convince you or prove that my belief in man-made climate change is correct. ;D  I'm saying we are past this and you are, as per usual, stuck in the past.  

Maybe the pigeon with your latest edition of the newspaper got eaten? Both parties have a climate change policy. Both will enact their policy.  Your cause is lost.  No more point debating it, you nonsensical nuff nuff ;D ;D ;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:58pm:

You wish buddy. I know you are happy with all your little mushrooms that follow a failed science, but the Australian people want answers, and they are still debating against your wishes of mushroomville.

Maybe in your house, but the majority of Aussies have moved on and understand the need for climate change action.  If it wasn't so we'd have a mainstream party, the Libs, representing that belief.  Too bad they aren't.

;D ;D

mozzaok wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:56pm:

Quote: Just like their forefathers, who shut up about their vile opposition to civil rights, women's rights, slavery, and so on.     Alevine Excellent point Alevine, and the wackos around today, who still oppose those things you listed are very much of the lunatic fringe type, and the most extreme and strident of the AGW denialists will hold onto their silly ideas, and take their position on that lunatic fringe with those others of their kind.

Excellent point from someone who would use the race card or sexism card. You are see through.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:53pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:00pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:47pm: Guildford wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:34pm: This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document,the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept noliability for the accuracy of or inference. So its a useless document. Could be full of errors, of which should not be relied upon. Did you already forget that the argument for whether man-made climate change is real or not is over?  My nuffy friend, no matter what you wish to debate just understand that there will be action, one way or another. How could I forget, your debating it right now lol nuff nut. I am happy to see the debate is live and well in Australia. Actually no.  I'm not debating it at all. I'm saying there is no point debating it. Not trying to convince you or prove that my belief in man-made climate change is correct. ;D  I'm saying we are past this and you are, as per usual, stuck in the past.   Maybe the pigeon with your latest edition of the newspaper got eaten? Both parties have a climate change policy. Both will enact their policy.  Your cause is lost.  No more point debating it, you nonsensical nuff nuff ;D ;D ;D ;D

Well move along then. I am doing what I want to do.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:01pm:

Well move along then. I am doing what I want to do.

Trying to relive 2009/2010?  My nuff friend, I know you like to stand still and sometimes walk backwards, but seriously, it's time to move along.  

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:00pm:

Excellent point from someone who would use the race card or sexism card. You are see through.

Why is it that those who actually are racist, bigots or sexist get so upset about being called on it?

You are what you are.  Live with it and accept it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:05pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:00pm: Excellent point from someone who would use the race card or sexism card. You are see through. Why is it that those who actually are racist, bigots or sexist get so upset about being called on it? You are what you are.  Live with it and accept it.

My point exactly. Too quick my boy, too see through.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:08pm:

My point exactly. Too quick my boy, too see through.

Now resorting to not making sense? Not a good thing to back up an argument...but ok.

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 8:28pm:

I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!

CLIMATE RISK?

Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE?

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:19pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE?

Shouldn't you be spending your time trying to work out what the CPRS is?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE? Shouldn't you be spending your time trying to work out what the CPRS is? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I told you alevine

admit you are an idiot about these things and I'll explain it to you

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:21pm: Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE? Shouldn't you be spending your time trying to work out what the CPRS is? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I told you alevine admit you are an idiot about these things and I'll explain it to you

Already told you: I will when you explain it.

Now, enough hiding.  IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what is the CPRS, in detail, please?

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:19pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE?

Between you and the "laughingprogressive", you both really don't have any understanding of what's going on now, nor what the likely scenario's are!

Your line of thinking or not thinking (which is more accurate), would likely result in the complete destruction of humanity, certainly the humanity that we now know!

You are both certifiable idiots!

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE? Between you and the "laughingprogressive", you both really don't have any understanding of what's going on now, nor what the likely scenario's are! Your line of thinking or not thinking (which is more accurate), would likely result in the complete destruction of humanity, certainly the humanity that we now know! You are both certifiable idiots!

destruction of humanity?  :D :D :D

You can't even tell the rest of us in percentage terms how much carbon humans emit

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:21pm: Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE? Shouldn't you be spending your time trying to work out what the CPRS is? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I told you alevine admit you are an idiot about these things and I'll explain it to you Already told you: I will when you explain it. Now, enough hiding.  IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what is the CPRS, in detail, please?

You've got to have skin in the game alevine

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:37pm:

You've got to have skin in the game alevine

I'll take that as your admission that you have NO IDEA what the CPRS was about.

Just goes to show that you are just a simple fool who will argue for a cause you don't even understand or care to understand.

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE? Between you and the "laughingprogressive", you both really don't have any understanding of what's going on now, nor what the likely scenario's are! Your line of thinking or not thinking (which is more accurate), would likely result in the complete destruction of humanity, certainly the humanity that we now know! You are both certifiable idiots!

Then we would be doing the leftards bidding of eugenics and giving earth back her peace. So whats your problem?

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 11:39pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:31pm: Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:28pm: I have said many times that a Carbon tax (either Labor or Liberal) or an ETS will not fix the Climate problems, they are all tax revenue & profit related. That said, Garnaut & Stern are both Economists and both take the view, as do many others, that action taken to mitigate Climate risks, particularly if taken early, is likely to be much effective, both from an  Economic & Climate perspective!   CLIMATE RISK? Much more effective based on what? OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE? Between you and the "laughingprogressive", you both really don't have any understanding of what's going on now, nor what the likely scenario's are! Your line of thinking or not thinking (which is more accurate), would likely result in the complete destruction of humanity, certainly the humanity that we now know! You are both certifiable idiots! Then we would be doing the leftards bidding of eugenics and giving earth back her peace. So whats your problem?

That's incorrect and you are both still certifiable idiots!

mozzaok wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:13pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32pm: Something all deniers should realise: Neither the opposition nor government are saying that climate change is not real.  Both have a policy on how to deal with it, and both are aiming for 5% cuts.  The question or the debate at hand is HOW BEST to deal with it: a carbon tax or direct action; and which of these is cheaper. So enough sitting around whining that it's all made up.  Realise that everyone has moved on. Cheers. While that is true, Alevine, the denialists also know that Abbott is a denialist also, just like them, and probably even shares their ridiculous conspiracy theories, and they know that any government he leads will only pay lip service to tackling lowering Carbon emissions, as evidenced by the inadequate policy the Libs are putting forward. These denialists know that he is lying to the Australian public when he says that a government he leads will reduce emissions by 5%, through direct action plans. He lied today that the report just released was a vindication of his policy, when it quite clearly stated that direct action plans like he suggests, would prove to be inadequate to achieve the emission cuts promised by the Libs. These denialist like the fact that he is lying to the aussie public, because they have an abiding passion for promoting lies, and confusion, about the climate change issue, and having Abbott lie  as well, just helps their campaign of mistrust, division, and confusion. His stance on climate change has been contemptible.

But the 'denialists' have no theories to peddle and never had.
It's the other side who are peddling their doom and gloom crap which is based on guesses and extrapolations.