Based on how you voted at the last Federal election, who do you think Abbott would prefer to face at the next election. This is not about who you think will make the best PM, it's about who you think Tony would rather face.

Mary Poppins.

Bloody hell.  Not enough existing Threads?  Bugger off.

>:(

the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:15pm:

the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW.

I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally.

poor MOTR... isnt it the title holder  that will be doing the facing OFF????

Abbott is only the contender..he has no choice in the matter..

GILLARD IS THE PM...she is YOUR chosen one MOTR.. you handed her the title

anyone can challenge her....to a face off.


as it is... I thing he will be quite happy "facing off" gillard or rudd or shorten or crean... bring it on....

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally.

you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion.

I voted for the Coalition last election, and the answer is obvious - of course Abbott would rather face Gillard.

Longy is right, the drover's dog would beat Gillard.

Put Rudd in, and it's game on.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally.

dont you love em longy?... they always come back to insulting the poster....its pitiful.. it really is.

john_g wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:34pm:

I voted for the Coalition last election, and the answer is obvious - of course Abbott would rather face Gillard. Longy is right, the drover's dog would beat Gillard. Put Rudd in, and it's game on.

whats he got that would make you vote for him??? whats he said???? havent seen him say anything.. except..gillard has my full support... ;D ;D

is that another lie?


so what do you think would happen if he became PM again????????.. apart from making history that is.

john_g wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:34pm:

I voted for the Coalition last election, and the answer is obvious - of course Abbott would rather face Gillard. Longy is right, the drover's dog would beat Gillard. Put Rudd in, and it's game on.

its a fairly silly poll. abbott would always want to go against the weakest opponent and frankly the only one weaker would be Thomson! that doesnt mean that the rest of them are opponents that cause the libs any fear. Rudd MIGHT pick up a  couple percent or he might even take them lower but with the current margin, he is no threat.

cods wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:38pm:

john_g wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:34pm: I voted for the Coalition last election, and the answer is obvious - of course Abbott would rather face Gillard. Longy is right, the drover's dog would beat Gillard. Put Rudd in, and it's game on. whats he got that would make you vote for him??? whats he said???? havent seen him say anything.. except..gillard has my full support... ;D ;D is that another lie? so what do you think would happen if he became PM again????????.. apart from making history that is.

I wouldn't vote for him, cods.

I voted for him in 2007 and he disappointed me.

I mean that more people would vote Labor if Rudd became leader again.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion.

How have I been proven wrong, Longy. We both have an interpretation of what a 17 year statistical pause means in reality. Have a look at global temperatures around 1998, the beginning of your 17 year pause. Now look at the temperatures over the last decade. Of course the planet has got warmer. When an outlier becomes the norm there has certainly been some underlying warming.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/global/decadal-global-temps-1881s-2001s.gif

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:59pm:

Based on how you voted at the last Federal election, who do you think Abbott would prefer to face at the next election. This is not about who you think will make the best PM, it's about who you think Tony would rather face.

Oops, the voted GREENS prefer to face Rudd is wrong, should be voted Greens prefer to face Gillard.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:39pm:

john_g wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:34pm: I voted for the Coalition last election, and the answer is obvious - of course Abbott would rather face Gillard. Longy is right, the drover's dog would beat Gillard. Put Rudd in, and it's game on. its a fairly silly poll. abbott would always want to go against the weakest opponent and frankly the only one weaker would be Thomson! that doesnt mean that the rest of them are opponents that cause the libs any fear. Rudd MIGHT pick up a  couple percent or he might even take them lower but with the current margin, he is no threat.

Mind you, the swing in Qld in that Galaxy poll was huge.

Qld is probably the most parochial state, though, so it's not likely to mean much.

The point is moot when Labor simply can't put him back in.

How would they explain those comments from last year, from Swan, Crean, Roxon, Burke, Smith and Gillard herself? It would just be too embarrassing.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

cods wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:38pm:

john_g wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:34pm: I voted for the Coalition last election, and the answer is obvious - of course Abbott would rather face Gillard. Longy is right, the drover's dog would beat Gillard. Put Rudd in, and it's game on. whats he got that would make you vote for him??? whats he said???? havent seen him say anything.. except..gillard has my full support... ;D ;D is that another lie? so what do you think would happen if he became PM again????????.. apart from making history that is.

Not really history cods, Menzies got rolled and came back for another term.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:33pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion. How have I been proven wrong, Longy. We both have an interpretation of what a 17 year statistical pause means in reality. Have a look at global temperatures around 1998, the beginning of your 17 year pause. Now look at the temperatures over the last decade. Of course the planet has got warmer. When an outlier becomes the norm there has certainly been some underlying warming. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/global/decadal-global-temps-1881s-2001s.gif

its not MY 17year pause. it is the IPCC's 17 year pause. everyone now accepts that it has happened and the reason it is important is because it is the point at which all current climate models become invalidated. None of them predicted a pause like this and the length of time (17 years) has exceed their margin or error. they are broken. they are invalidated. it happens to models of other environmental areas all the time. it is how models are improved - by finding out how the previous ones failed and making it better. But none of that changes the fact that the current models are now officially broken and that GW is in an unequivocal pause.

the only significant aspect of this is watching the faithful disciples of the church of Climate Change deny it. But your pope has spoken now so it is holy writ.

john_g wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:39pm: john_g wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:34pm: I voted for the Coalition last election, and the answer is obvious - of course Abbott would rather face Gillard. Longy is right, the drover's dog would beat Gillard. Put Rudd in, and it's game on. its a fairly silly poll. abbott would always want to go against the weakest opponent and frankly the only one weaker would be Thomson! that doesnt mean that the rest of them are opponents that cause the libs any fear. Rudd MIGHT pick up a  couple percent or he might even take them lower but with the current margin, he is no threat. Mind you, the swing in Qld in that Galaxy poll was huge. Qld is probably the most parochial state, though, so it's not likely to mean much. The point is moot when Labor simply can't put him back in. How would they explain those comments from last year, from Swan, Crean, Roxon, Burke, Smith and Gillard herself? It would just be too embarrassing. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

the galaxy polls was stupid because it asked your opinion on a virtually impossible occurrence against a PM that is more unpopular than a turd in a swimming pool. The poll was doomed from the moment the question was asked.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion.

MOTR is a climate pause denier

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:33pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion. MOTR is a climate pause denier

I certainly am. The physics haven't changed, so we know the earth is accumulating heat somewhere. We also know that the temperatures of 1998, an extremely hot outlier fuelled by a massive El Niño has become the norm. We also know that this is to be expected from time to time. Between 1957 and 1978 we can identify a 21 year long cooling trend. Did that mean the long term warming trend had stopped?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em

My argument has never been that you can't create a statistical warming pause by cherry picking 1998. My argument has always been that it doesn't prove that the long term warming trend has stopped.

It looks like Maqqa has just voted for Gillard. How do we interpret that?

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:33pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion. MOTR is a climate pause denier I certainly am. The physics haven't changed, so we know the earth is accumulating heat somewhere. We also know that the temperatures of 1998, an extremely hot outlier fuelled by a massive El Niño has become the norm. We also know that this is to be expected from time to time. Between 1957 and 1978 we can identify a 21 year long cooling trend. Did that mean the long term warming trend had stopped? My argument has never been that you can't create a statistical warming pause by cherry picking 1998. My argument has always been that it doesn't prove that the long term warming trend has stopped.

The Sun's pretty hot

cods wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:35pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. dont you love em longy?... they always come back to insulting the poster....its pitiful.. it really is.

You are a non 'ex-purt' at it.

;)

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:08pm:

It looks like Maqqa has just voted for Gillard. How do we interpret that?

Why wouldn't I vote for Gillard MOTR

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:33pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion. MOTR is a climate pause denier I certainly am. The physics haven't changed, so we know the earth is accumulating heat somewhere. We also know that the temperatures of 1998, an extremely hot outlier fuelled by a massive El Niño has become the norm. We also know that this is to be expected from time to time. Between 1957 and 1978 we can identify a 21 year long cooling trend. Did that mean the long term warming trend had stopped? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em My argument has never been that you can't create a statistical warming pause by cherry picking 1998. My argument has always been that it doesn't prove that the long term warming trend has stopped.

well thats not quite right, is it. your argument up until this week has been quite unequivocally that there has been no pause in temperature rises. we never even got to the point of discussing what it means as you simply denied that it had happened. To be frank, the term CLIMATE DENIER  is one you should wear. I had hoped we could have robust debate on the topic but unfortunately, unless the IPCC conclave tells you what to think, nothing ever changes.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:33pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion. MOTR is a climate pause denier I certainly am. The physics haven't changed, so we know the earth is accumulating heat somewhere. We also know that the temperatures of 1998, an extremely hot outlier fuelled by a massive El Niño has become the norm. We also know that this is to be expected from time to time. Between 1957 and 1978 we can identify a 21 year long cooling trend. Did that mean the long term warming trend had stopped? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em My argument has never been that you can't create a statistical warming pause by cherry picking 1998. My argument has always been that it doesn't prove that the long term warming trend has stopped.

It cant be cherry picking if you are showing a pause. Either you show the longest pause, or you can be an idiot and show the shortest.

Since 17 years is the longest so far (to be continued according to MET) then you start at whtever year you feal like to show the pause.

BTW, that video you keep linking is actually not helping. The guy is a freak and he does not give any new information whatsoever and he left science behind.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 7:02pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:33pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion. MOTR is a climate pause denier I certainly am. The physics haven't changed, so we know the earth is accumulating heat somewhere. We also know that the temperatures of 1998, an extremely hot outlier fuelled by a massive El Niño has become the norm. We also know that this is to be expected from time to time. Between 1957 and 1978 we can identify a 21 year long cooling trend. Did that mean the long term warming trend had stopped? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em My argument has never been that you can't create a statistical warming pause by cherry picking 1998. My argument has always been that it doesn't prove that the long term warming trend has stopped. well thats not quite right, is it. your argument up until this week has been quite unequivocally that there has been no pause in temperature rises. we never even got to the point of discussing what it means as you simply denied that it had happened. To be frank, the term CLIMATE DENIER  is one you should wear. I had hoped we could have robust debate on the topic but unfortunately, unless the IPCC conclave tells you what to think, nothing ever changes.

This is what I was arguing a month ago, Longy. Do you deliberately lie, Longy, or do the things you make up seem like reality to you.


MOTR wrote on Jan 24^th, 2013 at 11:39pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 24th, 2013 at 11:26pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 24th, 2013 at 11:22pm: That was 10 years from when the time of the email. No, the wording I was after was how long would it take. Not from what date to start. This whole co2 doomsday BS is or was riding on the models. The models fail after a 15 year period of low upward to downward trend. That started 16 year ago. If you pick an outlier like 1998 you can create a statistical pause or low upward trend that lasts 15 years.  But as Phil Jones and Mike Lockward state in their email it doesn't have any real meaning. If the trend continues out till 2019, then we may have a real hole in either our understanding of natural variations or the influence of atmospheric CO2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&sns=em

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 7:02pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:33pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:15pm: the easiest of easy-beats is Gillard. They could put almost ANYBODY in the chair and they would do better in the polls than Gillard. its a pointless poll. But a nice deflection from GW. I don't struggle doing multiple things simultaneously, Longy. Wheras you struggle to breathe and think rationally. you dont have to get toey because you got proven wrong on the 17 year pause thing. just use your undoubted intelligence but disconnect it from the orthodoxy and get your OWN opinion. MOTR is a climate pause denier I certainly am. The physics haven't changed, so we know the earth is accumulating heat somewhere. We also know that the temperatures of 1998, an extremely hot outlier fuelled by a massive El Niño has become the norm. We also know that this is to be expected from time to time. Between 1957 and 1978 we can identify a 21 year long cooling trend. Did that mean the long term warming trend had stopped? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qdETSYcDM&sns=em My argument has never been that you can't create a statistical warming pause by cherry picking 1998. My argument has always been that it doesn't prove that the long term warming trend has stopped. well thats not quite right, is it. your argument up until this week has been quite unequivocally that there has been no pause in temperature rises. we never even got to the point of discussing what it means as you simply denied that it had happened. To be frank, the term CLIMATE DENIER  is one you should wear. I had hoped we could have robust debate on the topic but unfortunately, unless the IPCC conclave tells you what to think, nothing ever changes.

the IPCC's comment Antarctic ice sheets melting contributed to sea level rising of  0.21mm with an error of 0.35mm didn't help either  ;D ;D

Maqqa thinks the rising oceans are some sort of joke. The US navy thinks very differently.

http://youtu.be/CBBEyJVj5MY


Quote:

During the 20th Century the sea level rose about 8inches, do the arithmetic it's about 2mm a year. Is that a huge change. No. Can we deal with it? Yes. Did we? Yes. Was it a big deal? No. O.K. That's cool. But what's going to happen in the future. Well, what's going to happen in the future, we're already up to 3, 3 and a half millimetres. Yeah it doesn't sound like that much, but you know again, do the arithmetic that's a 50% increase in what the rate of rise was we saw in the Twentieth Century. Why is that? Well, as the water warms, and 85 to 90% of the heat, the excess heat that has gone into the oceans, it goes to warm the water. What do warm things do compared to cold thing? They expand, they get bigger, the oceans getting bigger, so that's part of the sea level rise. The glaciers are melting, like around in the mountains and stuff like that. Yes they melting in the Himalayas. Yes they are melting in Glacier National Park. But where's the real water. With apologies to Billy Sutton. Billy Sutton, why do you rob banks? it's where the money is. Why do we study these glaciers in Greenland? It's where the ice is, it's where the water is. And these glaciers are starting to fall apart much faster than anybody, even two years ago, thought they were going to do. So this is going to be a huge issue, and potentially we can see the seas coming up somewhere between 3 and 6 feet in the 21st Century. 8 inches in the 20th Century, 3 to 6 feet in the 21st Century. Is that in the IPCC? No. Why? Because if you read the report they say we just don't understand the ice sheet dynamics, so all we're going to do is just figure out what the expansion of the ocean is and melt a little bit off the top. It's been shown in a variety of ways there that that is a gross gross underestimate.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Maqqa thinks the rising oceans are some sort of joke. The US navy thinks very differently.

The IPCC thinks sea level rises attributed to Antarctic ice sheet melting is 0.21mm with an error rate of 0.35mm

havent we got enough bloody boring threads on the weather and tides????

how about you bores going somewhere else where you can kill each other with your knowledge of climate change..and leave other threads to the topic...

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 9:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 9:38pm: Maqqa thinks the rising oceans are some sort of joke. The US navy thinks very differently. The IPCC thinks sea level rises attributed to Antarctic ice sheet melting is 0.21mm with an error rate of 0.35mm

The US Navy is working of a rise of somewhere between 3 and 6 feet in the 21st Century. They know the dynamics which will drive future melts haven't kicked in yet.

Admiral Titley. Chief Oceanographer for the US Navy


Quote:

During the 20th Century the sea level rose about 8inches, do the arithmetic it's about 2mm a year. Is that a huge change. No. Can we deal with it? Yes. Did we? Yes. Was it a big deal? No. O.K. That's cool. But what's going to happen in the future. Well, what's going to happen in the future, we're already up to 3, 3 and a half millimetres. Yeah it doesn't sound like that much, but you know again, do the arithmetic that's a 50% increase in what the rate of rise was we saw in the Twentieth Century. Why is that? Well, as the water warms, and 85 to 90% of the heat, the excess heat that has gone into the oceans, it goes to warm the water. What do warm things do compared to cold thing? They expand, they get bigger, the oceans getting bigger, so that's part of the sea level rise. The glaciers are melting, like around in the mountains and stuff like that. Yes they melting in the Himalayas. Yes they are melting in Glacier National Park. But where's the real water. With apologies to Billy Sutton. Billy Sutton, why do you rob banks? it's where the money is. Why do we study these glaciers in Greenland? It's where the ice is, it's where the water is. And these glaciers are starting to fall apart much faster than anybody, even two years ago, thought they were going to do. So this is going to be a huge issue, and potentially we can see the seas coming up somewhere between 3 and 6 feet in the 21st Century. 8 inches in the 20th Century, 3 to 6 feet in the 21st Century. Is that in the IPCC? No. Why? Because if you read the report they say we just don't understand the ice sheet dynamics, so all we're going to do is just figure out what the expansion of the ocean is and melt a little bit off the top. It's been shown in a variety of ways there that that is a gross gross underestimate.

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:59pm:

Based on how you voted at the last Federal election, who do you think Abbott would prefer to face at the next election. This is not about who you think will make the best PM, it's about who you think Tony would rather face.

The thing is that if rudd were to be leader again nobody would bother voting for him because he would only be deposed again. Its BS by the media. Distraction and BS.

SOB

MOTR wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 9:49pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 9:38pm: Maqqa thinks the rising oceans are some sort of joke. The US navy thinks very differently. The IPCC thinks sea level rises attributed to Antarctic ice sheet melting is 0.21mm with an error rate of 0.35mm The US Navy is working of a rise of somewhere between 3 and 6 feet in the 21st Century. They know the dynamics which will drive future melts haven't kicked in yet. Admiral Titley. Chief Oceanographer for the US Navy Quote: During the 20th Century the sea level rose about 8inches, do the arithmetic it's about 2mm a year. Is that a huge change. No. Can we deal with it? Yes. Did we? Yes. Was it a big deal? No. O.K. That's cool. But what's going to happen in the future. Well, what's going to happen in the future, we're already up to 3, 3 and a half millimetres. Yeah it doesn't sound like that much, but you know again, do the arithmetic that's a 50% increase in what the rate of rise was we saw in the Twentieth Century. Why is that? Well, as the water warms, and 85 to 90% of the heat, the excess heat that has gone into the oceans, it goes to warm the water. What do warm things do compared to cold thing? They expand, they get bigger, the oceans getting bigger, so that's part of the sea level rise. The glaciers are melting, like around in the mountains and stuff like that. Yes they melting in the Himalayas. Yes they are melting in Glacier National Park. But where's the real water. With apologies to Billy Sutton. Billy Sutton, why do you rob banks? it's where the money is. Why do we study these glaciers in Greenland? It's where the ice is, it's where the water is. And these glaciers are starting to fall apart much faster than anybody, even two years ago, thought they were going to do. So this is going to be a huge issue, and potentially we can see the seas coming up somewhere between 3 and 6 feet in the 21st Century. 8 inches in the 20th Century, 3 to 6 feet in the 21st Century. Is that in the IPCC? No. Why? Because if you read the report they say we just don't understand the ice sheet dynamics, so all we're going to do is just figure out what the expansion of the ocean is and melt a little bit off the top. It's been shown in a variety of ways there that that is a gross gross underestimate.

so they are planning on an increase in sea levels based on a set of dynamics they dont understand and yet you expect us to take them seriously? This is typical climate hysteria. the slightest whiff of suggestion that some catastrophic even might happen and suddenly its a given fact. but when you want refutation of these thigns you demand hard cold unimpeachable facts like 60 years of no GW. you are JUST liek religious freaks because there is no standard of evidence whatsoever that you would accept to disprove your hypotheses yet carry on with your own beliefs with virtually no evidence whatsoever.

cods wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:31pm:

havent we got enough bloody boring threads on the weather and tides???? how about you bores going somewhere else where you can kill each other with your knowledge of climate change..and leave other threads to the topic...

BUMP

Cods, if you don't like the way the conversation is heading you could always redirect it.

There seems to be a concerted push from right wing elements of the media to push the claims of Kevin Rudd. Does that suggest they dont see Rudd as a threat and they would rather Labor panicked and ousted Gillard?

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

Cods, if you don't like the way the conversation is heading you could always redirect it. There seems to be a concerted push from right wing elements of the media to push the claims of Kevin Rudd. Does that suggest they dont see Rudd as a threat and they would rather Labor panicked and ousted Gillard?

I tried even sob tried.. boo hoo.. you are the worst...hows your poll going.. I dont do polls..and this one is particularly weird.

it should read who would gillard rather face...

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 5:07am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:59pm: Based on how you voted at the last Federal election, who do you think Abbott would prefer to face at the next election. This is not about who you think will make the best PM, it's about who you think Tony would rather face. The thing is that if rudd were to be leader again nobody would bother voting for him because he would only be deposed again. Its BS by the media. Distraction and BS. SOB

Well Labor best prepare for a long tilt in opposition because under Gillard they're buggered they have no hope.  I am sick of seeing her on TV now. I don't think she has been the bad PM the conga line say she is, but in my opinion her holding onto the leadership now is putting herself ahead of the party, she should bugger off.

Here you go longwhinyliar, this is your chance to gloat. I admit, I was wrong EVEN phony tony will beat Gillard if she leads the Labor party to the next election.

skippy. wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Here you go longwhinyliar, this is your chance to gloat. I admit, I was wrong EVEN phony tony will beat Gillard if she leads the Labor party to the next election.

OH! ye of little faith!  [smiley=happy.gif] [smiley=happy.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif]

Quote:

Well Labor best prepare for a long tilt in opposition because under Gillard they're buggered they have no hope. I am sick of seeing her on TV now. I don't think she has been the bad PM the conga line say she is, but in my opinion her holding onto the leadership now is putting herself ahead of the party, she should bugger off.

Skippy


I think most of us have been sick of seeing her on TV FOR A VERY VERY LONG TIME, WELCOME ON BOARD SKIPPY,  ;D ;D ;D ;D


But we will have to wait around september 14 for us to be given the chance to f**k her off permanetly through the ballot box

cods wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:10am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24th, 2013 at 7:59am: Cods, if you don't like the way the conversation is heading you could always redirect it. There seems to be a concerted push from right wing elements of the media to push the claims of Kevin Rudd. Does that suggest they dont see Rudd as a threat and they would rather Labor panicked and ousted Gillard? I tried even sob tried.. boo hoo.. you are the worst...hows your poll going.. I dont do polls..and this one is particularly weird. it should read who would gillard rather face...

I'm curious, cods. Would Abbott rather Gillard was PM come election time or would he rather be up against Rudd. My guess is he would rather Rudd challenged and lost.

It's not that difficult to have an opinion, cods.

Quote:

But we will have to wait around september 14 for us to be given the chance to f**k her off permanetly through the ballot box

Thats if Kevin (big ego) Rudd doesnt get to her leadership first,  ;D ;D

If John Howard comes out endorsing Rudd tonight, what does that tell us about what the LNP prefers. Perhaps they would rather face Rudd than Gillard backed by a united Labor Party.

Who are the mugs here?

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

Cods, if you don't like the way the conversation is heading you could always redirect it. There seems to be a concerted push from right wing elements of the media to push the claims of Kevin Rudd. Does that suggest they dont see Rudd as a threat and they would rather Labor panicked and ousted Gillard?

As I have said before - it is too late for Rudd to save the ALP now. He does not have time to readjust the sails.

All Rudd wants to do now is batten down the hatches and wait the storm out.

If Rudd comes in now - there are no policy changes he can really make that will make a difference

He was beaten 71/29 last time. How many of those 71 will be left after the election?

Abbott is happy to take on either because they are prepared for both.

Gillard - Abbott'll win by a larger margin
Rudd - Abbott'll win by a smaller margin
Shorten - Abbott'll win by a larger margin

a win is a win

If the election can be fought on policies, Labor has every chance of winning. Gillard can still beat Abbott and she is a far better PM than Rudd. However, it seems that the MSM is prepared to give Abbott the freedom to to pursue his small target strategy. Instead of making Abbott state his case for a LNP government the media seems obsessed with driving the Rudd/Gillard story. It's hard to believe that Gillard will get a fair crack.

If it takes a change of leadership to focus the public back on the huge disaster that awaits in the form of a radical Abbott Government, then Gillard and her allies need to put the interests of the Nation above their own.

There is a surprisingly large amount of affection for Rudd. Most of the right wings attack has been personal and focused on Gillard. She is the one who broke her commitment to introduce a carbon tax. She is the one who appointed Slipper and failed to consign Thomson to the cross benches. She is the one who has been systematically lampooned and vilified in the right wing echo chamber. If Rudd is brought back and gets the kick in the polls some are predicting, he will have the platform to shine the light on the obvious inadequacies of Tony Abbott.

My advice to Maqqa is to be careful about what you wish for.

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

If the election can be fought on policies, Labor has every chance of winning. Gillard can still beat Abbott and she is a far better PM than Rudd. However, it seems that the MSM is prepared to give Abbott the freedom to to pursue his small target strategy. Instead of making Abbott state his case for a LNP government the media seems obsessed with driving the Rudd/Gillard story. It's hard to believe that Gillard will get a fair crack. If it takes a change of leadership to focus the public back on the huge disaster that awaits in the form of a radical Abbott Government, then Gillard and her allies need to put the interests of the Nation above their own. Their is a surprisingly large amount of affection for Rudd. Most of the right wings attack has been personal and focused on Gillard. She is the one who broke her commitment to introduce a carbon tax. She is the one who appointed Slipper and failed to consign Thomson to the cross benches. She is the one who has been systematically lampooned and vilified in the right wing echo chamber. If Rudd is brought back and gets the kick in the polls some are predicting, he will have the platform to shine the light on the obvious inadequacies of Tony Abbott. My advice to Maqqa is to be careful about what you wish for.

you really don't get why the ALP is unpopular do you? they break their promises and are incompetent beyond belief. their front bench is full of union hacks, their back bench has a member heading to jail and in NSW a whole host of other ex-MPs joining him behind bars.

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

If John Howard comes out endorsing Rudd tonight, what does that tell us about what the LNP prefers. Perhaps they would rather face Rudd than Gillard backed by a united Labor Party. Who are the mugs here?

a united labor party???? in what universe?