Some here are haters and so anything Abbott says or does is wrong.  But that shouldn't stop saner people from judging the truth.

I haven't read or heard the speech yet so I have no opinion, but I will get to it now I've been prodded about it by a TROLL here.


Quote:

Abbott’s speech tells it like it is on global warming Tony Abbott’s speech in London was one of the most outstanding speeches in years by any Australian politician, says John Stone. After reading the full text of what The Australian’s leading article called Tony Abbott’s “provocative” London speech, in my considered opinion it is one of the most outstanding speeches in years by any Australian politician. That “provocative” appellation notwithstanding,The Australian ’s coverage of the speech has been an object lesson to the intellectual pygmies in the Fairfax press, the ABC, SBS and most politicians from the Prime Minister down. While the focus has been on Abbott’s well-reasoned trashing of the global warming scam, the speech is also impressive in the way it frames that quasi-religious phenomenon within “the broader struggle for practical wisdom … across the Western world” — a struggle that could have us “entering a period of national and civilisational decline”. For “civilisational self-doubt is everywhere” in the Western world: “We believe in everyone but ourselves; and everything is taken seriously except that which used to be.” (Does “marriage” come to mind?) “Far from becoming universal” after the failure of the Marxist folly, “Western values are less and less accepted even in the West itself”. While “climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom … only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia … could have made such a religion out of it”. So what should we do? “The heart of any recovery … has to be an honest facing of facts and an insistence upon intellectual rigour”, qualities conspicuously missing from the “global warming” arena from the outset and, as the quality (sic) of the attacks on Abbott’s speech has again demonstrated, in spades. Writing years ago on this topic I noted “the telltale signs” that invariably indicate resort to falsehood. The Orwellian linguistic transition from a hypothesis about man-made “global warming” (since largely discredited) to one about “climate change” (which naturally everyone acknowledges); or the demonisation of carbon dioxide, present in our atmosphere in minuscule proportions and an essential plant food without which human life would become extinct, as a “pollutant” (being deliberately confused with those genuine particulate pollutants that once belched from power station smokestacks): these are the clearest signs of the intellectual dishonesty of their proponents. It is those untruths Abbott has called out. And the response from his critics? Personal abuse, distortion of what he said, refusal even to publish what he did say, but above all no attempt to engage with his facts, all of which I have checked and all of which are accurate. Extreme cold does cause 20 times as many deaths as extreme heat. To the (limited) extent to which Earth has warmed, it has grown greener as a result. Hence “a gradual lift in global temperatures … might be beneficial”. Yet the Prime Minister snidely refers to “it being Mental Health Day”; a minister (Josh Frydenberg) who resorts to the self-demeaning criticism that, as prime minister, Abbott defended the renewable energy target and signed up to the Paris Agreement, both of which he now criticises. Of course he did, because, despite his long-held view that this new paganism was “absolute crap”, a Turnbull-led majority of his cabinet, to their eternal discredit, had gone along with it and tied his hands. Being at last free to speak the truth, should he be mocked for doing so? The fact is, as Terry McCrann said (The Daily Telegraph, October 12), Abbott’s speech was “a seminal event”. Make no mistake: it will ring around the world, and is already doing so. A (real) political leader, someone of stature domestically and internationally, has pointed to the global warming alarmists and declared that, like the emperor, they have no clothes. “Beware the pronouncement ‘the science is settled’ … the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages”. Amen to that. John Stone is a former secretary to the Treasury and former National Party Senate leader.

The speech in full...

Tony Abbott

Thank you for giving me the same platform that you’ve previously given to fellow Australians John Howard and George Pell. I will strive to be worthy of their example and their friendship; to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict; and, also, to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world.

It would be wrong to underestimate the strengths of the contemporary West. By objective standards, people have never had better lives. Yet our phenomenal wealth and our scientific and technological achievements rest on values and principles that have rarely been more widely challenged.

To a greater or lesser extent, in most Western countries, we can’t keep our borders secure; we can’t keep our industries intact; and we can’t preserve a moral order once taken for granted. Eventually, something will crystalize out of this age of disruption but in the meantime we could be entering a period of national and even civilisational decline.

In Australia, we’ve had ten years of disappointing government. It’s not just the churn of prime ministers that now rivals Italy’s, the internal divisions and the policy confusion that followed a quarter century of strong government under Bob Hawke and John Howard. It’s the institutional malaise. We have the world’s most powerful upper house: a Senate where good government can almost never secure a majority. Our businesses campaign for same sex marriage but not for economic reform. Our biggest company, BHP, the world’s premier miner, lives off the coal industry that it now wants to disown. And our oldest university, Sydney, now boasts that its mission is “unlearning”.

Of course, to be an Australian is still to have won the lottery of life, and there’s yet no better place to live and work. But there’s a nagging sense that we’re letting ourselves down and failing to reach anything like our full potential.

We are not alone in this. The Trump ascendancy, however it works out, was a popular revolt against politics-as-usual. Brexit was a rejection of the British as well as of the European establishments. Yes, the centrist, Macron, won in France but only by sidelining the parties that had ruled from the start of the Fifth Republic. And while the German chancellor was re-elected, seemingly it’s at the head of an unstable coalition after losing a quarter of her vote.

Everywhere, there’s a breakdown of public trust between voters and their leaders for misdiagnosing problems, for making excuses about who’s to blame, and for denying the damage that’s been done.

Since the Global Financial Crisis, at least in the West, growth has been slow, wages stagnant, opportunities limited, and economic and cultural disruption unprecedented. Within countries and between them, old pecking orders are changing. Civilisational self-doubt is everywhere; we believe in everyone but ourselves; and everything is taken seriously except that which used to be.

Just a few years ago, history was supposed to have ended in the triumph of the Western liberal order. Yet far from becoming universal, Western values are less and less accepted even in the West itself. We still more or less accept that every human being is born with innate dignity; with rights, certainly, but we’re less sure about the corresponding duties.

We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty.

In Britain and Australia, scarcely 50 per cent describe themselves as Christian, down from 90 per cent a generation back. For decades, we’ve been losing our religious faith but we’re fast losing our religious knowledge too. We’re less a post-Christian society than a non-Christian, or even an anti-Christian one. It hasn’t left us less susceptible to dogma, though, because we still need things to believe in and causes to fight for; it’s just that believers can now be found for almost anything and everything.

Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the West. Still, only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” and charged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it.

There’s no certain way to regain cultural self-confidence. The heart of any recovery, though, has to be an honest facing of facts and an insistence upon intellectual rigour. More than ever, the challenge of leadership is to say what you mean and do what you say. The lesson I’ve taken from being in government, and then out of it, is simply to speak my mind. The risk, when people know where you stand, is losing their support. The certainty, when people don’t know where you stand, is losing their respect.

pt1

pt 2

Of course, we’re all nostalgic for the days when governments and oppositions could agree on the big issues; but pleading for bi-partisanship won’t create it. As my government showed on border protection policy, the only way to create a new consensus is to argue the case, to make a decision, and then to let the subsequent facts speak for themselves.

The modern world, after all, is not the product of a successful search for consensus. It’s what’s emerged from centuries of critical enquiry and hard clash. Without the constant curiosity and endless questioning that has driven our scientists and engineers, and the constant striving for improvement that’s long guided our planners and policy makers, there’d be no cures for disease, no labour-saving appliances, no sanitation, no urban improvement, no votes for women, no respect for minorities; in other words, no modern world.

That may not actually bother some green activists whose ideal is an Amish existence, only without reference to God. But it should bother anyone and everyone who wants longer, safer, more comfortable and more prosperous lives.

Beware the pronouncement, “the science is settled”. It’s the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages. Almost as bad is the claim that “99 per cent of scientists believe” as if scientific truth is determined by votes rather than facts.

There are laws of physics; there are objective facts; there are moral and ethical truths. But there is almost nothing important where no further enquiry is needed. What the “science is settled” brigade want is to close down investigation by equating questioning with superstition. It’s an aspect of the wider weakening of the Western mind which poses such dangers to the world’s future.

Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood.

Palaeontology indicates that over millions of years there have been warmer periods and cooler periods that don’t correlate with carbon dioxide concentrations. The Jurassic warm period and the ice ages occurred without any human contribution at all. The medieval warm period when crops were grown in Greenland and the mini-ice age when the Thames froze over occurred well before industrial activities added to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Prudence and respect for the planet would suggest taking care not lightly to increase carbon dioxide emissions; but the evidence suggests that other factors such as sun spot cycles and oscillations in the Earth’s orbit are at least as important for climate change as this trace gas – which, far from being pollution, is actually essential for life to exist.

Certainly, no big change has accompanied the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past century from roughly 300 to roughly 400 parts per million or from 0.03 to 0.04 per cent.

Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia, the floods are not bigger, the bushfires are not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s. Sometimes, they do more damage but that’s because there’s more to destroy, not because their intensity has increased. More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen despite frequent reports from climate alarmists that this is imminent.

It may be that a tipping point will be reached soon and that the world might start to warm rapidly but so far reality has stubbornly refused to conform to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer modelling. Even the high-priests of climate change now seem to concede that there was a pause in warming between the 1990s and 2014.

So far, though, there’s no concession that their models might require revision even though unadjusted data suggests that the 1930s were actually the warmest decade in the United States and that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed.

The growing evidence that records have been adjusted, that the impact of urban heat islands has been downplayed, and that data sets have been slanted in order to fit the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming does not make it false; but it should produce much caution about basing drastic action upon it.

Then there’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (which is a plant food after all) are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields. In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.

In what might be described as Ridley’s paradox, after the distinguished British commentator: at least so far, it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm; climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm.

pt3

Australia, for instance, has the world’s largest readily available supplies of coal, gas and uranium, yet thanks to a decade of policy based more on green ideology than common sense, we can’t be sure of keeping the lights on this summer; and, in the policy-induced shift from having the world’s lowest power prices to amongst the highest, our manufacturing industry has lost its one, big comparative economic advantage.

About 20 years ago, in Australia, limiting carbon dioxide emissions first became a goal of public policy. It was the Howard government, back in 1997, that originally introduced the Renewable Energy Target, a stealth carbon tax, requiring energy suppliers to source a percentage of their power from new renewable generation. But in those far off days, it was just 2 per cent.

During the energy discussions around the Howard cabinet table, I recall thinking “why not encourage more solar hot water systems to reduce power use” and “why not incentivise the installation of solar panels to help power people’s homes”?

Way back in 1980s, in my final provost’s collection at The Queen’s College, Lord Blake had observed: “Mr Abbott needs to temper his robust common sense with a certain philosophic doubt”. If only more of us had realised sooner how easy it was with renewable power to have too much of a good thing!

Unsurprisingly, a conservative cabinet did indeed respond to farmers’ worries about the drought then gripping eastern Australia; and the public’s then eagerness to support environmental gestures with other people’s money. We thought we could reduce emissions, or at least limit their increase, without much disruption to everyday life, hence these gestures to the zeitgeist. Where the subsidy was modest and the impact on the power system minimal, our thinking ran, why not accommodate the feel-good urge to be “responsible global citizens”?

In its last few months, the Howard government even agreed in-principle to support an emissions trading scheme. But Howard was shrewd enough to know how the most important consequences of any policy were often the unintended ones. His government’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, even though we’d secured a good deal for Australia, showed his caution about the impact of emissions reduction on power prices and the wider economy.

For the incoming Labor Prime Minister after 2007, though, climate change was nothing less than the “greatest moral challenge of our time”. The Rudd-Gillard government believed in an emissions trading scheme, no ifs, no buts, and in a ten-fold increase in the mandatory use of renewables.

For a while, the Liberal-National opposition was inclined to go along with it. My own leaning for the first year or so was not to oppose it; but my doubts about the theory of climate change were growing and my sense that an ETS would turn out to be a “great big new tax on everything” was hardening.

To a party audience in country Victoria in October 2009, I observed that the so-called settled science of climate change was “absolute crap”; and after winning the opposition leadership had a secret party room ballot to oppose an ETS because it was not our job to enter into weak compromises with a bad government.

As it happened, the 2010 election was more about power prices than about saving the planet. Under great political pressure, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. But early in 2011, as part of her minority government’s deal with the Greens, she committed to a carbon tax that would put wholesale power prices up by 40 per cent.

The 2013 election was a referendum on Labor’s carbon tax – as well as Labor’s complete loss of control over our maritime borders – with a thumping win to the Liberal-National Coalition.

In July 2014, the Abbott government abolished the carbon tax, saving the average household about $500 a year. In early 2015, we reduced the Renewable Energy Target from 28 to 23 per cent. It wasn’t enough, but it was the best that we could get through the Senate. My cabinet always had some ministers focused on jobs and cost of living; and others more concerned with emissions reduction, even though our contribution to global emissions was barely one per cent.

Inevitably, our Paris agreement to a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction was a compromise based on the advice that we could achieve it largely through efficiencies, without additional environmental imposts, using the highly successful emissions reduction fund; because, as I said at the time, “the last thing we want to do is strengthen the environment (but) damage our economy”.

At last year’s election, the government chose not to campaign on power prices even though Labor was promising a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target (requiring a $50 billion over-build of wind farms) and a 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 (requiring a new carbon tax). After a net gain of 25 seats at the previous two elections, when we had campaigned on power prices, we had a net loss of 14 when we didn’t.

Say what you'll do and do what you say, that's Mr Abbott for you - our future Prime Minister.

What a tall glass of water. We need a man like this.

pt4.

And subsequent events have made the politics of power once more the central battleground between and within the two main parties. Although manufacturing, agriculture and transport are also large carbon dioxide emitters, the politics of emissions reduction has always focused on power generation because shifting to renewables has always been more saleable to voters than closing down industry, giving up cars and not eating beef.

As a badge of environmental virtue, the South Australian state Labor government had been boasting that, on average, almost 50 per cent of its power was wind-generated – although at any moment it could vary from almost zero to almost 100 per cent. It had even ostentatiously blown up its one coal-fired power station.

In September last year, though, the wind blew so hard that the turbines had to shut down – and the inter-connector with Victoria and its reliable coal-fired power failed too. For 24 hours, there was a state wide blackout. For nearly two million people, the lights were off, cash registers didn’t work, traffic lights went down, lifts stopped, and patients were sent home from hospitals.

Throughout last summer, there were further blackouts and brownouts across eastern Australia requiring hundreds of millions in repairs to the plant of energy-intensive industries. Despite this, in a display of virtue signalling, to flaunt its environmental credentials (and to boost prices for its other coal-fired plants), last March the French-government part-owned multinational, Engie, closed down the giant Hazelwood coal-fired station that had supplied a quarter of Victoria’s power.

The Australian Energy Market Operator is now sufficiently alarmed to have just issued an official warning of further blackouts this summer in Victoria and South Australia and severe medium term power shortfalls. But in yet more virtue-signalling, energy giant AGL is still threatening to close the massive Liddell coal-fired power station in NSW and replace it with a subsidised solar farm and a much smaller gas-fired power station relying on gas supplies that don’t currently exist.

Were it not rational behaviour based on irrational government policy, this deliberate elimination of an essential service could only be described as a form of economic self-harm.

Hydro aside, renewable energy should properly be referred to as intermittent and unreliable power. When the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the power doesn’t flow. Wind and solar power are like sailing ships; cheaper than powered boats, to be sure, but we’ve stopped using sail for transport because it couldn’t be trusted to turn up on time.

Because the weather is unpredictable, you never really know when renewable power is going to work. Its marginal cost is low but so is its reliability, so in the absence of industrial scale batteries, it always needs matching capacity from dependable coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear energy. This should always have been obvious.

Also now apparent is the system instability and the perverse economics that subsidised renewables on a large scale have injected into our power supply. Not only is demand variable but there’s a vast and unpredictable difference between potential and dispatch-able capacity at any one time. Having to turn coal fired power stations up or down as the wind changes makes them much less profitable even though coal remains by far the cheapest source of reliable power.

A market that’s driven by subsidies rather than by economics always fails. Subsidy begets subsidy until the system collapses into absurdity. In Australia’s case, having subsidised renewables, allegedly to save the planet; we’re now faced with subsidising coal, just to keep the lights on.

We have got ourselves into this mess because successive federal governments have tried to reduce emissions rather than to ensure reliable and affordable power; because, rather than give farmers a fairer return, state governments have given in to green lobbyists and banned or heavily restricted gas exploration and extraction; and because shareholder activists have scared power companies out of new investment in fossil fuel power generation, even though you can’t run a modern economy without it.

In the short term, to avoid blackouts, we have to get mothballed or under-utilised gas back into the system.

In the medium term, there must be – first – no subsidies, none, for new intermittent power (and a freeze on the RET should be no problem if renewables are as economic as the boosters claim); second, given the nervousness of private investors, there must be a government-built coal-fired power station to overcome political risk; third, the gas bans must go; and fourth, the ban on nuclear power must go too in case a dry country ever needs base load power with zero emissions.

Belatedly, the government is now suggesting that there might not be a new Clean Energy Target after all. There must not be – and the government still needs to deal with what’s yet to come under the existing target.

In the longer term, we need less theology and more common sense about emissions reduction. It matters but not more than everything else. As Clive James has suggested in a celebrated recent essay, we need to get back to evidence based policy rather than “policy based evidence”.

pt 5.

Even if reducing emissions really is necessary to save the planet, our effort, however Herculean, is barely-better-than-futile; because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s.

There’s a veneer of rational calculation to emissions reduction but underneath it’s about “doing the right thing”. Environmentalism has managed to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause. Primitive people once killed goats to appease the volcano gods. We’re more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect.

So far, climate change policy has generated new taxes, new subsidies and new restrictions in rich countries; and new demands for more aid from poor countries. But for the really big emitters, China and India, it’s a first world problem. Between them, they’re building or planning more than 800 new coal-fired power stations – often using Australian coal – with emissions, on average, 30 per cent lower than from our own ageing generators.

Unsurprisingly, the recipients of climate change subsidies and climate change research grants think action is very urgent indeed. As for the general public, of course saving the planet counts – until the bills come in and then the humbug detector is switched on.

Should Australia close down its steel industry; watch passively while its aluminium industry moves offshore to places less concerned about emissions; export coal, but not use it ourselves; and deliberately increase power prices for people who can’t install their own solar panels and batteries? Of course not, but these are the inevitable consequences of continuing current policies.

That’s the reality no one has wanted to face for a long time: that we couldn’t reduce emissions without also hurting the economy; that’s the inconvenient truth that can now no longer be avoided.

The only rational choice is to put Australian jobs and Australia’s standard of living first; to get emissions down but only as far as we can without putting prices up. After two decades’ experience of the very modest reality of climate change but the increasingly dire consequences of the policy to deal with it, anything else would be a dereliction of duty as well as a political death wish.

I congratulate the Global Warming Policy Forum for your commitment to rational inquiry; your insistence that the theory must be made to fit the facts, rather than the other way round; your concern to do good, rather than just to seem good; and for the hope I share with you: that, in the end, the best policy will turn out to be the best politics.

I’m reminded of the story of a man randomly throwing pieces of paper from the window of a train. Eventually his companion asked him why he did it. It keeps the elephants down, he said. “But there are no elephants here”, his companion replied. “Precisely; it’s a very successful method”.

A tendency to fear catastrophe is ingrained in the human psyche. Looking at the climate record over millions of years, one day it will probably come; whatever we do today won’t stop it, and when it comes, it will have little to do with the carbon dioxide emissions of man.

Under-promise and over-deliver. Imagine what a man like this could do if he became our leader.

Well there you have it.

IMO certainly not a bad speech, but hey, I'm not a hater.

karnal couldn't wait...  haters...  just cant wait to jump in and ...  HATE
right Troll.  innit.

The Abbott's Speech - starring Geoffrey Rush (hi, Geoff)...

Downe at Ye Olde Rush Vocal Training Academie:-

"Now explain to me clearly what it is you wish to achieve, King-to-be Abbott?"

"I.... eerrrrr... ahhhh... I... ummmmm... want t-t-t... want t' arh... speak... ummmmm.. clearly... and... yes, yes....... oerrr... on the.. the.. p-p-p... point!"

"Could I have that again slowly?"

What a lying wanker Tony Abbott is....Either he was lying about his belief in global warming to become PM or he is lying now....Abbott has shown he is a self serving ass hole who has no moral compass and will say anything to gain an advantage....Nothing good will ever come from Tony Abbott!!!

>:( >:( >:(

oh dear haters... easy to spot.
So Phil, karnal...  got anything to say about the actual speech...?
Like to refute any claims for example?

So far the usual suspects on political commentary are running a black and white agenda.  Usually without actually referring to the speech itself.

pretty long speech...  can't all be lies... right?

You'll never hear me saying anything bad about Mr Abbott, Grendel. I never have, and I never will.

Never ever.

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

pretty long speech...  can't all be lies... right?

this is abbott you're talking about, of course it's all lies.

I wonder why climate reporters were denied access to this speech. :-?

Personally I'd hope never to hear or read anymore of your crap ever again...  Never ever...  Innit.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 6:40pm: pretty long speech...  can't all be lies... right? this is abbott you're talking about, of course it's all lies.

Then post 1 Johnboy, cant be that hard now can it.

oh dear wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:57pm:

I wonder why climate reporters were denied access to this speech. :-?

You can prove that somehow right.
I mean there was negative reaction to his speech from the usual suspects right away...  hard to do if not reported right?

So far Stone and Shanahan are right lots of negative reaction but all aimed at Abbott and not a word about his speech.

Oh except the "volcano and goat" reaction.

Quote:

In Australia, we’ve had ten years of disappointing government. It’s not just the churn of prime ministers that now rivals Italy’s, the internal divisions and the policy confusion that followed a quarter century of strong government under Bob Hawke and John Howard.

Wonder if Tony understands that he was a major contributor to that poor government ?

This part was correct.

Quote:

We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty.

This does not seem to be the type of thing that kick them when they are down and then kick them again Tony would do. He sure loves those boat people. I doubt he or anyone would want to be treated like he treated them?

The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance.

The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony.

Time I will never get back.

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:14pm:

Then post 1 Johnboy

what part of ALL was difficult?

Then there’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (which is a plant food after all) are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields. In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.


Global warming is beneficial - Idiot.

More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen

Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ?

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:48pm:

You'll never hear me saying anything bad about Mr Abbott, Grendel. I never have, and I never will. Never ever.

A very tall drink of water... he doth bestride this narrow world like a Colossus....

Quote:

In its last few months, the Howard government even agreed in-principle to support an emissions trading scheme.

That is right Tony went to the election with a carbon trading policy. Tony then blocked the negotiated carbon trading policy that was almost identical to the one he went to the election supporting ????

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

[highlight]More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen [/highlight] Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ?

Tony's that old?  Well, I never....... those Viagrans sure live a long time.... must be one of those lizard people...... Komodo dragons live a long time.... so do tortoises... surely something has risen in that time... he has three daughters.. well, two daughters and one undecided it seems....

In July 2014, the Abbott government abolished the carbon tax, saving the average household about $500 a year.

Is tony still propagating this lie ? well yes he is. Where did the other $50 go ???

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict

lie


Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world.

lie


gee goose, that's only the first sentence  :D :D :D :D

he has no intention of using common sense nor is there any 'broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world' in climate change debate

Abbott's Speech - good or bad.

Excellent.................. 8-)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 9:00pm:

Quote: In its last few months, the Howard government even agreed in-principle to support an emissions trading scheme. That is right Tony went to the election with a carbon trading policy. Tony then blocked the negotiated carbon trading policy that was almost identical to the one he went to the election supporting ????

If they sold the hot air and rotten egg gas rising from Parliament we'd all be on Easy Street

..... snow comes down in the Winter and washes the streets clean.. but the stench remains... the stench of decay and corruption, like some tropical swamp gone bad or filled with the rotting corpses from a Pol Pot or someone of that kind..... or following a dozen Holden Commodores on unleaded up a long hill..... that's how bad it can be.......

I'm retired now.. I was a Blade Runner, but  those days are gone.... I don't retire others any more.... at least not until my old boss called.. with a brace of big guys with big sticks telling me I was under arrest and needed to come with them right now to the station....

"I need the old Blade Runner, Grap!"

"You never needed me - you just used me.... I'm retired!"

"NOBODY retires in this business.. you know that.  You were told that the day you signed up.... no family, no friend, no lover will ever know what you really do..... and we make damned sure they think something one hunnert and eighty degrees opposite.... NOBODY on the outside EVER believes a Blade Runner when they say they were a Blade Runner, Grap.. you know all that.  So get on board with me here... I've got some lice to kill.... it's that or you can get to see Offworld in a prison hulk bound for Andromeda... and a mighty slow one, too.."

I guessed I had no choice.....

"OK... waddya got?"

"Got a brace of Viagran Reptilicants in Canberra.... stirring up some trouble.... and they seem to have gotten way beyond their built-in use by date, Grap.  We need answers now... and Upstairs is breathing down my neck."

"So you're breathing down mine... I get it..."

He threw down some photographs....

"We want this one.... and this one.... gone, deck... as soon as.  You with me? Run that Blade for me and you're a free man...."

"That's what I thought last time...."

I turned the photos around.... some nearly normal looking family guy with a family and all.. three daughters... well... two and one body builder... that kind never turned me on... and a wife who looked tired of.. well.. being his wife....

The chief leaned back in his chair, a smirk on his face...

"Don't let that picture fool you, Grap... that guy's a Reptilicant.. the wife and kids are window dressing..."

"Who's the other guy?"

"Calls himself Joyce...but he's Reptilicant all right... a check of his documents showed he wasn't born here.... not human, Grap.  I want you to go get 'em."

Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood.


Yet Tony ignores what the scientists who study climate tell him in favour of the opinions of the nutter Lord Mockington.

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

pretty long speech...  can't all be lies... right?

Waste of valuable internet space....

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood. Yet Tony ignores what the scientists who study climate tell him in favour of the opinions of the nutter Lord Mockington.

The Earth has warmed and cooled many many times in our history.

And every time it had nothing to do with CO2.

In fact when the Earth warms more CO2 is released into the atmosphere and vise versa when it cools.

Temperature affects the amount of CO2.

CO2 doesn't affect temperature, well it does but its so minute its not worth worrying about.

Go tell these scientists on the AGW gravy train they suck at the basics.

But money talks............... :o

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:00pm: Quote: In its last few months, the Howard government even agreed in-principle to support an emissions trading scheme. That is right Tony went to the election with a carbon trading policy. Tony then blocked the negotiated carbon trading policy that was almost identical to the one he went to the election supporting ???? If they sold the hot air and rotten egg gas rising from Parliament we'd all be on Easy Street ..... snow comes down in the Winter and washes the streets clean.. but the stench remains... the stench of decay and corruption, like some tropical swamp gone bad or filled with the rotting corpses from a Pol Pot or someone of that kind..... or following a dozen Holden Commodores on unleaded up a long hill..... that's how bad it can be....... I'm retired now.. I was a Blade Runner, but  those days are gone.... I don't retire others any more.... at least not until my old boss called.. with a brace of big guys with big sticks telling me I was under arrest and needed to come with them right now to the station.... "I need the old Blade Runner, Grap!" "You never needed me - you just used me.... I'm retired!" "NOBODY retires in this business.. you know that.  You were told that the day you signed up.... no family, no friend, no lover will ever know what you really do..... and we make damned sure they think something one hunnert and eighty degrees opposite.... NOBODY on the outside EVER believes a Blade Runner when they say they were a Blade Runner, Grap.. you know all that.  So get on board with me here... I've got some lice to kill.... it's that or you can get to see Offworld in a prison hulk bound for Andromeda... and a mighty slow one, too.." I guessed I had no choice..... "OK... waddya got?" "Got a brace of Viagran Reptilicants in Canberra.... stirring up some trouble.... and they seem to have gotten way beyond their built-in use by date, Grap.  We need answers now... and Upstairs is breathing down my neck." "So you're breathing down mine... I get it..." He threw down some photographs.... "We want this one.... and this one.... gone, deck... as soon as.  You with me? Run that Blade for me and you're a free man...." "That's what I thought last time...." I turned the photos around.... some nearly normal looking family guy with a family and all.. three daughters... well... two and one body builder... that kind never turned me on... and a wife who looked tired of.. well.. being his wife.... The chief leaned back in his chair, a smirk on his face... "Don't let that picture fool you, Grap... that guy's a Reptilicant.. the wife and kids are window dressing..." "Who's the other guy?" "Calls himself Joyce...but he's Reptilicant all right... a check of his documents showed he wasn't born here.... not human, Grap.  I want you to go get 'em."

;D :D ;D

Aussie wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:09pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:00pm: Quote: In its last few months, the Howard government even agreed in-principle to support an emissions trading scheme. That is right Tony went to the election with a carbon trading policy. Tony then blocked the negotiated carbon trading policy that was almost identical to the one he went to the election supporting ???? If they sold the hot air and rotten egg gas rising from Parliament we'd all be on Easy Street ..... snow comes down in the Winter and washes the streets clean.. but the stench remains... the stench of decay and corruption, like some tropical swamp gone bad or filled with the rotting corpses from a Pol Pot or someone of that kind..... or following a dozen Holden Commodores on unleaded up a long hill..... that's how bad it can be....... I'm retired now.. I was a Blade Runner, but  those days are gone.... I don't retire others any more.... at least not until my old boss called.. with a brace of big guys with big sticks telling me I was under arrest and needed to come with them right now to the station.... "I need the old Blade Runner, Grap!" "You never needed me - you just used me.... I'm retired!" "NOBODY retires in this business.. you know that.  You were told that the day you signed up.... no family, no friend, no lover will ever know what you really do..... and we make damned sure they think something one hunnert and eighty degrees opposite.... NOBODY on the outside EVER believes a Blade Runner when they say they were a Blade Runner, Grap.. you know all that.  So get on board with me here... I've got some lice to kill.... it's that or you can get to see Offworld in a prison hulk bound for Andromeda... and a mighty slow one, too.." I guessed I had no choice..... "OK... waddya got?" "Got a brace of Viagran Reptilicants in Canberra.... stirring up some trouble.... and they seem to have gotten way beyond their built-in use by date, Grap.  We need answers now... and Upstairs is breathing down my neck." "So you're breathing down mine... I get it..." He threw down some photographs.... "We want this one.... and this one.... gone, deck... as soon as.  You with me? Run that Blade for me and you're a free man...." "That's what I thought last time...." I turned the photos around.... some nearly normal looking family guy with a family and all.. three daughters... well... two and one body builder... that kind never turned me on... and a wife who looked tired of.. well.. being his wife.... The chief leaned back in his chair, a smirk on his face... "Don't let that picture fool you, Grap... that guy's a Reptilicant.. the wife and kids are window dressing..." "Who's the other guy?" "Calls himself Joyce...but he's Reptilicant all right... a check of his documents showed he wasn't born here.... not human, Grap.  I want you to go get 'em." ;D :D ;D

I see you actually read my stuff... thanks.  Some are left dismayed by it..... but there is always a kick in it.......

Waving Abbott in front of the lying hypocrite uninformed Socialist indoctrinated Lefties is like waving a red rag in front of a bull.

The Lefties are scared stiff of Abbott who, like his hero Pres Trump, speaks the TRUTH without fear or favor.

Base load electricity is like kryptonite to the useless unreliable expensive Greeny Renewable Rubbish.

Useless unreliable expensive Greeny Renewable Rubbish is guaranteed to fail just when it is required and so it is useless without totally reliable cheap clean coal or hydro electricity base load generation.

As basket case Sth Aust has found out to its dismay and now they are propping up their useless Renewable Rubbish with hundreds of diesel generators - what a fiasco!!!!!

When the blackouts hit this summer then Tony Abbott will be entirely vindicated.

Advance Australia Fair!!!!

It was a magnificent speech. 



I did not even have to hear it to know that.

Pres Trump must be proud of Tony Abbott.

Tony Abbott is just what is needed to light a fire under Australia and burn out all the Greeny and Lefty trash and bury the self destructive political correctness rubbish.

juliar wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 4:58am:

Pres Trump must be proud of Tony Abbott. Tony Abbott is just what is needed to light a fire under Australia and burn out all the Greeny and Lefty trash and bury the self destructive political correctness rubbish.

Music to my ears.

John Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict lie Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world. lie gee goose, that's only the first sentence  :D :D :D :D he has no intention of using common sense nor is there any 'broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world' in climate change debate

You are an idiot...  YOU don't even recognise the lies that come out of your mouth. :D :D :D :D :D :D
You cant even stop yourself from TROLLING for 1 post.
Go ridicule and abuse someone who cares about you...  surely no one here does. :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 6:49pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 6:40pm: pretty long speech...  can't all be lies... right? this is abbott you're talking about, of course it's all lies. Then post 1 Johnboy, cant be that hard now can it.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:19pm:

Quote: In Australia, we’ve had ten years of disappointing government. It’s not just the churn of prime ministers that now rivals Italy’s, the internal divisions and the policy confusion that followed a quarter century of strong government under Bob Hawke and John Howard. Wonder if Tony understands that he was a major contributor to that poor government ? This part was correct.

So not a lie...  very good.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:23pm:

Quote: We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty. This does not seem to be the type of thing that kick them when they are down and then kick them again Tony would do. He sure loves those boat people. I doubt he or anyone would want to be treated like he treated them?

I doubt that Tony passes the test on this type of behaviour...  but...  both major parties have virtually the same policy when it comes to asylum seekers and country shoppers.
Unfortunately for us, the ALP had to learn that lesson the hard way.
Seems something you haven't learnt yet DNA.
Clearly though Abbott recognises the mess that Parliament currently is.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:

The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance. The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony. Time I will never get back.

Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it?
You should seek help with your personal and political bias though.  Cant help your judgement can it. :D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 4:34am:

It was a magnificent speech.  I did not even have to hear it to know that.

You never do, Sprint.

Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!!

::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:02am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict lie Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world. lie gee goose, that's only the first sentence  :D :D :D :D he has no intention of using common sense nor is there any 'broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world' in climate change debate You are an idiot...  YOU don't even recognise the lies that come out of your mouth. :D :D :D :D :D :D You cant even stop yourself from TROLLING for 1 post. Go ridicule and abuse someone who cares about you...  surely no one here does. :D :D :D :D :D

I showed you two lies just in the first sentence. .. you prefer to keep your head up your arse and pretend, go for it, just don't troll the forum doing so.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

Then there’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (which is a plant food after all) are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields. In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial. Global warming is beneficial - Idiot.

Hmmm  so where was he wrong again, I mean you wouldn't just shout slogans and call him an idiot for no reason right? :D :D :D :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ?

Do you have proof of sea level rises in manly?
Or is he correct?

The speech itself is delusional.  He thinks that the coalition lost the seats due to not campaigning for lower energy cost.  Well, they cant, because, energy cost have GONE up!   But ultimate, those seats were lost, due primary to the incompetence of Mr Abbott himself. 

Prior to the election he promised:  no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS" under a Coalition government.   And no new taxes without an election.

He broke every one of these promises in the first budget. 

There are still many items from that budget that is still have not passed. 

Look, Mr Abbot is no doubt very right wing conservative.  He should just own up and tell it as it is.  That he believe in his policies, however, the public does not agree with him.  If he does that, then, I will have more respect for him.   But not this... its everyone else's fault ... primary school attitude.   I mean at least, Ms Pauline Hanson, I totally disagree with her policies and stances, but she is at least honest about her personal belief - sort of what you see is what you get. 

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: [highlight]More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen [/highlight] Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? Tony's that old?  Well, I never....... those Viagrans sure live a long time.... must be one of those lizard people...... Komodo dragons live a long time.... so do tortoises... surely something has risen in that time... he has three daughters.. well, two daughters and one undecided it seems....

http://www.historicphotographs.com.au/searcher.asp?systemsearch=1&sitemode=2&place=Manly
https://au.pinterest.com/peteread/old-photos-of-manly/
My guess is that there would be more personal and science related photos available in various archives from the 1880s onwards.
Of course Tony's age would have no bearing on them...  right?
Surely a serious discussion is not beyond people here.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 9:02pm:

In July 2014, the Abbott government abolished the carbon tax, saving [highlight]the average household about $500 a year.[/highlight] Is tony still propagating this lie ? well yes he is. Where did the other $50 go ???

Is it a lie....  you of course can supply some facts right?

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood. Yet Tony ignores what the scientists who study climate tell him in favour of the opinions of the nutter Lord Mockington.

yet you ignore the science and scientists that tell you otherwise.
There is NO Consensus

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 4:34am:

It was a magnificent speech.

Magnifique!

10/10

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:45am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: [highlight]More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen [/highlight] Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? Tony's that old?  Well, I never....... those Viagrans sure live a long time.... must be one of those lizard people...... Komodo dragons live a long time.... so do tortoises... surely something has risen in that time... he has three daughters.. well, two daughters and one undecided it seems.... http://www.historicphotographs.com.au/searcher.asp?systemsearch=1&sitemode=2&place=Manly https://au.pinterest.com/peteread/old-photos-of-manly/ My guess is that there would be more personal and science related photos available in various archives from the 1880s onwards. Of course Tony's age would have no bearing on them...  right? Surely a serious discussion is not beyond people here.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/manly-daily/seawall-a-step-closer-for-residents-but-more-state-government-red-tape-could-still-block-protections/news-story/be29cf30dcb09b5af9f920d4c831c689

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

pretty long speech...  can't all be lies... right?

pretty long speech...  can't all be true... right?

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:05am:

Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::)

Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk.... 

John Smith wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:18am:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:02am: John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict lie Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world. lie gee goose, that's only the first sentence  :D :D :D :D he has no intention of using common sense nor is there any 'broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world' in climate change debate You are an idiot...  YOU don't even recognise the lies that come out of your mouth. :D :D :D :D :D :D You cant even stop yourself from TROLLING for 1 post. Go ridicule and abuse someone who cares about you...  surely no one here does. :D :D :D :D :D I showed you two lies just in the first sentence. .. you prefer to keep your head up your arse and pretend, go for it, just don't troll the forum doing so.

Told YOU already Trollboy...  you don't recognise your own lies and stupidity.

Now run along back to the safety of your bridge...  you bore me. :D :D :D :D :D

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:52am:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:45am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: [highlight]More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen [/highlight] Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? Tony's that old?  Well, I never....... those Viagrans sure live a long time.... must be one of those lizard people...... Komodo dragons live a long time.... so do tortoises... surely something has risen in that time... he has three daughters.. well, two daughters and one undecided it seems.... http://www.historicphotographs.com.au/searcher.asp?systemsearch=1&sitemode=2&place=Manly https://au.pinterest.com/peteread/old-photos-of-manly/ My guess is that there would be more personal and science related photos available in various archives from the 1880s onwards. Of course Tony's age would have no bearing on them...  right? Surely a serious discussion is not beyond people here. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/manly-daily/seawall-a-step-closer-for-residents-but-more-state-government-red-tape-could-still-block-protections/news-story/be29cf30dcb09b5af9f920d4c831c689

Sorry pretty busy today, but are you talking about the STORM damage?
Which BTW is not climate change or sea level rises.

Coastal erosion. ;)

Plus, that Mr Abbott said was not anything scientific.  Old photographs are not standard in terms of placing of camera, the timing of measurements.  So there is no way to detect coastal erosion, or sea level changes.  Mr Abbott, said this... so that, people who are less.... erh... educated? take this as some sort of gospel. 

For measurements about sea level increases in Australia, head over to CSIRO, there are records and measurements going back to 1880s. 

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ?

He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured.

Quote:

More than ever, the challenge of leadership is to say what you mean and do what you say.

You see?

How refreshing. What a tall glass of water.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:54am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:18am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:02am: John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict lie Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world. lie gee goose, that's only the first sentence  :D :D :D :D he has no intention of using common sense nor is there any 'broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world' in climate change debate You are an idiot...  YOU don't even recognise the lies that come out of your mouth. :D :D :D :D :D :D You cant even stop yourself from TROLLING for 1 post. Go ridicule and abuse someone who cares about you...  surely no one here does. :D :D :D :D :D I showed you two lies just in the first sentence. .. you prefer to keep your head up your arse and pretend, go for it, just don't troll the forum doing so. Told YOU already Trollboy...  you don't recognise your own lies and stupidity. Now run along back to the safety of your bridge...  you bore me. :D :D :D :D :D

somehow you seem to be under the impression that you writing crap makes it gospel. What you told me was a load of poo. Repeating it won't improve the flavour.

Bam wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured.

Mr Abbott's hardly addressing the science here, Bam. This is about a return to Christian values:


Quote:

We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty. In Britain and Australia, scarcely 50 per cent describe themselves as Christian, down from 90 per cent a generation back. For decades, we’ve been losing our religious faith but we’re fast losing our religious knowledge too. We’re less a post-Christian society than a non-Christian, or even an anti-Christian one. It hasn’t left us less susceptible to dogma, though, because we still need things to believe in and causes to fight for; it’s just that believers can now be found for almost anything and everything. Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the West. Still, only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” and charged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it.

Bam wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured.

I'm guessing he's making an anecdotal statement.
To disprove his point one needs to come up with some facts.

John Smith wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:15am:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:54am: John Smith wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:18am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:02am: John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict lie Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world. lie gee goose, that's only the first sentence  :D :D :D :D he has no intention of using common sense nor is there any 'broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world' in climate change debate You are an idiot...  YOU don't even recognise the lies that come out of your mouth. :D :D :D :D :D :D You cant even stop yourself from TROLLING for 1 post. Go ridicule and abuse someone who cares about you...  surely no one here does. :D :D :D :D :D I showed you two lies just in the first sentence. .. you prefer to keep your head up your arse and pretend, go for it, just don't troll the forum doing so. Told YOU already Trollboy...  you don't recognise your own lies and stupidity. Now run along back to the safety of your bridge...  you bore me. :D :D :D :D :D somehow you seem to be under the impression that you writing crap makes it gospel. What you told me was a load of poo. Repeating it won't improve the flavour.

I'm sowwy widdle Johnny...
BUT you have no idea about what is true and what is a lie. :D

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:17am:

Bam wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:04am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured. Mr Abbott's hardly addressing the science here, Bam. This is about a return to Christian values: Quote: We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty. In Britain and Australia, scarcely 50 per cent describe themselves as Christian, down from 90 per cent a generation back. For decades, we’ve been losing our religious faith but we’re fast losing our religious knowledge too. We’re less a post-Christian society than a non-Christian, or even an anti-Christian one. It hasn’t left us less susceptible to dogma, though, because we still need things to believe in and causes to fight for; it’s just that believers can now be found for almost anything and everything. Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the West. Still, only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” and charged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it.

Nothing about his speech is scientific, as well as the audience that  he is speaking to. 

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:52am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....

I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!!

::) ::) ::)

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:35am:

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:17am: Bam wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:04am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured. Mr Abbott's hardly addressing the science here, Bam. This is about a return to Christian values: Quote: We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty. In Britain and Australia, scarcely 50 per cent describe themselves as Christian, down from 90 per cent a generation back. For decades, we’ve been losing our religious faith but we’re fast losing our religious knowledge too. We’re less a post-Christian society than a non-Christian, or even an anti-Christian one. It hasn’t left us less susceptible to dogma, though, because we still need things to believe in and causes to fight for; it’s just that believers can now be found for almost anything and everything. Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the West. Still, only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” and charged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it. Nothing about his speech is scientific, as well as the audience that  he is speaking to.

He's talking about climate change and energy policy being political, not scientific. So unfair.

AXE THE TAX.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:17am:

Bam wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:04am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured. Mr Abbott's hardly addressing the science here, Bam. This is about a return to Christian values: Quote: We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty. In Britain and Australia, scarcely 50 per cent describe themselves as Christian, down from 90 per cent a generation back. For decades, we’ve been losing our religious faith but we’re fast losing our religious knowledge too. We’re less a post-Christian society than a non-Christian, or even an anti-Christian one. It hasn’t left us less susceptible to dogma, though, because we still need things to believe in and causes to fight for; it’s just that believers can now be found for almost anything and everything. Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the West. Still, only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” and charged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it.

So karnal now you are trying to relate a piece of his speech with science with something that has nothing to do with science?  Is that it?  You do realise he is not addressing science there don't you?

Are you being a disingenuous troll again?

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:35am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:15am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:54am: John Smith wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:18am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:02am: John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 9:03pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict lie Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:03pm: to place this particular issue in the broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world. lie gee goose, that's only the first sentence  :D :D :D :D he has no intention of using common sense nor is there any 'broader struggle for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world' in climate change debate You are an idiot...  YOU don't even recognise the lies that come out of your mouth. :D :D :D :D :D :D You cant even stop yourself from TROLLING for 1 post. Go ridicule and abuse someone who cares about you...  surely no one here does. :D :D :D :D :D I showed you two lies just in the first sentence. .. you prefer to keep your head up your arse and pretend, go for it, just don't troll the forum doing so. Told YOU already Trollboy...  you don't recognise your own lies and stupidity. Now run along back to the safety of your bridge...  you bore me. :D :D :D :D :D somehow you seem to be under the impression that you writing crap makes it gospel. What you told me was a load of poo. Repeating it won't improve the flavour. I'm sowwy widdle Johnny... BUT you have no idea about what is true and what is a lie. :D

pull your head out of your arse and try reading it again

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:33am:

Bam wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:04am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured. I'm guessing he's making an anecdotal statement. To disprove his point one needs to come up with some facts.

Not at all, Grendel. One just needs to come up with some pictures.

---

http://www.sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au/sites/default/files/beachsandnourish2.png

AXE THE TAX.

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:01am:

Coastal erosion. ;) Plus, that Mr Abbott said was not anything scientific.  Old photographs are not standard in terms of placing of camera, the timing of measurements.  So there is no way to detect coastal erosion, or sea level changes.  Mr Abbott, said this... so that, people who are less.... erh... educated? take this as some sort of gospel.  For measurements about sea level increases in Australia, head over to CSIRO, there are records and measurements going back to 1880s.

This howler from Abbott's speech highlights how little he actually knows on the topic. He probably doesn't even know how tides work.

Oh, look! I can prove from a photograph that sea levels are actually FALLING!

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/centros-tic/14700420/helvia/aula/archivos/repositorio/0/81/html/tides.jpg

::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:33am:

Bam wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:04am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured. I'm guessing he's making an anecdotal statement. To disprove his point one needs to come up with some facts.

The burden of proof fallacy, eh?

I have a radical idea. How about Abbott prove his point with facts of his own? Take sea levels, for example. He should prove that undated photographs are the best way to measure sea levels over time.

Bam wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 12:59pm:

He should prove that undated photographs are the best way to measure sea levels over time.

They are not. One would have to take all the photos at Mean Sea Level Height. Just as you can not take the pictures of storm surge at King tide and say they are sea level.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/seal-level-sat-oct2017.png

Copy of the picture at NASA.

"Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites."

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

So 2016 was the "hottest year evah", and yet sea level is tracking sideways? ;)

NASA? They're in on the scam too, Lee.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 2:19pm:

NASA? They're in on the scam too, Lee.

Which scam is that? Increasing sea levels or increasing global temperatures? They would appear to be mutually exclusive.

Bam wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 12:59pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:33am: Bam wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:04am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured. I'm guessing he's making an anecdotal statement. To disprove his point one needs to come up with some facts. The burden of proof fallacy, eh? I have a radical idea. How about Abbott prove his point with facts of his own? Take sea levels, for example. He should prove that undated photographs are the best way to measure sea levels over time.

He made a speech Bam, get over it.
If you think his assertion is wrong...  go and prove it is.

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:01am:

Coastal erosion. ;) Plus, that Mr Abbott said was not anything scientific.  Old photographs are not standard in terms of placing of camera, the timing of measurements.  So there is no way to detect coastal erosion, or sea level changes.  Mr Abbott, said this... so that, people who are less.... erh... educated? take this as some sort of gospel.  For measurements about sea level increases in Australia, head over to CSIRO, there are records and measurements going back to 1880s.

Good grief another one.
He was making a speech not a scientific treatise or lecture.  I understood his point if you think his assertions are wrong.  feel free to prove it.

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 5:12pm:

Well there you have it. IMO certainly not a bad speech, but hey, I'm not a hater.

He's going down as worse than Howard!

:D

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:36am:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:52am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....  I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!! ::) ::) ::)

I'm not biased I don't particularly like Abbott, I don't hate him either.  YOU have personal issues about someone you don't know and let them colour your opinion.
I want you to post something factual about his speech.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 2:53pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:01am: Coastal erosion. ;) Plus, that Mr Abbott said was not anything scientific.  Old photographs are not standard in terms of placing of camera, the timing of measurements.  So there is no way to detect coastal erosion, or sea level changes.  Mr Abbott, said this... so that, people who are less.... erh... educated? take this as some sort of gospel.  For measurements about sea level increases in Australia, head over to CSIRO, there are records and measurements going back to 1880s.  Good grief another one. He was making a speech not a scientific treatise or lecture.  I understood his point if you think his assertions are wrong.  feel free to prove it.

His assertion as that global warming is probably good: he doesn't even care what he's saying!

He gave this country copper Internet so of course he doesn't care...  ::)

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:00pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:12pm: Well there you have it. IMO certainly not a bad speech, but hey, I'm not a hater. He's going down as worse than Howard! :D

Don't care.
Not the topic.
He certainly was a worse PM than Howard.

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 2:53pm: tickleandrose wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:01am: Coastal erosion. ;) Plus, that Mr Abbott said was not anything scientific.  Old photographs are not standard in terms of placing of camera, the timing of measurements.  So there is no way to detect coastal erosion, or sea level changes.  Mr Abbott, said this... so that, people who are less.... erh... educated? take this as some sort of gospel.  For measurements about sea level increases in Australia, head over to CSIRO, there are records and measurements going back to 1880s.  Good grief another one. He was making a speech not a scientific treatise or lecture.  I understood his point if you think his assertions are wrong.  feel free to prove it. His assertion as that global warming is probably good: he doesn't even care what he's saying! He gave this country copper Internet so of course he doesn't care...  ::)

Actually if you read his speech you'd see that he said a certain amount of warming would be a good thing.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:06pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:00pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 5:12pm: Well there you have it. IMO certainly not a bad speech, but hey, I'm not a hater. He's going down as worse than Howard! :D Don't care. Not the topic. He certainly was a worse PM than Howard.

He is laughed at by the whole internet: they all know the super economy from down under was given copper Internet by Tony Abbott  ;D

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:07pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:05pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 2:53pm: tickleandrose wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:01am: Coastal erosion. ;) Plus, that Mr Abbott said was not anything scientific.  Old photographs are not standard in terms of placing of camera, the timing of measurements.  So there is no way to detect coastal erosion, or sea level changes.  Mr Abbott, said this... so that, people who are less.... erh... educated? take this as some sort of gospel.  For measurements about sea level increases in Australia, head over to CSIRO, there are records and measurements going back to 1880s.  Good grief another one. He was making a speech not a scientific treatise or lecture.  I understood his point if you think his assertions are wrong.  feel free to prove it. His assertion as that global warming is probably good: he doesn't even care what he's saying! He gave this country copper Internet so of course he doesn't care...  ::) Actually if you read his speech you'd see that he said a certain amount of warming would be a good thing.

A qualified poor statement:  :D

The whole world laughs at Tony Abbott .... The whole frickin' world and you know it buddy  ;D

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:06pm:

He certainly was a worse PM than Howard.

Another typical hating JuLiar-worshipper.

Pathetic.

TROLL....
back to the bridge where you belong.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

TROLL.... back to the bridge where you belong.

Go kiss Bill Shorton's leftard arse and stop wasting everybody's time. We're talking about Mr Abbott's speech here, not spreading pathetic leftist vitriol.

Take your hate to another board and stop being a mindless TROLL.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:03pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:36am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:52am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....  I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!! ::) ::) ::) I'm not biased I don't particularly like Abbott, I don't hate him either.  YOU have personal issues about someone you don't know and let them colour your opinion. I want you to post something factual about his speech.

He is a liar....How hard is that for you to understand???

::) ::) ::)

This is what Julie Bishop said about Tony Abbott's speech....


Quote:

“The views he expressed recently are different to those he expressed as prime minister when he supported the Paris agreement, and in fact set a nationally determined targets and the renewable energy target was established under then Prime Minister Abbott,” she said. “So, it’s up to him to explain the differences between his opinion then and his opinion now.”

Now tell me where Abbott has been consistent mate???

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/12/tony-abbott-needs-to-explain-u-turn-on-climate-change-julie-bishop-says

Here is where scientists pick apart Abbott's speech....

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation

::) ::) ::)

Some of the posts here are astoundingly stupid.
Abbott has a messiah complex and would destroy the liberal party just to be leader. That is clear. It is also clear he is ideologically-driven.
Let's assume human caused climate change is real, and this becomes obvious and scientifically undeniable in 50 years (and after which time any effects could not substantially be ameliorated).
Because it is either true or not. As I say, let's assume for the sake of argument it is true.
If the liberal party adopts abbott's stance, and it is true, then the liberal party will be ridiculed and its future bleak electorally. It will be the inept and irrelevant party of "climate change doubters who got us into this mess".
Every time the liberal party put forward an argument the detractors would respond: as real as climate change says the liberals. Remember?  Hahaha.
The liberal party would be a laughing stock with a compromised future. That's a big gamble.
So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong? Are you so confident in the affirmative that you happily risk the future of the liberal party?
Is abbott and ilk so intelligent,  so insightful,  so likely to be right that you put the electoral future of the liberal party on their contrary opinion?
Remember,  abbott is the drunk passed out on the floor of his office when he was supposed to be in Parliament. Abbott is competent?
Abbott, the ex seminarian,  the professed Catholic, who rejects the pope's statements on climate change, but conveniently uses his religion in the SSM debate. Ideology trumps religion.
abbott, the man who knighted prince philip for his "services to australia", but then says he only did it to get up the nose of the lefty media. Ideology trumps good sense.
Tony abbott and ilk are such geniuses that you without reservation back their stance??
If the liberal party gambles that abbott and co are right, but it turns out they were very wrong, then the liberal party will be the biggest loser. As successive generations battle the effects of climate change, the liberal party will be a staple of stand-up comedians for the rest of this century!
Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people!

thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 6:11pm:

So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong?

What do "most climate scientists" think?  What is this supposed percentage of "most climate scientists"?

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:09am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:29pm: The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance. The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony. Time I will never get back. Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? You should seek help with your personal and political bias though.  Cant help your judgement can it. :D

Didn't I post a series of about 6 at close to the same time as this one ????

You just like to hear yourself type.

Yes I see - after posting this you made silly comments about some of them.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:54pm: Then there’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (which is a plant food after all) are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields. In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial. Global warming is beneficial - Idiot. Hmmm  so where was he wrong again, I mean you wouldn't just shout slogans and call him an idiot for no reason right? :D :D :D :D :D

Wow - you just claimed that I founds no examples ?

Now you want to support a truly dumb claim that climate change may be good if if and if.

If the science is wrong and we only have a mild increase and the planet thrives with wealth. Looks unlikely at best. Then again if he is wrong and a 4 or 5 degree rise is locked in and it is too late to do anything something like a billion people are going to die.

Any idiot would work out that the first stage with an increase in co2 and slightly increased temperature would result in a short term greening effect. The problem with increased heat in the longer term is a large reduction in agricultural land and food shortages.

Most of Tony's opinion looks like Lord Mockington cut and paste full of statements you get from the drunk at the local.

By the way this greening effect we supposedly are seeing due to co2 and the global warming that at the same time Tony is saying isn't happening ???? 

Have cake and eat it too a bit hey why not ?

Bam wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:56pm: More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen Everything is ok - no global warming at Manly ?  Is this guy for real ? He's so ignorant about science that he has no idea how sea level is actually measured.

Isn't the world seal level measurement taken at Manly using Tony's family photo album ?

lee wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 6:11pm: So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong? What do "most climate scientists" think?  What is this supposed percentage of "most climate scientists"?

Even 1 would have Tony outnumbered and out gunned.

Tony is a failed PM and failed politician what he knows about climate would fit on a postage stamp.

He thinks his mother taught him climate science by telling him to come in out of the rain.

You do not need a plethora of scientists to combat a nong like Tony.

Quote:

Abbott's Speech - good or bad.

An embarrassment to Australia.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:02pm:

Even 1 would have Tony outnumbered and out gunned.

So that would translate to at least two climate scientists. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Dnarever wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:02pm:

You do not need a plethora of scientists to combat a nong like Tony.

But you do need a plethora of climate scientists to amount to "most". ;)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:02pm:

lee wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 6:24pm: thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 6:11pm: So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong? What do "most climate scientists" think?  What is this supposed percentage of "most climate scientists"? Even 1 would have Tony outnumbered and out gunned. Tony is a failed PM and failed politician what he knows about climate would fit on a postage stamp.

That's what Grendel said, Dnarever, but you?

I am disappointed. The least you could do is admit that he's a tall glass of water.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:46pm: TROLL.... back to the bridge where you belong. Go kiss Bill Shorton's leftard arse and stop wasting everybody's time. We're talking about Mr Abbott's speech here, not spreading pathetic leftist vitriol. Take your hate to another board and stop being a mindless TROLL.

TROLL... :D :D :D

There is NO Consensus how many times must people (plural) tell you?

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 4:32pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:36am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:52am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....  I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!! ::) ::) ::) I'm not biased I don't particularly like Abbott, I don't hate him either.  YOU have personal issues about someone you don't know and let them colour your opinion. I want you to post something factual about his speech. He is a liar....How hard is that for you to understand??? ::) ::) ::) This is what Julie Bishop said about Tony Abbott's speech.... Quote: “The views he expressed recently are different to those he expressed as prime minister when he supported the Paris agreement, and in fact set a nationally determined targets and the renewable energy target was established under then Prime Minister Abbott,” she said. “So, it’s up to him to explain the differences between his opinion then and his opinion now.” I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Bishop says. can you prove that she is right and make the statement less vague? People like BS state when the facts change they change their mind don't they? I'm pretty sure Abbott said he compromised his belief to keep the group together. Now tell me where Abbott has been consistent mate??? I never said he was...  but I wouldn't be posting biased Guardian pieces to back me up either.  But he is very consistent in many things in his speech.  In fact most of it. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/12/tony-abbott-needs-to-explain-u-turn-on-climate-change-julie-bishop-says Here is where scientists pick apart Abbott's speech.... https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation ::) ::) ::)

Oh and Phil I read that blog piece...  puhlease...   :D :D :D :D :D
As much credibility as you think Abbott has.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

but I wouldn't be posting biased Guardian pieces to back me up either.

no, for that you usually quote yourself.  :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:29pm: The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance. The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony. Time I will never get back. Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? You should seek help with your personal and political bias though.  Cant help your judgement can it. :D Didn't I post a series of about 6 at close to the same time as this one ???? You just like to hear yourself type. Yes I see - after posting this you made silly comments about some of them.

oh dear
i think you will find I posted replies at the time I read them..  and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here

John Smith wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:57pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:54pm: but I wouldn't be posting biased Guardian pieces to back me up either. no, for that you usually quote yourself.  :D :D

TROLL...

lee wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 6:11pm: So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong? What do "most climate scientists" think?  What is this supposed percentage of "most climate scientists"?

Have you never heard of a google search?
Answer your own question.
I have noticed most of what you say is just a diversion or road-block. Rather than a discussion moving forward, you seem to want it caught up in a begging-the-question fallacy.
A quick google search shows statements by
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014
International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change.
Geological Society of America: Position statement on climate change.
American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change.
American Geophysical Union: Statement on climate: “Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.”
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society.
ETC

Oh I know, abbott is more qualified, and he's not ideologically-driven.

thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 6:11pm:

Some of the posts here are astoundingly stupid. you mean like this one? Abbott has a messiah complex and would destroy the liberal party just to be leader. That is clear. That is your opinion.  I doubt very much he has a messiah complex. It is also clear he is ideologically-driven. Again your opinion...  I have no doubt Abbott has drivers of his own that no true single ideology has. Let's assume human caused climate change is real, and this becomes obvious and scientifically undeniable in 50 years (and after which time any effects could not substantially be ameliorated). Big assumption. Fact...  there is no scientific consensus. Because it is either true or not. As I say, let's assume for the sake of argument it is true. Big assumption. Yours. If the liberal party adopts abbott's stance, and it is true, then the liberal party will be ridiculed and its future bleak electorally. Why? It is Abbotts opinion. many people hold it. many people totally deny climate change and global warming let alone AGW. It will be the inept and irrelevant party of "climate change doubters who got us into this mess". How so...  they haven't adopted any policies so far you've stated Abbott has an opinion, nothing more.  Opinions of backbenchers are a dime a dozen.  You cant blame Abbott for that and certainly not the Libs or any other party. Every time the liberal party put forward an argument the detractors would respond: as real as climate change says the liberals. Remember?  Hahaha. The liberal party would be a laughing stock with a compromised future. No more than any party that have made mistakes in the past.  In case you missed it party members change regularly. That's a big gamble. What is? So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong? there is no consensus. Are you so confident in the affirmative that you happily risk the future of the liberal party? Huh?  Are you going to now ask the other case where AGW is in fact not a threat and warming etc is a natural phenomenon? Is abbott and ilk so intelligent,  so insightful,  so likely to be right that you put the electoral future of the liberal party on their contrary opinion? You forget all those other scientists that refute alarmist propaganda, or all those other intelligent people who also doubt the alarmism. Are you so sure they are wrong.  What about all the billions spent to make no changes in climate.  Changes that put our way of life in jeopardy for what will be no reason. Remember,  abbott is the drunk passed out on the floor of his office when he was supposed to be in Parliament. Abbott is competent? Strawmen.  passed out really... Abbott, the ex seminarian,  the professed Catholic, who rejects the pope's statements on climate change, but conveniently uses his religion in the SSM debate. Ideology trumps religion. So the Pope is an expert?  I thought he was a Catholic. abbott, the man who knighted prince philip for his "services to australia", but then says he only did it to get up the nose of the lefty media. Ideology trumps good sense. Don't recall that either... Tony abbott and ilk are such geniuses that you without reservation back their stance?? You are a climate zealot and true believer in a theory that is as yet unproven. If the liberal party gambles that abbott and co are right, but it turns out they were very wrong, then the liberal party will be the biggest loser. As successive generations battle the effects of climate change, the liberal party will be a staple of stand-up comedians for the rest of this century! Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people! Ah there we have the hateful bias...  Who'd a thunk it eh. Debate the facts not your fantasy bias.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 4:32pm:

Here is where scientists pick apart Abbott's speech.... https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misl...

Oh desmogblog. One of those blog pages that Skeptical science warns about.

From the article -

"Dr. Benjamin Henley, a University of Melbourne scientist specializing in ancient climate change and climate models, who read the transcript, said: “It is precarious territory for a politician to enter the scientific boxing ring, with only a bible of conspiracy theories and misconstrued talking points in hand. His speech is full of falsehoods, miscomprehension, and basic untruths.” "

And this just a couple of weeks after it was admitted that the climate models run hot. No conspiracy on that.

Over 127 climate models and the one closest to reality is the Russian one. So not an Australian one in sight.

"Professor Steven Sherwood of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales refuted Abbott’s claim that climate models were wrong:

“In fact models are nearly dead-on in predicting overall global warming so far. They don’t predict every detail, but were never expected to.” "

So Prof Sherwood doesn't agree with the new view on them running hot. That doesn't sound like a consensus position to me.

"A few photographs of the beach taken from his neighbourhood are a more accurate record of global sea-level than the global network of tide gauges and satellite altimeters! In a way, that says it all.” "

A plot of Fort Denison (Sydney) may help

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLI.png

Not much sea level rise there.

NASA on accuracy of Jason 2 for sea level altimetry -

"From its vantage point 1336 kilometers (830 miles) above the Earth, the US/European Jason-1 and OSTM/Jason-2 ocean altimeter satellites measure the height of the ocean surface directly underneath the satellite with an accuracy of 4-5 centimeters (better than 2 inches)."

https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/

The sea level rise is much smaller than that accuracy.

"Pitman said Abbott’s suggestion that rising CO2 levels were helping plant growth was also misleading.

He said while in some cases in controlled greenhouse environments “you seem to get bigger plants” with raised CO2 levels, “the nutrients in the plant decline.” "

"An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

There was a study done that showed a lower uptake of minerals in plants. They had other control plots some distance away. They did not do soil tests on each plot to determine if the trace minerals were the same.

"DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by "dirty money"."

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html

Desmogblog talks about Exxon secrets, but fails to mention that their research papers were in the public domain.

thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:22pm:

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014 International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change. U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. Geological Society of America: Position statement on climate change. American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change. American Geophysical Union: Statement on climate: “Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.” American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society.

An appeal to Authority is your reference for "most" climate scientists?

I at least expected an appeal to the Cook et al paper of 97%, Uncle Tom Cobbley and other cast members. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:56pm:

Oh and Phil I read that blog piece...  puhlease...   :D :D :D :D :D As much credibility as you think Abbott has.

Pathetic leftard TROLL... Stop wasting everybody's time.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:49pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:46pm: TROLL.... back to the bridge where you belong. Go kiss Bill Shorton's leftard arse and stop wasting everybody's time. We're talking about Mr Abbott's speech here, not spreading pathetic leftist vitriol. Take your hate to another board and stop being a mindless TROLL. TROLL... :D :D :D

TROLL :D :D :D :D :D

Our Grendel believes in free speech , he is free to speak and anybody who doesn't agree with him is a troll

thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:22pm:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. Board decision - not presented for approval by members Geological Society of America: Position statement on climate change. Board decision - not presented for approval by members American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change. Board decision - not presented for approval by members American Geophysical Union: Statement on climate: “Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.”  Board decision - not presented for approval by members American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society. Board decision - not presented for approval by members

Its time wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 10:23pm:

Our Grendel believes in free speech , he is free to speak and anybody who doesn't agree with him is a troll

Nope.
I just call TROLLS TROLLS
You don't want to be called on it...  stop doing it.

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 11:00pm:

Its time wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:23pm: Our Grendel believes in free speech , he is free to speak and anybody who doesn't agree with him is a troll Nope. I just call TROLLS TROLLS You don't want to be called on it...  stop doing it.

TROLL... :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 4:32pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:36am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:52am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....  I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!! ::) ::) ::) I'm not biased I don't particularly like Abbott, I don't hate him either.  YOU have personal issues about someone you don't know and let them colour your opinion. I want you to post something factual about his speech. He is a liar....How hard is that for you to understand??? ::) ::) ::) This is what Julie Bishop said about Tony Abbott's speech.... Quote: “The views he expressed recently are different to those he expressed as prime minister when he supported the Paris agreement, and in fact set a nationally determined targets and the renewable energy target was established under then Prime Minister Abbott,” she said. “So, it’s up to him to explain the differences between his opinion then and his opinion now.” I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Bishop says. can you prove that she is right and make the statement less vague? People like BS state when the facts change they change their mind don't they? I'm pretty sure Abbott said he compromised his belief to keep the group together. Now tell me where Abbott has been consistent mate??? I never said he was...  but I wouldn't be posting biased Guardian pieces to back me up either.  But he is very consistent in many things in his speech.  In fact most of it. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/12/tony-abbott-needs-to-explain-u-turn-on-climate-change-julie-bishop-says Here is where scientists pick apart Abbott's speech.... https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation ::) ::) ::)

Julie Bishop has pointed out the contradiction in Abbott's speech....Tell me where she is wrong???

Where is your evidence to prove global warming is not happening mate....Your opinion means nothing???

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WefdRulryUk

:-? :-? :-?

The Union of Concerned Scientists. Worried where their next meal ticket is coming from.

Then at the bottom Surveys that prove their assertions.

Oreskes 2004 100%/? I can't get 100% of any kind of people to agree to anything.

Soran & Zimmerman 2009 97% . Survey to 10,257 earth Scientists. 3,146 responded. This was whittled down to 79.
Question 1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”
The second question wasn't asked if people responded "relatively constant". That's why the respondees dropped from 79 to 77.
So 97% of 79 scientists. Not the 3,000 odd that responded.

Rather like Cook et al 97%. - "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

97.1% of 32.6% does not equal 97% of climate scientists.

I could go on but you get the drift. ;)

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 8:59am:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 11:00pm: Its time wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:23pm: Our Grendel believes in free speech , he is free to speak and anybody who doesn't agree with him is a troll Nope. I just call TROLLS TROLLS You don't want to be called on it...  stop doing it. TROLL... :D :D :D :D :D

We're all trolls...

::)

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 8:59am:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 11:00pm: Its time wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:23pm: Our Grendel believes in free speech , he is free to speak and anybody who doesn't agree with him is a troll Nope. I just call TROLLS TROLLS You don't want to be called on it...  stop doing it. TROLL... :D :D :D :D :D

We're all trolls...

::)

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:29pm: The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance. The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony. Time I will never get back. Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? You should seek help with your personal and political bias though.  Cant help your judgement can it. :D Didn't I post a series of about 6 at close to the same time as this one ???? You just like to hear yourself type. Yes I see - after posting this you made silly comments about some of them. oh dear i think you will find I posted replies at the time I read them..  and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here

 


The point is that here you claimed that there were none ????


Quote:

Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it?

..

You not only knew that I had posted examples but you had responded to them.


Quote:

and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here

At least you can tell the time ?? Not sure there is a point though.

I was probably in bed by then ?

Grendel wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 6:11pm: Some of the posts here are astoundingly stupid. you mean like this one? Abbott has a messiah complex and would destroy the liberal party just to be leader. That is clear. That is your opinion.  I doubt very much he has a messiah complex. It is also clear he is ideologically-driven. Again your opinion...  I have no doubt Abbott has drivers of his own that no true single ideology has. Let's assume human caused climate change is real, and this becomes obvious and scientifically undeniable in 50 years (and after which time any effects could not substantially be ameliorated). Big assumption. Fact...  there is no scientific consensus. Because it is either true or not. As I say, let's assume for the sake of argument it is true. Big assumption. Yours. If the liberal party adopts abbott's stance, and it is true, then the liberal party will be ridiculed and its future bleak electorally. Why? It is Abbotts opinion. many people hold it. many people totally deny climate change and global warming let alone AGW. It will be the inept and irrelevant party of "climate change doubters who got us into this mess". How so...  they haven't adopted any policies so far you've stated Abbott has an opinion, nothing more.  Opinions of backbenchers are a dime a dozen.  You cant blame Abbott for that and certainly not the Libs or any other party. Every time the liberal party put forward an argument the detractors would respond: as real as climate change says the liberals. Remember?  Hahaha. The liberal party would be a laughing stock with a compromised future. No more than any party that have made mistakes in the past.  In case you missed it party members change regularly. That's a big gamble. What is? So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong? there is no consensus. Are you so confident in the affirmative that you happily risk the future of the liberal party? Huh?  Are you going to now ask the other case where AGW is in fact not a threat and warming etc is a natural phenomenon? Is abbott and ilk so intelligent,  so insightful,  so likely to be right that you put the electoral future of the liberal party on their contrary opinion? You forget all those other scientists that refute alarmist propaganda, or all those other intelligent people who also doubt the alarmism. Are you so sure they are wrong.  What about all the billions spent to make no changes in climate.  Changes that put our way of life in jeopardy for what will be no reason. Remember,  abbott is the drunk passed out on the floor of his office when he was supposed to be in Parliament. Abbott is competent? Strawmen.  passed out really... Abbott, the ex seminarian,  the professed Catholic, who rejects the pope's statements on climate change, but conveniently uses his religion in the SSM debate. Ideology trumps religion. So the Pope is an expert?  I thought he was a Catholic. abbott, the man who knighted prince philip for his "services to australia", but then says he only did it to get up the nose of the lefty media. Ideology trumps good sense. Don't recall that either... Tony abbott and ilk are such geniuses that you without reservation back their stance?? You are a climate zealot and true believer in a theory that is as yet unproven. If the liberal party gambles that abbott and co are right, but it turns out they were very wrong, then the liberal party will be the biggest loser. As successive generations battle the effects of climate change, the liberal party will be a staple of stand-up comedians for the rest of this century! Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people! Ah there we have the hateful bias...  Who'd a thunk it eh. Debate the facts not your fantasy bias.

Gee posting in other peoples post makes a mess.


Quote:

Fact...  there is no scientific consensus.

A view that has the consensus of 100% of oil companies and the scientists they employ.

Abbott's Speech - The good the bad and the ugly.

Quote:

Dr. Benjamin Henley, a University of Melbourne scientist specializing in ancient climate change and climate models, who read the transcript, said: “It is precarious territory for a politician to enter the scientific boxing ring, with only a bible of conspiracy theories and misconstrued talking points in hand. His speech is full of falsehoods, miscomprehension, and basic untruths.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation

Yep the Doc covers it nicely.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:04am:

Julie Bishop has pointed out the contradiction in Abbott's speech....Tell me where she is wrong??? Where is your evidence to prove global warming is not happening mate....Your opinion means nothing??? http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WefdRulryUk :-? :-? :-?

The worlds receding glaciers are irrefutable proof that the Earth is warming.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas that causes warming
CO2 levels are rising as evidenced by readings at Mauna Loa
7 billion humans burning fossil fuels are emitting CO2

The evidence trail is right there.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:04am: Julie Bishop has pointed out the contradiction in Abbott's speech....Tell me where she is wrong??? Where is your evidence to prove global warming is not happening mate....Your opinion means nothing??? http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WefdRulryUk :-? :-? :-? The worlds receding glaciers are irrefutable proof that the Earth is warming. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas that causes warming CO2 levels are rising as evidenced by readings at Mauna Loa 7 billion humans burning fossil fuels are emitting CO2 The evidence trail is right there.

CO2 levels are rising as evidenced by readings at Mauna Loa

Is that more reliable science than Tony's photo album with real pictures of Manly beach. The only year that water levels rose was in 1972 when Tony's nanna Bessie waded into the water. 

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

Is that more reliable science than Tony's photo album with real pictures of Manly beach.

How about that tide data? Did that show huge sea level rise? ;)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 8:59pm:

Quote: Dr. Benjamin Henley, a University of Melbourne scientist specializing in ancient climate change and climate models, who read the transcript, said: “It is precarious territory for a politician to enter the scientific boxing ring, with only a bible of conspiracy theories and misconstrued talking points in hand. His speech is full of falsehoods, miscomprehension, and basic untruths.” https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation Yep the Doc covers it nicely.

Yep The Doc reckons the climate models are doing a bang up job.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.

lee wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 8:59pm: Quote: Dr. Benjamin Henley, a University of Melbourne scientist specializing in ancient climate change and climate models, who read the transcript, said: “It is precarious territory for a politician to enter the scientific boxing ring, with only a bible of conspiracy theories and misconstrued talking points in hand. His speech is full of falsehoods, miscomprehension, and basic untruths.” https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation Yep the Doc covers it nicely. Yep The Doc reckons the climate models are doing a bang up job.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.

Yes and unlike you he would know.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:57pm:

Yes and unlike you he would know.

That may be; but it is only weeks since other climate scientists admitted they were running hot.  Now if even the climate scientists can't agree, what hope do we have? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

*

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:04am:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:54pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 4:32pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:36am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:52am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....  I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!! ::) ::) ::) I'm not biased I don't particularly like Abbott, I don't hate him either.  YOU have personal issues about someone you don't know and let them colour your opinion. I want you to post something factual about his speech. He is a liar....How hard is that for you to understand??? ::) ::) ::) This is what Julie Bishop said about Tony Abbott's speech.... Quote: “The views he expressed recently are different to those he expressed as prime minister when he supported the Paris agreement, and in fact set a nationally determined targets and the renewable energy target was established under then Prime Minister Abbott,” she said. “So, it’s up to him to explain the differences between his opinion then and his opinion now.” I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Bishop says. can you prove that she is right and make the statement less vague? People like BS state when the facts change they change their mind don't they? I'm pretty sure Abbott said he compromised his belief to keep the group together. Now tell me where Abbott has been consistent mate??? I never said he was...  but I wouldn't be posting biased Guardian pieces to back me up either.  But he is very consistent in many things in his speech.  In fact most of it. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/12/tony-abbott-needs-to-explain-u-turn-on-climate-change-julie-bishop-says Here is where scientists pick apart Abbott's speech.... https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation ::) ::) ::) Julie Bishop has pointed out the contradiction in Abbott's speech....Tell me where she is wrong??? Where is your evidence to prove global warming is not happening mate....Your opinion means nothing??? http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WefdRulryUk :-? :-? :-?

And yours does?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

oh and where did I say global warming was not happening.
You climate zealots need to stop lying about what people actually say. ;D ;D ;D

Well worth a repeat for PHIL...


lee wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 11:17am:

The Union of Concerned Scientists. Worried where their next meal ticket is coming from. Then at the bottom Surveys that prove their assertions. Oreskes 2004 100%/? I can't get 100% of any kind of people to agree to anything. Soran & Zimmerman 2009 97% . Survey to 10,257 earth Scientists. 3,146 responded. This was whittled down to 79. Question 1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.” Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.” The second question wasn't asked if people responded "relatively constant". That's why the respondees dropped from 79 to 77. So 97% of 79 scientists. Not the 3,000 odd that responded. Rather like Cook et al 97%. - "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." 97.1% of 32.6% does not equal 97% of climate scientists. I could go on but you get the drift. ;)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 6:38pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:20pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:29pm: The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance. The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony. Time I will never get back. Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? You should seek help with your personal and political bias though.  Cant help your judgement can it. :D Didn't I post a series of about 6 at close to the same time as this one ???? You just like to hear yourself type. Yes I see - after posting this you made silly comments about some of them. oh dear i think you will find I posted replies at the time I read them..  and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here   The point is that here you claimed that there were none ???? Quote: Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? .. Nope doesn't say that there were none at all. Stop lying. You not only knew that I had posted examples but you had responded to them. [quote] and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here

At least you can tell the time ?? Not sure there is a point though.

I was probably in bed by then ?

Oh dear what I posted was the truth...  you just have issues with the truth.
[/quote]

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 7:10pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:44pm: thecuriousmail wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 6:11pm: Some of the posts here are astoundingly stupid. you mean like this one? Abbott has a messiah complex and would destroy the liberal party just to be leader. That is clear. That is your opinion.  I doubt very much he has a messiah complex. It is also clear he is ideologically-driven. Again your opinion...  I have no doubt Abbott has drivers of his own that no true single ideology has. Let's assume human caused climate change is real, and this becomes obvious and scientifically undeniable in 50 years (and after which time any effects could not substantially be ameliorated). Big assumption. Fact...  there is no scientific consensus. Because it is either true or not. As I say, let's assume for the sake of argument it is true. Big assumption. Yours. If the liberal party adopts abbott's stance, and it is true, then the liberal party will be ridiculed and its future bleak electorally. Why? It is Abbotts opinion. many people hold it. many people totally deny climate change and global warming let alone AGW. It will be the inept and irrelevant party of "climate change doubters who got us into this mess". How so...  they haven't adopted any policies so far you've stated Abbott has an opinion, nothing more.  Opinions of backbenchers are a dime a dozen.  You cant blame Abbott for that and certainly not the Libs or any other party. Every time the liberal party put forward an argument the detractors would respond: as real as climate change says the liberals. Remember?  Hahaha. The liberal party would be a laughing stock with a compromised future. No more than any party that have made mistakes in the past.  In case you missed it party members change regularly. That's a big gamble. What is? So, are abbott and ilk likely to be right and most climate scientists wrong? there is no consensus. Are you so confident in the affirmative that you happily risk the future of the liberal party? Huh?  Are you going to now ask the other case where AGW is in fact not a threat and warming etc is a natural phenomenon? Is abbott and ilk so intelligent,  so insightful,  so likely to be right that you put the electoral future of the liberal party on their contrary opinion? You forget all those other scientists that refute alarmist propaganda, or all those other intelligent people who also doubt the alarmism. Are you so sure they are wrong.  What about all the billions spent to make no changes in climate.  Changes that put our way of life in jeopardy for what will be no reason. Remember,  abbott is the drunk passed out on the floor of his office when he was supposed to be in Parliament. Abbott is competent? Strawmen.  passed out really... Abbott, the ex seminarian,  the professed Catholic, who rejects the pope's statements on climate change, but conveniently uses his religion in the SSM debate. Ideology trumps religion. So the Pope is an expert?  I thought he was a Catholic. abbott, the man who knighted prince philip for his "services to australia", but then says he only did it to get up the nose of the lefty media. Ideology trumps good sense. Don't recall that either... Tony abbott and ilk are such geniuses that you without reservation back their stance?? You are a climate zealot and true believer in a theory that is as yet unproven. If the liberal party gambles that abbott and co are right, but it turns out they were very wrong, then the liberal party will be the biggest loser. As successive generations battle the effects of climate change, the liberal party will be a staple of stand-up comedians for the rest of this century! Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people! Ah there we have the hateful bias...  Who'd a thunk it eh. Debate the facts not your fantasy bias. Gee posting in other peoples post makes a mess. Quote: Fact...  there is no scientific consensus. A view that has the consensus of 100% of oil companies and the scientists they employ.

Actually its a FACT and the TRUTH, something you are not only careless with but in denial about.
Stop wasting everyone's time.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

Abbott's Speech - The good the bad and the ugly.

Thank you for your immature proof of bias ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 19^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:04am: Julie Bishop has pointed out the contradiction in Abbott's speech....Tell me where she is wrong??? Where is your evidence to prove global warming is not happening mate....Your opinion means nothing??? http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WefdRulryUk :-? :-? :-? The worlds receding glaciers are irrefutable proof that the Earth is warming. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas that causes warming CO2 levels are rising as evidenced by readings at Mauna Loa 7 billion humans burning fossil fuels are emitting CO2 The evidence trail is right there.

Unfortunately you should comment on stuff I actually say not on stuff idiots say I say when I don't. :D :D :D :D

stop trolling everyone goose. Abbott lied, it's been proven to you countless time.

Pull your head out of your arse and stop being a nuisance

LOL says the TROLL who cant even prove its daytime let alone anything that Abbott said was a lie. :D :D :D :D :D

I gave you all opportunities.
I provided the text.
Most of you think attacking the man is proof. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
When you are called on that you attack me.  Well You actually attack everyone John, but hey we all know that here. :D :D :D

Post a quote and prove it wrong.
I'm no Abbott fan, I might even agree with you. ::)

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:12pm:

Post a quote and prove it wrong.

did that already ... you didn't pull your head out of your arse long enough to read it.

move on

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 10:02am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Abbott's Speech - The good the bad and the ugly. Thank you for your immature proof of bias ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You can find some good on an inaccurate, exaggerated misquoted and misinformed 6 page primary school standard rant about climate. It is not even a good joke.

Unfortunately when dealt spades you have to call spades. 

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 10:00am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 6:38pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:20pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:29pm: The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance. The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony. Time I will never get back. Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? You should seek help with your personal and political bias though.  Cant help your judgement can it. :D Didn't I post a series of about 6 at close to the same time as this one ???? You just like to hear yourself type. Yes I see - after posting this you made silly comments about some of them. oh dear i think you will find I posted replies at the time I read them..  and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here   The point is that here you claimed that there were none ???? Quote: Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? .. Nope doesn't say that there were none at all. Stop lying. You not only knew that I had posted examples but you had responded to them. [quote] and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here At least you can tell the time ?? Not sure there is a point though. I was probably in bed by then ? Oh dear what I posted was the truth...  you just have issues with the truth.

[/quote]

Oh dear what I posted was the truth...  you just have issues with the truth.

I never said it wasn't true just that it meant nothing as far as I can see.

Nope doesn't say that there were none at all.
Stop lying.

You said I could have posted 1. I took that to mean you claimed I had posted less than 1. I can not interpret it any other way.

Grendel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 9:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:04am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:54pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 4:32pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:36am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:52am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....  I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!! ::) ::) ::) I'm not biased I don't particularly like Abbott, I don't hate him either.  YOU have personal issues about someone you don't know and let them colour your opinion. I want you to post something factual about his speech. He is a liar....How hard is that for you to understand??? ::) ::) ::) This is what Julie Bishop said about Tony Abbott's speech.... Quote: “The views he expressed recently are different to those he expressed as prime minister when he supported the Paris agreement, and in fact set a nationally determined targets and the renewable energy target was established under then Prime Minister Abbott,” she said. “So, it’s up to him to explain the differences between his opinion then and his opinion now.” I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Bishop says. can you prove that she is right and make the statement less vague? People like BS state when the facts change they change their mind don't they? I'm pretty sure Abbott said he compromised his belief to keep the group together. Now tell me where Abbott has been consistent mate??? I never said he was...  but I wouldn't be posting biased Guardian pieces to back me up either.  But he is very consistent in many things in his speech.  In fact most of it. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/12/tony-abbott-needs-to-explain-u-turn-on-climate-change-julie-bishop-says Here is where scientists pick apart Abbott's speech.... https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation ::) ::) ::) Julie Bishop has pointed out the contradiction in Abbott's speech....Tell me where she is wrong??? Where is your evidence to prove global warming is not happening mate....Your opinion means nothing??? http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WefdRulryUk :-? :-? :-? And yours does? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D oh and where did I say global warming was not happening. You climate zealots need to stop lying about what people actually say. ;D ;D ;D

He is a liar....How hard is that for you to grasp???

Grendel ranted....

Quote:

Abbott said he compromised his belief to keep the group together.

Now tell me again you don't even like Abbott but yet you make excuses for his lying....Dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

Yes Tony went to the election with so many issues but most obviously the environment where he held all the views depending on who he was talking to. Tony was simultaneously pro and anti global warming. He had all the bases covered.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 6:58pm:

Yes Tony went to the election with so many issues but most obviously the environment where he held all the views depending on who he was talking to. Tony was simultaneously pro and anti global warming. He had all the bases covered.

Something like the warmunistas. Global warming causes cooling. ;)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 6:58pm:

Yes Tony went to the election with so many issues but most obviously the environment where he held all the views depending on who he was talking to. Tony was simultaneously pro and anti global warming. He had all the bases covered.

Exactly. And that's what makes him such a tall glass of water.

Under-promise and over-deliver, you can't do any better than that.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 6:58pm: Yes Tony went to the election with so many issues but most obviously the environment where he held all the views depending on who he was talking to. Tony was simultaneously pro and anti global warming. He had all the bases covered. Exactly. And that's what makes him such a tall glass of water. Under-promise and over-deliver, you can't do any better than that.

Well he did under promise and over deliver on lies at least.

Who will ever forget his masterpiece - "no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS"

That is right the unbelievable 6 lies in 25 words, a record which may stand forever. He tried for 7 but the GST couldn't be budged.

What a tall glass of liquid he is.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:28pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 8:09pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 6:58pm: Yes Tony went to the election with so many issues but most obviously the environment where he held all the views depending on who he was talking to. Tony was simultaneously pro and anti global warming. He had all the bases covered. Exactly. And that's what makes him such a tall glass of water. Under-promise and over-deliver, you can't do any better than that. Well he did under promise and over deliver on lies at least. Who will ever forget his masterpiece - "no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS" That is right the unbelievable 6 lies in 25 words, a record which may stand forever. He tried for 7 but the GST couldn't be budged. What a tall glass of liquid he is.

Now now, Mr Abbott meant every thing he said. It's not his fault he couldn't deliver.

The leftards were so mean to him, it's terrible.

We're all liquid in the end, dear.

John Smith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 4:13pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:12pm: Post a quote and prove it wrong. did that already ... you didn't pull your head out of your arse long enough to read it. move on

unfortunately John YOU DIDN'T... :D :D :D :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 10:02am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Abbott's Speech - The good the bad and the ugly. Thank you for your immature proof of bias ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You can find some good on an inaccurate, exaggerated misquoted and misinformed 6 page primary school standard rant about climate. It is not even a good joke. Unfortunately when dealt spades you have to call spades.

Still immaturely playing the man and avoiding the text eh DNA. :D :D :D :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:33pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 10:00am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 6:38pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:20pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:09am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 8:29pm: The first page of the speech was generic and not too bad if hard to associate with what we know about Abbott's actual performance. The 5 following pages of climate rant would qualify as rubbish. Mostly misquoted and exaggerated facts wrapped in utter BS with just enough close to true to mask it a bit and make parts sound plausible if you didn't know Tony. Time I will never get back. Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? You should seek help with your personal and political bias though.  Cant help your judgement can it. :D Didn't I post a series of about 6 at close to the same time as this one ???? You just like to hear yourself type. Yes I see - after posting this you made silly comments about some of them. oh dear i think you will find I posted replies at the time I read them..  and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here   The point is that here you claimed that there were none ???? Quote: Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? .. Nope doesn't say that there were none at all. Stop lying. You not only knew that I had posted examples but you had responded to them. [quote] and this last post i have just read and its now 1015pm here At least you can tell the time ?? Not sure there is a point though. I was probably in bed by then ? Oh dear what I posted was the truth...  you just have issues with the truth.

Oh dear what I posted was the truth...  you just have issues with the truth.

I never said it wasn't true just that it meant nothing as far as I can see.

Nope doesn't say that there were none at all.
Stop lying.

You said I could have posted 1. I took that to mean you claimed I had posted less than 1. I can not interpret it any other way.
[/quote]
Your inability to see and you wrong interpretations are your problems due to your bias and assumptions...  not my problems. :D :D :D

Phil the Dill...  at it again eh phil... 

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 6:12pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 9:55am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 9:04am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 8:54pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 4:32pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 3:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 10:36am: Grendel wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:52am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 9:05am: Abbott' rant confirmed what every thinking person already knew....That his pretence to believe and act on global warming was all a ruse to make him electable....Now his priority is to tear down the Turnbull Government in the hope of a biblical return to the top job....Tell him he is dreaming!!! ::) ::) ::) Given I actually posted the entire speech Phil you still cant come up with anything concrete to criticise from it...  tsk tsk, tsk....  I have an opinion and will not be dictated too by your bias....I have already stated Abbott is a liar either when he said he believed in global warming or a liar now he claims it is crap....The bloke is a liar and has no moral conviction IMO!!! ::) ::) ::) I'm not biased I don't particularly like Abbott, I don't hate him either.  YOU have personal issues about someone you don't know and let them colour your opinion. I want you to post something factual about his speech. He is a liar....How hard is that for you to understand??? ::) ::) ::) This is what Julie Bishop said about Tony Abbott's speech.... Quote: “The views he expressed recently are different to those he expressed as prime minister when he supported the Paris agreement, and in fact set a nationally determined targets and the renewable energy target was established under then Prime Minister Abbott,” she said. “So, it’s up to him to explain the differences between his opinion then and his opinion now.” I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Bishop says. can you prove that she is right and make the statement less vague? People like BS state when the facts change they change their mind don't they? I'm pretty sure Abbott said he compromised his belief to keep the group together. Now tell me where Abbott has been consistent mate??? I never said he was...  but I wouldn't be posting biased Guardian pieces to back me up either.  But he is very consistent in many things in his speech.  In fact most of it. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/12/tony-abbott-needs-to-explain-u-turn-on-climate-change-julie-bishop-says Here is where scientists pick apart Abbott's speech.... https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/09/climate-scientists-attack-tony-abbott-misleading-speech-global-warming-policy-foundation ::) ::) ::) Julie Bishop has pointed out the contradiction in Abbott's speech....Tell me where she is wrong??? Where is your evidence to prove global warming is not happening mate....Your opinion means nothing??? http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.WefdRulryUk :-? :-? :-? And yours does? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D oh and where did I say global warming was not happening. You climate zealots need to stop lying about what people actually say. ;D ;D ;D He is a liar....How hard is that for you to grasp??? Grendel ranted.... [quote]Abbott said he compromised his belief to keep the group together.

Now tell me again you don't even like Abbott but yet you make excuses for his lying....Dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)[/quote]
Not an Abbott fan Phil, probably less than you even, but I don't go around lying about people I don't like.  You should try that sometime.
I have made no excuses for his lying...  I simply ask you to address the speech and say why it is good or bad with real example to back yourself up. :D :D :D :D :D
You seem to be having problems in that area. ::)

Grendel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:20pm:

unfortunately John YOU DIDN'T...

sure I did


good thing for you that you don't have to pass the libs english language test  ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:24pm:

Your inability to see and you wrong interpretations are your problems due to your bias and assumptions...  not my problems. :D :D :D

You posted this:


Quote:

Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it?

..


I assumed you meant that you wanted an example ? I had posted about 5 or 6 examples. (you responded to a few of them).

I seriously doubt that anyone would interpret this differently from me.

Are you arguing that you meant that one example was enough and 5 or 6 were too many ? I think not.

John Smith wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:38pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 9:20pm: unfortunately John YOU DIDN'T... sure I did good thing for you that you don't have to pass the libs english language test  ::) ::)

I don't think he'd pass One Nation's, but Grendel's more than welcome here.

I used to think that Tony Abbott was intelligent. Obviously I was mistaken.

Wolseley wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 11:41pm:

I used to think that Tony Abbott was intelligent. Obviously I was mistaken.

Grendel used to think that too, Wolseley.

Always bad - no need to even discuss it.... shows the total lack of genuine talent we have in politics these days - those people who claim to be running this nation for its people, and how utterly lacking in genuine talent we have endured for many years now....

If you doubt me - look around you, turkey - you are being royally screwed every time... but stick your head in the sand and continue to enrich those who imagine themselves to be your overlords....

This is why Tony Abbott is a lying flake....


philperth2010 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

What a lying wanker Tony Abbott is....Either he was lying about his belief in global warming to become PM or he is lying now....Abbott has shown he is a self serving ass hole who has no moral compass and will say anything to gain an advantage....Nothing good will ever come from Tony Abbott!!! >:( >:( >:(

Now tell me again where Tony Abbott is telling the truth and I am lying???

:-? :-? :-?

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:40pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 9:24pm: Your inability to see and you wrong interpretations are your problems due to your bias and assumptions...  not my problems. :D :D :D You posted this: Quote: Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? .. I assumed you meant that you wanted an example ? I had posted about 5 or 6 examples. (you responded to a few of them). I seriously doubt that anyone would interpret this differently from me. Are you arguing that you meant that one example was enough and 5 or 6 were too many ? I think not.

How many times must I explain things to you DNA?  How many eh?

I'm still waiting... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 2:00am:

Always bad - no need to even discuss it.... shows the total lack of genuine talent we have in politics these days - those people who claim to be running this nation for its people, and how utterly lacking in genuine talent we have endured for many years now.... If you doubt me - look around you, turkey - you are being royally screwed every time... but stick your head in the sand and continue to enrich those who imagine themselves to be your overlords....

Sorry....  missed the bit where you named the Turkey.
Obviously not me since I've been stating the same re the appalling standard of politicians we've had for over a decade now.

Happy for you to post on topic re the text though anytime.  No one else has really managed so far...  looks like I'll have to do it myself after all.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 3:46am:

This is why Tony Abbott is a lying flake.... philperth2010 wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 6:23pm: What a lying wanker Tony Abbott is....Either he was lying about his belief in global warming to become PM or he is lying now....Abbott has shown he is a self serving ass hole who has no moral compass and will say anything to gain an advantage....Nothing good will ever come from Tony Abbott!!! >:( >:( >:( Now tell me again where Tony Abbott is telling the truth and I am lying??? :-? :-? :-?

Oh dear you cant call a speech bad or good based on something someone did years ago.  You have to address the speech.
Better still to post quotes and reasons.
Oh and not lie about what people say that is nice too...  You've said things re me and my opinion that I haven't said Phil.

Wolseley wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 11:41pm:

I used to think that Tony Abbott was intelligent. Obviously I was mistaken.

Now that is one thing you can't blame Tony for, he has done everything humanly possible to dispel that nasty rumour since the late 1960's.

Grendel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 6:29pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 10:02am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 19th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Abbott's Speech - The good the bad and the ugly. Thank you for your immature proof of bias ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You can find some good on an inaccurate, exaggerated misquoted and misinformed 6 page primary school standard rant about climate. It is not even a good joke. Unfortunately when dealt spades you have to call spades.  Still immaturely playing the man and avoiding the text eh DNA. :D :D :D :D :D

The comment is all about the speech ???? Not a mention of any man nor did I mention Tony.

Grendel wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 6:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 9:40pm: Grendel wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 9:24pm: Your inability to see and you wrong interpretations are your problems due to your bias and assumptions...  not my problems. :D :D :D You posted this: Quote: Then it shouldn't be hard to post just 1 example should it? .. I assumed you meant that you wanted an example ? I had posted about 5 or 6 examples. (you responded to a few of them). I seriously doubt that anyone would interpret this differently from me. Are you arguing that you meant that one example was enough and 5 or 6 were too many ? I think not. How many times must I explain things to you DNA?  How many eh? I'm still waiting... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

1 would be nice.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 3:46am:

This is why Tony Abbott is a lying flake.... philperth2010 wrote on Oct 17th, 2017 at 6:23pm: What a lying wanker Tony Abbott is....Either he was lying about his belief in global warming to become PM or he is lying now....Abbott has shown he is a self serving ass hole who has no moral compass and will say anything to gain an advantage....Nothing good will ever come from Tony Abbott!!! >:( >:( >:( Now tell me again where Tony Abbott is telling the truth and I am lying??? :-? :-? :-?

Take a valium Phil and provide quotes that back your statements up... I don't believe I ever said Abbott is telling the truth and you are lying.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 6:54pm:

Wolseley wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 11:41pm: I used to think that Tony Abbott was intelligent. Obviously I was mistaken. Now that is one thing you can't blame Tony for, he has done everything humanly possible to dispel that nasty rumour since the late 1960's.

there you go DNA playing the man again...  maybe you just don't know when you are doing it eh :D :D :D :D :D