Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> 1000 years plan
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301345341

Message started by Maqqa on Mar 29th, 2011 at 6:49am

Title: 1000 years plan
Post by Maqqa on Mar 29th, 2011 at 6:49am
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904

In the radio interview, Professor Flannery said: "If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."

In a letter to the editor of The Australian, submitted on Sunday, he expanded on the comments, saying his observation was not "an argument for complacency". But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor's massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as "the ultimate millenium bug".

"It will not make a difference for 1000 years," the Opposition Leader told parliament. "So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."

Mr Combet said through a spokeswoman that the Gillard government believed in the science of climate change and was determined to act.

Asked whether Mr Combet backed Professor Flannery's comment, the spokeswoman said: "Professor Flannery is an independent person who leads an independent commission."

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Maqqa on Mar 29th, 2011 at 6:51am
COMBET....hey COMBET

You said you BELIEVED in the science and the scientist you love said if 6,910,000,000 then carbon levels might drop in 1000 years

So taxing 22,000,000 Australians won't make a difference to the atmosphere

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Prevailing on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:09am
Combet - your screwed - you may cause a lot of heart ache, but you are going to cop it all back pal and you will fail. 8-)

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:27am
The issue is about adding carbon to the atmosphere and adding to global warming......Seizing on one hypothesis and using this prediction as a caveat to discredit climate change is typical of the Liberal faithful.....The effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere are well documented and accepted by the majority of climate scientists.....I hope Abbott's comments once and for all cement his position as a climate change denier......Australia cannot afford to have a leader who believes in god unconditionally but does not believe in science.....What will Abbott's solution be to fixing the drought will it be to pray for rain like his predecessor John Howard???

http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Pray-for-rain-urges-Howard/2007/04/22/1177180463040.html

Mr Howard warned last week that farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin faced having no water for the coming irrigation year unless heavy rain fell in the next six to eight weeks.

On Sunday he said he intended to meet irrigators over coming weeks to discuss the grim situation.

Meanwhile, he encouraged people to seek divine intervention.

"It's very serious, it's unprecedented in my lifetime and I really feel very deeply for the people affected," Mr Howard told ABC Television.

"So we should all, literally and without any irony, pray for rain over the next six to eight weeks."

;)

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:28am
I think the government is going to have a bit of bother implementing their air tax.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:14am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
Mr Howard warned last week that farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin faced having no water for the coming irrigation year unless heavy rain fell in the next six to eight weeks.

On Sunday he said he intended to meet irrigators over coming weeks to discuss the grim situation.

Meanwhile, he encouraged people to seek divine intervention.

"It's very serious, it's unprecedented in my lifetime and I really feel very deeply for the people affected," Mr Howard told ABC Television.

"So we should all, literally and without any irony, pray for rain over the next six to eight weeks."

;)



And lo! The rain did come. People prayed and the rain came. That must make it a causal connection, then.
It is the same sort of CO2-AGW co-occurence that is taken to be cause and effect.



Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Wattle Grove on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:19am
When I saw the topic for this thread I thought it was O'Farrell plan for the north west rail line in Sydney

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 6:49am:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904

In the radio interview, Professor Flannery said: "If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."




An oldtimer filmed at a recent rally in favour of a carbon tax made the standard appeal to emotion. “I’m concerned,” she said, “about the kind of world we’re going to leave my grandchildren.” ...

Forget saving your grandchildren, eco-biddies. According to Flannery, the world won’t be safer until your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are on the scene.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/waiting_for_the_world/

Eco-biddies - that's the over-65 doctors' wives and teachers with silly red glasses.


Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:29am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
The issue is about adding carbon to the atmosphere and adding to global warming......Seizing on one hypothesis and using this prediction as a caveat to discredit climate change is typical of the Liberal faithful.....The effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere are well documented and accepted by the majority of climate scientists.....I hope Abbott's comments once and for all cement his position as a climate change denier......Australia cannot afford to have a leader who believes in god unconditionally but does not believe in science.....What will Abbott's solution be to fixing the drought will it be to pray for rain like his predecessor John Howard???

http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Pray-for-rain-urges-Howard/2007/04/22/1177180463040.html

Mr Howard warned last week that farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin faced having no water for the coming irrigation year unless heavy rain fell in the next six to eight weeks.

On Sunday he said he intended to meet irrigators over coming weeks to discuss the grim situation.

Meanwhile, he encouraged people to seek divine intervention.

"It's very serious, it's unprecedented in my lifetime and I really feel very deeply for the people affected," Mr Howard told ABC Television.

"So we should all, literally and without any irony, pray for rain over the next six to eight weeks."

;)



People prayed and the rain came...

your problems is...?

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:43am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
The issue is about adding carbon to the atmosphere and adding to global warming......Seizing on one hypothesis and using this prediction as a caveat to discredit climate change is typical of the Liberal faithful.....The effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere are well documented and accepted by the majority of climate scientists.....



The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the Y2K Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000, yet not one disaster occurred anywhere.
Even my old PC at the time, like everyone elses worked fine on New Years Day 2000.
We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 3 decades, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed.
Scientists now think it is natural.  Oops.
Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence.
History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.
I'm sure the Druids of Briton 2000 years ago could 'prove' the earth was flat.
And computer modelling, guesstimates, the reading of icy poles is not proven scientific evidence.
Even Al Gore has his brand new $8.9 million luxury beachfront Villa built right on the Californian beach, right in the spot that is supposed to go underwater if he ever believed the science fiction he wrote in his book.
He certainly made his money alright.
And him starting up his little 'carbon capture' company will ensure the money keeps rolling in.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 29th, 2011 at 10:26am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:43am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
The issue is about adding carbon to the atmosphere and adding to global warming......Seizing on one hypothesis and using this prediction as a caveat to discredit climate change is typical of the Liberal faithful.....The effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere are well documented and accepted by the majority of climate scientists.....



The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the Y2K Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000, yet not one disaster occurred anywhere.
Even my old PC at the time, like everyone elses worked fine on New Years Day 2000.
We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 3 decades, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed.
Scientists now think it is natural.  Oops.
Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence.
History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.
I'm sure the Druids of Briton 2000 years ago could 'prove' the earth was flat.
And computer modelling, guesstimates, the reading of icy poles is not proven scientific evidence.
Even Al Gore has his brand new $8.9 million luxury beachfront Villa built right on the Californian beach, right in the spot that is supposed to go underwater if he ever believed the science fiction he wrote in his book.
He certainly made his money alright.
And him starting up his little 'carbon capture' company will ensure the money keeps rolling in.



Excellent point.

AGW is the Y2K Bug that keeps giving.


Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Foolosophy on Mar 29th, 2011 at 10:39am

Soren wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 10:26am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:43am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
The issue is about adding carbon to the atmosphere and adding to global warming......Seizing on one hypothesis and using this prediction as a caveat to discredit climate change is typical of the Liberal faithful.....The effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere are well documented and accepted by the majority of climate scientists.....



The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the Y2K Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000, yet not one disaster occurred anywhere.
Even my old PC at the time, like everyone elses worked fine on New Years Day 2000.
We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 3 decades, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed.
Scientists now think it is natural.  Oops.
Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence.
History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.
I'm sure the Druids of Briton 2000 years ago could 'prove' the earth was flat.
And computer modelling, guesstimates, the reading of icy poles is not proven scientific evidence.
Even Al Gore has his brand new $8.9 million luxury beachfront Villa built right on the Californian beach, right in the spot that is supposed to go underwater if he ever believed the science fiction he wrote in his book.
He certainly made his money alright.
And him starting up his little 'carbon capture' company will ensure the money keeps rolling in.



Excellent point.

AGW is the Y2K Bug that keeps giving.


I think anything Soren has to say about AGW can be safely ignored as the ramblings of a rigth wing corporate slave puppet

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Katanyavich on Mar 29th, 2011 at 10:40am


Well-said, Soren.

And so very apt.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by culldav on Mar 29th, 2011 at 10:54am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 6:49am:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904

In the radio interview, Professor Flannery said: "If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."

In a letter to the editor of The Australian, submitted on Sunday, he expanded on the comments, saying his observation was not "an argument for complacency". But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor's massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as "the ultimate millenium bug".

"It will not make a difference for 1000 years," the Opposition Leader told parliament. "So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."

Mr Combet said through a spokeswoman that the Gillard government believed in the science of climate change and was determined to act.

Asked whether Mr Combet backed Professor Flannery's comment, the spokeswoman said: "Professor Flannery is an independent person who leads an independent commission."



How can these scum-bag independents support this garbage of a carbon tax?

No wonder maggot mouth has been waiting to release the details of the scheme.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by vegitamite on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:07pm
And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?
March 29, 2011 – 9:34 am, by Jeremy Sear  
Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterday, it now seems that the unpopular Liberal leader Tony Abbott is now outright misrepresenting Flannery’s remarks in Parliament:

But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor’s massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.

“It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”

.What Flannery actually said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

.“Not going to drop” is clearly not the same as “make not a scrap of difference”. Nor is “several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years” the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.

We’re talking about a system in which the temperature is increasing. The best we can hope for in the shorter term is to slow that increase down, maybe if we’re lucky stop it completely. The more countries that act, the better our chances, and the quicker we’ll reduce the damage. That Flannery thinks there’s a prospect of actually reducing the levels back to the levels of today, or pre-industrial levels, is very reassuring – but the time-scale he talks about is nothing to do with when there’d first be a difference between acting and not acting.

Even if it’ll take a long time to return the system to the earlier levels (and I’m glad to hear that that’s even possible), the immediate challenge is to reduce the increase. That’s what the proposed action is supposed to achieve, and that’s what we’re debating.

So Abbott’s misrepresentation of Flannery’s remark is not only dishonest, it also indicates that he hasn’t the faintest idea what his opponents are actually talking about.

Labor and climate scientists and the Greens and anyone with an interest in rational public debate all need to be out there right now squashing this stupid meme before it takes any more hold on the gullible. Because once this one sinks in, they’ll find something even more outrageously stupid and build up the ignorance even further. It has to be tackled now, and exposed for the moronic fraud it is.

Let’s see who in the media actually call Abbott on his shameless misrepresentation of Flannery, and the ignorance about the actual proposal that his remarks reveal. Anyone?


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/03/29/and-now-tony-abbott-misrepresents-flannery-will-the-media-call-him-on-it/

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by FRED on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:10pm

wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?
March 29, 2011 – 9:34 am, by Jeremy Sear  
Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterday, it now seems that the unpopular Liberal leader Tony Abbott is now outright misrepresenting Flannery’s remarks in Parliament:

But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor’s massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.

“It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”

.What Flannery actually said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

.“Not going to drop” is clearly not the same as “make not a scrap of difference”. Nor is “several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years” the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.

We’re talking about a system in which the temperature is increasing. The best we can hope for in the shorter term is to slow that increase down, maybe if we’re lucky stop it completely. The more countries that act, the better our chances, and the quicker we’ll reduce the damage. That Flannery thinks there’s a prospect of actually reducing the levels back to the levels of today, or pre-industrial levels, is very reassuring – but the time-scale he talks about is nothing to do with when there’d first be a difference between acting and not acting.

Even if it’ll take a long time to return the system to the earlier levels (and I’m glad to hear that that’s even possible), the immediate challenge is to reduce the increase. That’s what the proposed action is supposed to achieve, and that’s what we’re debating.

So Abbott’s misrepresentation of Flannery’s remark is not only dishonest, it also indicates that he hasn’t the faintest idea what his opponents are actually talking about.

Labor and climate scientists and the Greens and anyone with an interest in rational public debate all need to be out there right now squashing this stupid meme before it takes any more hold on the gullible. Because once this one sinks in, they’ll find something even more outrageously stupid and build up the ignorance even further. It has to be tackled now, and exposed for the moronic fraud it is.

Let’s see who in the media actually call Abbott on his shameless misrepresentation of Flannery, and the ignorance about the actual proposal that his remarks reveal. Anyone?


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/03/29/and-now-tony-abbott-misrepresents-flannery-will-the-media-call-him-on-it/

;D ;D ;D ;D    GET UP    LOL   ;D ;D

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by perceptions_now on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:26pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:27am:
The issue is about adding carbon to the atmosphere and adding to global warming......Seizing on one hypothesis and using this prediction as a caveat to discredit climate change is typical of the Liberal faithful.....The effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere are well documented and accepted by the majority of climate scientists.....I hope Abbott's comments once and for all cement his position as a climate change denier......Australia cannot afford to have a leader who believes in god unconditionally but does not believe in science.....What will Abbott's solution be to fixing the drought will it be to pray for rain like his predecessor John Howard???

http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Pray-for-rain-urges-Howard/2007/04/22/1177180463040.html

Mr Howard warned last week that farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin faced having no water for the coming irrigation year unless heavy rain fell in the next six to eight weeks.

On Sunday he said he intended to meet irrigators over coming weeks to discuss the grim situation.

Meanwhile, he encouraged people to seek divine intervention.

"It's very serious, it's unprecedented in my lifetime and I really feel very deeply for the people affected," Mr Howard told ABC Television.

"So we should all, literally and without any irony, pray for rain over the next six to eight weeks."

;)



People prayed and the rain came...

your problems is...?


Ah, we're back to Noah & his ark, are we?

But then, with you, it usually is "back to the future" & deja vu, again & again & again!

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:27pm

wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
Labor and climate scientists and the Greens and anyone with an interest in rational public debate all need to be out there right now squashing this stupid meme before it takes any more hold on the gullible. Because once this one sinks in, they’ll find something even more outrageously stupid and build up the ignorance even further. It has to be tackled now, and exposed for the moronic fraud it is.


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/03/29/and-now-tony-abbott-misrepresents-flannery-will-the-media-call-him-on-it/



Fool is writing for Crikey. Congratulations!

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by mavisdavis on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 7:28am:
I think the government is going to have a bit of bother implementing their air tax.



HMPPPH!  Just look at the problems they`re having trying to implement their air heads!

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:42pm

Quote:
   Louise Maher: If we stopped all human activity on the planet tomorrow, what would be Earth’s temperature fall? What would be the drop in the Earth’s temperature?

   Andy Pitman: And here’s our problem. It wouldn’t drop. If we could stop emissions tomorrow we’d still have 20 to 30 years of warming ahead of us because of inertia of the system. It’s like a juggernaut going up the freeway. You slam on the breaks, but it takes a long time to stop. We are already committed to the climate of 2040. What these emissions reductions are about is how much we can reduce warming into the medium term to protect, for instance, the planet for our grandchildren. It’s on those timescales that we’re terrified. On the timescales of 20 to 30 years, I’m sorry but we have already hard-wired the warming into the system.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:45pm


Quote:
That Flannery thinks there’s a prospect of actually reducing the levels back to the levels of today, or pre-industrial levels, is very reassuring –


So do you actually think it's a good idea to return to temperatures of the pre-industrial revolution???

A time of wide spread famine, the river Thames freezing over for 2 months (with ice to a thickness of 28cm) and sea ice along the coasts of England, France and the Netherlands?????

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:58pm

wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
And now Tony Abbott misrepresents Flannery; will the media call him on it?
March 29, 2011 – 9:34 am, by Jeremy Sear  
Further to the shameless and idiotic noisemaking of the trollumnists on which we commented yesterday, it now seems that the unpopular Liberal leader Tony Abbott is now outright misrepresenting Flannery’s remarks in Parliament:

But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor’s massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.

“It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”

.What Flannery actually said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

.“Not going to drop” is clearly not the same as “make not a scrap of difference”. Nor is “several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years” the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/03/29/and-now-tony-abbott-misrepresents-flannery-will-the-media-call-him-on-it/


But it has to drop vege.
It simply must.
The ice is melting NOW, and the islands are sinking NOW as I type this.
And if we don't do something the sky will fall in and then what.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:12pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.



You cant see electricity 99% of the time either, care to stick a fork into one of your power points.
You cant see carbon monoxide either care to run a hose back into your car?
So you cant see it therefore its not real, & you call my argument weak ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:27pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.



You cant see electricity 99% of the time either, care to stick a fork into one of your power points.
You cant see carbon monoxide either care to run a hose back into your car?
So you cant see it therefore its not real, & you call my argument weak ;D ;D ;D


People have killed themselves intentionally or otherwise with carbon monoxide and electricity.
And plenty of them for a very long time in many different countries.
And both of them are man made too.
But how many have died anywhere due to a man made global warming theory?
Electricity and carbon monoxide is no theory, nor are the dangers associated with them.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:34pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.



You cant see electricity 99% of the time either, care to stick a fork into one of your power points.
You cant see carbon monoxide either care to run a hose back into your car?
So you cant see it therefore its not real, & you call my argument weak ;D ;D ;D


People have killed themselves intentionally or otherwise with carbon monoxide and electricity.
And plenty of them for a very long time in many different countries.
And both of them are man made too.
But how many have died anywhere due to a man made global warming theory?
Electricity and carbon monoxide is no theory, nor are the dangers associated with them.


So in your world we have to wait until a certain amount of people are dead.
What is that magic number we have to reach?
How many will die due to crop failures with extended droughts?
How many will die when water tables are polluted with salt water making it impossible to grow crops.
How many, a million, 10 million, 1 billion and do these deaths have to be white westerners as well??
If the are just poor Bangladeshies or Sri Lankins will they matter??? I suppose you can label those trying to escape que jumpers/illegals as well should work in well with Tones xenophobic rhetoric.
Do you believe in GOD???
I suppose not as you cant see him either.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:36pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:34pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.



You cant see electricity 99% of the time either, care to stick a fork into one of your power points.
You cant see carbon monoxide either care to run a hose back into your car?
So you cant see it therefore its not real, & you call my argument weak ;D ;D ;D


People have killed themselves intentionally or otherwise with carbon monoxide and electricity.
And plenty of them for a very long time in many different countries.
And both of them are man made too.
But how many have died anywhere due to a man made global warming theory?
Electricity and carbon monoxide is no theory, nor are the dangers associated with them.


So in your world we have to wait until a certain amount of people are dead.
What is that magic number we have to reach?
How many will die due to crop failures with extended droughts?
How many will die when water tables are polluted with salt water making it impossible to grow crops.
How many, a million, 10 million, 1 billion and do these deaths have to be white westerners as well??
If the are just poor Bangladeshies or Sri Lankins will they matter??? I suppose you can label those trying to escape que jumpers/illegals as well should work in well with Tones xenophobic rhetoric.
Do you believe in GOD???
I suppose not as you cant see him either.



How about just ONE correct 'prediction'?????

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:36pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:34pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.



You cant see electricity 99% of the time either, care to stick a fork into one of your power points.
You cant see carbon monoxide either care to run a hose back into your car?
So you cant see it therefore its not real, & you call my argument weak ;D ;D ;D


People have killed themselves intentionally or otherwise with carbon monoxide and electricity.
And plenty of them for a very long time in many different countries.
And both of them are man made too.
But how many have died anywhere due to a man made global warming theory?
Electricity and carbon monoxide is no theory, nor are the dangers associated with them.


So in your world we have to wait until a certain amount of people are dead.
What is that magic number we have to reach?
How many will die due to crop failures with extended droughts?
How many will die when water tables are polluted with salt water making it impossible to grow crops.
How many, a million, 10 million, 1 billion and do these deaths have to be white westerners as well??
If the are just poor Bangladeshies or Sri Lankins will they matter??? I suppose you can label those trying to escape que jumpers/illegals as well should work in well with Tones xenophobic rhetoric.
Do you believe in GOD???
I suppose not as you cant see him either.



How many of these doomsday secnarios will be prevented by the government collecting a few more billion $$$ of our hard-earned to set up another useless bureaucracy?  

That's right - zero.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:42pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:34pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.



You cant see electricity 99% of the time either, care to stick a fork into one of your power points.
You cant see carbon monoxide either care to run a hose back into your car?
So you cant see it therefore its not real, & you call my argument weak ;D ;D ;D


People have killed themselves intentionally or otherwise with carbon monoxide and electricity.
And plenty of them for a very long time in many different countries.
And both of them are man made too.
But how many have died anywhere due to a man made global warming theory?
Electricity and carbon monoxide is no theory, nor are the dangers associated with them.


So in your world we have to wait until a certain amount of people are dead.
What is that magic number we have to reach?
How many will die due to crop failures with extended droughts?
How many will die when water tables are polluted with salt water making it impossible to grow crops.
How many, a million, 10 million, 1 billion and do these deaths have to be white westerners as well??
If the are just poor Bangladeshies or Sri Lankins will they matter??? I suppose you can label those trying to escape que jumpers/illegals as well should work in well with Tones xenophobic rhetoric.
Do you believe in GOD???
I suppose not as you cant see him either.


How about one then?
Is that enough to justify ruining a nations economy for do you think?
Because electricity and carbon monoxide have killed thousands.
Are we getting rid of electricity or cars any time soon?
Crop failures with extended drought was occurring long before the industrial age.
Your point being?
And where is all this salt water, last time I saw it it wasn't in the fields and despite all the hullabaloo, the oceans haven't risen.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:52pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:34pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 1:21pm:
So lets put it this way, if your house is on fire I assume liberal voters would just sit on their lawn & throw balloons full of petrol into the flames.
After all that's basically what your advocating with this drivel.
Baths overflowing, oh well no need to turn the tap off as the bathmat will take a week to dry anyway.
Dumbasses


Not much of an analogy there dssmith.
As one can actually see a house burning.
And your melodramatic linking of throwing petrol on a burning house to the unproven man made climate change theory is irrelevant.



You cant see electricity 99% of the time either, care to stick a fork into one of your power points.
You cant see carbon monoxide either care to run a hose back into your car?
So you cant see it therefore its not real, & you call my argument weak ;D ;D ;D


People have killed themselves intentionally or otherwise with carbon monoxide and electricity.
And plenty of them for a very long time in many different countries.
And both of them are man made too.
But how many have died anywhere due to a man made global warming theory?
Electricity and carbon monoxide is no theory, nor are the dangers associated with them.


So in your world we have to wait until a certain amount of people are dead.
What is that magic number we have to reach?
How many will die due to crop failures with extended droughts?
How many will die when water tables are polluted with salt water making it impossible to grow crops.
How many, a million, 10 million, 1 billion and do these deaths have to be white westerners as well??
If the are just poor Bangladeshies or Sri Lankins will they matter??? I suppose you can label those trying to escape que jumpers/illegals as well should work in well with Tones xenophobic rhetoric.
Do you believe in GOD???
I suppose not as you cant see him either.


How about one then?
Is that enough to justify ruining a nations economy for do you think?
Because electricity and carbon monoxide have killed thousands.
Are we getting rid of electricity or cars any time soon?
Crop failures with extended drought was occurring long before the industrial age.
Your point being?
And where is all this salt water, last time I saw it it wasn't in the fields and despite all the hullabaloo, the oceans haven't risen.


I cant be bothered,
You and many others are happy to roll the dice & bet alot of very educated people are wrong.
Your happy to keep digging finite resources out of the ground because they won't run out in your lifetime so why should you shoulder any responsibility for change.
Its year 7 science, not that hard to understand in fact I'm pretty sure you would have used or at the very least seen the same principal to grow plants in a greenhouse(that's why they call it the greenhouse effect),but alas it might cost you more, so f@#k it.
I hope your right, for your grandchildren's sake.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by freediver on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:17pm

Quote:
You said you BELIEVED in the science and the scientist you love said if 6,910,000,000 then carbon levels might drop in 1000 years


No Maqqa, that is not what Flannery said either. I know Tony Abbott obviously has reading comprehension issues, but you can still think for yourself. Here is another thread you were active in where people tried very patiently to point out the difference between what Flannery said and what Tony Abbott thought he heard.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301093956

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:49am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:52pm:
I hope your right, for your grandchildren's sake.


Forget saving your grandchildren, eco-biddies. According to Flannery, the world won’t be safer until your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are on the scene.


Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:19am

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:49am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:52pm:
I hope your right, for your grandchildren's sake.


Forget saving your grandchildren, eco-biddies. According to Flannery, the world won’t be safer until your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are on the scene.


No problems then Soren.
We'll be out and about amongst the stars well before then.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:22am

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:49am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 2:52pm:
I hope your right, for your grandchildren's sake.


Forget saving your grandchildren, eco-biddies. According to Flannery, the world won’t be safer until your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are on the scene.


Temperature increases due to the CO2 already in the atmosphere are locked in, what we are trying to do is keep those increases after that as low as possible.
As I said the other day if you run a bath & forget about it do you run in & turn off the tap or shug your shoulders say the floors already wet & let the water to continue to run even though doing so will eventually wash your whole house away?

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:34am
It's not 'who wants to be a millioinaire", you know. "Lock it in, Eddy".

CO2 is not locked in. It gets absorbed by all sorts plants, on land and in water. Fossil fuels are, indeed, nothing but dead plants and animals that absorbed the energy of the sun directly our via their foods. When you burn anything you simple release that stored sun energy. In the final analysis, fossil fueld are simply sources of solar power.


Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:38am

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:34am:
It's not 'who wants to be a millioinaire", you know. "Lock it in, Eddy".

CO2 is not locked in. It gets absorbed by all sorts plants, on land and in water. Fossil fuels are, indeed, nothing but dead plants and animals that absorbed the energy of the sun directly our via their foods. When you burn anything you simple release that stored sun energy. In the final analysis, fossil fueld are simply sources of solar power.

So ignore 99% of the post and jump on 1 phrase.
Is your real name Andrew or Tony??????

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:43am
The whole post makes sense only if the premise - that CO2 is locked in - is accepted. It's not.
SHould I have still entertained the conclusions drawn from a false premise?


Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:03am

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:43am:
The whole post makes sense only if the premise - that CO2 is locked in - is accepted. It's not.
SHould I have still entertained the conclusions drawn from a false premise?


A re-post from page 2

Quote:
Louise Maher: If we stopped all human activity on the planet tomorrow, what would be Earth’s temperature fall? What would be the drop in the Earth’s temperature?

  Andy Pitman: And here’s our problem. It wouldn’t drop. If we could stop emissions tomorrow we’d still have 20 to 30 years of warming ahead of us because of inertia of the system. It’s like a juggernaut going up the freeway. You slam on the breaks, but it takes a long time to stop. We are already committed to the climate of 2040. What these emissions reductions are about is how much we can reduce warming into the medium term to protect, for instance, the planet for our grandchildren. It’s on those timescales that we’re terrified. On the timescales of 20 to 30 years, I’m sorry but we have already hard-wired the warming into the system.


I can only assume you don't believe any of it.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:07am
you assume correctly.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:27am

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:07am:
you assume correctly.


Than we shall agree to disagree as that's all we can do.

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 12:12pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:27am:

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:07am:
you assume correctly.


Than we shall agree to disagree as that's all we can do.


I disagree.


Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 12:36pm
;D

Title: Re: 1000 years plan
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 30th, 2011 at 2:47pm
Outstanding.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.