Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:59pm
gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
|
So at what point did we evolve and do you think the clearing of land therefore the reduction in forests to absorb CO2 would have any factor in the theory?
| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Political Parties >> Liberal Party >> Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301394442 Message started by freediver on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm |
|
|
Title: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm
It is a bit of a worry when someone can become leader of the coalition and not be able to understand something so basic.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301345341 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301093956 What 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." What Abbott thought he heard heard: "It will not make a difference for 1000 years," the Opposition Leader told parliament." It does not take a genius to figure out that the point at which it 'makes a difference' is not the same as the point at which temperatures stop climbing and begin to drop. There are vastly different scenarious that could involve anything from a very gradual rise over the next few centuries to a runaway heating effect. Even more troubling is the number of people leaping at this with glee thinking they are suddenly onto something, even after it has been explained to them how Abbott misunderstood a rather simple statement. The media liason people always tell scientists to stop and think about how any statement to the media could be misinterpretted, but there is a limit to how idiot proof we can expect our scientists to make their public statements. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by progressiveslol on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:36pm freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm:
Well to someone who believes that the science is settled, there may be a difference. Someone who thinks man may have a contribution to the drop in a 50 ltr bucket, then there may not be that much of a difference. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 6:09am freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm:
what a desperate and embarrassing post from you. one of your climate hysterics makes a faux pas and actually talks SENSE and you lather up with the ridiculous rubbish like this. Face it. Flannery doesnt beleive anything we do wil make any difference. Maybe you should listen to him. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 30th, 2011 at 6:53am
So Foolya's air tax won't make the air cleaner after all.
Wow, didn't see that one coming. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by philperth2010 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:29am
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.
Daniel J. Boorstin (1914 - ) The point is the earth cannot absorb the extra carbon humans are adding to the atmosphere.....What Flannery is saying is the planet will take a thousand years to absorb the extra carbon in the atmosphere......Adding to the carbon will create an even greater problem were temperatures will keep increasing and there will be no thousand year equilibrium to worry about!!! Sure attack the science and deny climate change is caused by human activity......but support your argument with some facts and stop trying to distort selective prognosis to try and support your pathetic argument.....Tim Flannery did not make his thousand year comment to give oxygen to the deniers and the stupid......He did it to highlight the damage already done to the earths atmosphere.....Carbon heats the atmosphere, this is why the planet does not freeze…..To deny that increasing an element that creates this effect will not have an effect on the earths atmosphere is denying the basic principles of science.....The millions of tonnes of carbon humans pump into the atmosphere every year is having an effect.....To all those who deny the science I can only say you should listen to the scientists and not the politicians!!! :) All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 8:39am longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 6:09am:
No Flannery did not say that, but that's what denalists like Bolt etc and now your good self hear. I was going to try & explain but I just cant be bothered banging my head anymore. I hope you are right but I know your not & frankly Longweekend YOU know your wrong & misrepresenting the facts but you just don't have the guts to go against anything Tony says. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:18am freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm:
It is laughable to say what Flannery said. It is gobsmacking to see a grown man with facial hair, no less, to speak so earnestly about such a ridiculous thing. One minute it's holding temperature increases to within 2 degrees, the next it's possibly no change for centuries. And what is the basis of these stupid pronouncements? Some computer modelling with the assumptions built into them, but which still come with the standard disclaimer: This report relates to climate simulations based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the clients (the Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment; Queensland Department of Primary Industries; Department of Natural Resources; and the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection) for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance of this report. Yet the likes of Flannery will utter millenial predictions relying on little else than the authority of his greying beard in support of $30 tax on coal. Astonishing. Of course people jump on the opportunity to ridicule and disparage them all. Your kind of defence, FD, of pressing your nose close up against the distiction between no change or no increase in temperature in the next milleniaum is just hairsplitting and is probably calculated to make you completely blind to the enormous bluff that Flannery's trying to get away with.i |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:15am philperth2010 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:29am:
Some facts would be nice Phil with this issue. I don't suppose suspect computer modelling, extrapolation, forecasting and guesstimation would suffice though would it? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by vegitamite on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:17am
It is a bit of a worry when all Flannery is trying to achieve is to beg the question, Can the world be managed so that 9 billion humans who will soon be living on it , survive? And what sort of fate that awaits us if we do not change.
He is also suggesting to business that they should recognise their responsibilities ! No wonder Abbott tries to misquote- not questions he obviously likes to deal with. obviously God will take care of us all. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:49am wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:17am:
Well, a good start would be stopping bio fuels. Food prices are going up because doctors' wives want to have corn grown to feed the Lexus instead of people. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 30th, 2011 at 1:47pm Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:49am:
Another one would be for the government to extend the rebate for solar power installation. I understand this one actually working Labor policy implementation ends 30/6/11. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Foolosophy on Mar 30th, 2011 at 1:56pm
The real quesiton is whether WESTERN decadence, greed and waste can survive.
Just look at the statistics coming out of the USA alone: USA has 5% of the worlds population Comsumes 1/3 of the total planets resources Produces almost 1/3 of the worlds waste andpollution. So the question is "Should a handful of countries (numbering less than 1 billion people) have the right to over 85% of the worlds resources and act in such a way that the very sustainability of the planets eco systems are threatened? This is why the racist West always talks about the TOTAL population of the planet and nevr about how peope live and use resrouces. Depending on how we live, the planet coudl comfortably and sustainably support 50 billion people - likewise it may struggle to support 3 billion. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:09pm Foolosophy wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
Its easy. take the worlds three oldest nations - Egypt, India and China. All are backward undemocratic cesspools of ignorance and poverty. Maybe they are backward not because of nations like australian and usa - a mere 200 years old - but because they are lazy buggers that let their countries slide for thousands of years and now look like the poor cousins. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by alevine on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:14pm longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:09pm:
China is not backwards. and Indian and Egyptians aren't lazy; they are just heavily religious. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by mozzaok on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:36pm
Well the odd racist comments aside, and getting back to FD's original point, Abbott is a loon, I mean, Duh!
Perhaps he is just playing dumb ;D ;D ;D ;D, in which case look out Hugh Jackman. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:57pm mozzaok wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:36pm:
FD's original post was a hair-splitting laborious attempt at excusing Flannerys comment that it could be 1000 years for temperatures to drop. talk about trying to avoid the issue!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by philperth2010 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 5:15pm
What is your point Longy.....The issue is about rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.....The fact we cannot reduce the carbon would strengthen the argument against pumping more of it into the atmosphere.....Wouldn't you think???
:) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:18pm philperth2010 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 5:15pm:
A) his 1000 year rationale is rubbish. look at history over the last 1000 years. one mini ice age and a warm period. B) his argument torpedoes the rationale for the carbon tax since he is openly admitting it wont work C) his argument is so far off the track of the IPCC's predictions that you wonder what Flannery is smoking. D) it doesnt matter WHAT the ACC hysterics say, you will quote it, embrace it despite its obvious inconsistnecy with everythgin else they say. Do you know why we REALLY mock ACC proponents? because of things like this. Someone makes a preposterous, contradictory and frankly embarrassing statement and you all jump up and down like a cult follower and agree with it. you look like idiots. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:50pm sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:14pm:
Yeah. And the parrot is not dead, only resting. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by mavisdavis on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:59pm sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:14pm:
My fat dog doesn`t fart either. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by jame-e on Mar 30th, 2011 at 8:00pm Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:18am:
'The scientist can learn about the world by observation but can the scientist learn about the inner workings of the spiritual world by observation? Kierkegaard said no, and he said it emphatically' Luckily, climate change is objective. What objective evidence does your subjective self have to base your claim of bluff? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Foolosophy on Mar 30th, 2011 at 8:01pm longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:18pm:
the natural CO2 re-absorption processes generally occur over lonf time scales - they have been measured and verified. You also ignire the lethal irreversible tipping points when you dismiss the perils of a planet with rising CO2 levels. Or do you wish to turn Earth into a planet like Venus where the CO2 concentration in the Venutian atmosphere is 98% and its greenhouse effect produces a planetary surface temperature that is the highest in our solar system (even higher than Mercury which is far closer to the sun) You have a lot to answer for galloping in here with an elevated horse spewing out non-sensical voodoo based mythological slime based garbage I expect you to publically apologise to 98% of the people in this forum with the next 48 hours and do 600 hours community work |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Mar 30th, 2011 at 8:38pm
This is getting silly. Why can't you people just read what he said? It is not that hard to understand.
Quote:
He said the opposite. Quote:
No he won't. Read what he actually said. Quote:
Try reading what I posted. That is not the distinction I made. Quote:
That would damage our economy a lot more per unit of emissions reductions than the carbon tax. Quote:
I am hoping that is the case for a few here. Quote:
It does not need an excuse. There is nothing even significant about the statement. It is 'mainstream' climate change. Quote:
No he isn't Longy. Quote:
No they are not. They do not contradict them. Quote:
It is not constradictory and we do not look like idiots, except to people with some very basic reading comprehension problems. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by philperth2010 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:00pm
:)
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by philperth2010 on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:16pm longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:18pm:
A) his 1000 year rationale is rubbish. look at history over the last 1000 years. one mini ice age and a warm period. This argument has no relevance to the fact.....The amount of carbon being poured into the atmosphere is increasing.....this is a fact it has been well documented and is not disputed!!! B) his argument torpedoes the rationale for the carbon tax since he is openly admitting it wont work Here we have an opinion stated as fact....in other words bull sh!t!!! C) his argument is so far off the track of the IPCC's predictions that you wonder what Flannery is smoking. Here we have an opinion stated as fact....in other words bull sh!t!! D) it doesnt matter WHAT the ACC hysterics say, you will quote it, embrace it despite its obvious inconsistnecy with everything else they say. Here we have an opinion stated as fact....in other words bull sh!t!! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Grey on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:33pm
Actually :) I'd quite like it if we cut doen pollution by stopping the trucking of toilet rolls from the East coast to the West coast and back again. Y'know sh*t like that. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by mozzaok on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:40am
I do not intend to discuss the actual reasoning that legitimises the overwhelming support of every government, and recognised national scientific body in the world, for the AGW case, others here are far more able than I to inform you on that subject, but I must point out that I have to believe longweekend to be absolutely disingenuous in his arguments, on almost every subject, as he does nothing but parrott the liberal party policy of the day, or what he thinks will further that agenda.
This became evident in the NBN debate when he made claims of extensive technical expertise, but promoted absolutely false, and deliberately misleading information, that nobody with any technical expertise would ever do, and refused to even respond when challenged on the matters. He did continue to keep promoting false information though. Now we see others here doing similar, from both sides of the political spectrum, but they are obvious imbeciles, and hence their idiocy is understandable, but most genuine posters find some common ground across traditional political affiliations, and any one who does not show a single identifiable personal view, which never deviates from the liberal party songbook, has to be held with a degree of skepticism in my opinion. I know longy is no fool, and quite a few of the right leaning posters here state their cases well, and provide a good perspective of how an intelligent and decent person can support ideas which differ from my own, but I am losing any respect I had for longy, because I now so strongly doubt the personal sincerity of what he says. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by billy the fish on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:33am mozzaok wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:40am:
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by buzzanddidj on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:38am chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 6:53am:
But carbon taxes and emission trading schemes WILL slow the rate if INCREASE in emissions and climate change |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:48am freediver wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 8:38pm:
No he won't. Read what he actually said. Quote:
Try reading what I posted. That is not the distinction I made. Quote:
That would damage our economy a lot more per unit of emissions reductions than the carbon tax. Quote:
I am hoping that is the case for a few here. Quote:
It does not need an excuse. There is nothing even significant about the statement. It is 'mainstream' climate change. Quote:
No he isn't Longy. Quote:
No they are not. They do not contradict them. Quote:
It is not constradictory and we do not look like idiots, except to people with some very basic reading comprehension problems.[/quote] You have some serious comprehension problems and you are jumpin thru hoops and bending backwards to try and support Flannerys ridiculous statement. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:49am philperth2010 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:16pm:
I like the way you use hysteria as a response. Nicely done. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:52am longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:49am:
I love the way your whole argument is based on 1/2 truths,outright lies, character assasination, intimidation, misinformation & the threat of economic ruin 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:58am mozzaok wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:40am:
your problem, dear mozza, is that you really cant handle opposing viewpoints very well. As has been stated repeatedly to you to no avail, the NBN argument isnt a technical one but s POLICY one. You seem utterly unable to make the distinction like the tru labor parrot that you can be at times. and you pretend that ACC/AGW has the support of all these scientists but when a scientist of some note and acclaim disputes ACC you go on the rather ugly offensive. But you are happy to quote an ex-politician and a train engineer And you very happily choose to believe all these scnarios of doom despite significant evidence to the contrary. Why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE climate model has ever gotten things even close to being right? The test for a climate model is to apply it to the past and see how well its predictions work against a known result. and they ALL FAIL - usually miserably. Yet you want to put your faith in models we know dont work?? you dont support ACC or the NBN for reasons beyond you WANT it to be true. you wouldnt know facts if you fell on them. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:59am Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:52am:
Put up reasons to support a carbon tax and I will destroy all of them using ARGUMENT and rationality. Knock yourself out. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:07am Quote:
I asked for names before of these scientists & got Pilmer, I will grant you did say he wasn't the best example, so here's your chance again to this time hopefully put forward a name of a reputable scientist within the field. I will research the name & look fairly into their arguments. Quote:
No, I cant be bothered as I've said on these type of threads before, I don't know why I'm even responding now, it's like a drug I want to give it up but cant ;) Suffice to say Gillard has the numbers,Greens take control of the Senate in 2 months the tax WILL BE PASSED, you lose. OK 1 reason - my daughter Also I read 6 or 7 pages of this debate in environment last night, if you haven't head down there for a read its well worth it & the contributers are to be congratulated. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by mozzaok on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:18am longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:58am:
I reckon I am pretty good at spotting lies when I see them longy, and the frequency with which they appear in your posts, was the very reason I felt the need to share my observations of your posting technique. Your rather feeble attempts to misinterpret what Flannery was talking about is nothing more thanyou attempting to justify Abbott's ignorance. The simple fact is he misunderstood, and no matter how much dissembling you attempt, that fact will not alter. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by vegitamite on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:36am
Dont worry mozzack longie is very lucky 'we' are here to educate him from Andrew Bolt's 'Quote of the Millennium' that sadly ,it seems ,Tony Abbott gets his climate science from.
"Tony Abbott seems to have answered Julia Gillard's question of whether you should get your climate science from reputable climate scientists or Andrew Bolt by going for Andrew Bolt. Bolt interviwed Tim Flannery who 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." Bolt argued that this was admission that cutting emissions was useless. Abbott then seized on the comment by Tim Flannery and claimed that Flannery had admitted that "It will not make a difference for 1000 years," Of course this just demonstrates that Abbott has no clue what the whole climate change debate is about. The reason for cutting emissions is not to reduce temperatures from current levels, but to prevent them from increasing to dangerous levels. And the fact that, as Flannery pointed out, CO2 emissions largely stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years is the reason why we can't just postpone cutting emissions until the temperature rises dangerously -- by then it will be too late. You also might wonder why, if Abbott really believed this, his own policy is to achieve exactly the same reduction in emissions as Labor? To his credit, Graham Lloyd, Environment editor for The Australian corrects Abbott's error: The scientific view is that if CO2 emissions are left unchecked, the world will warm by 4C by the end of the century. Flannery's point is we must act to stop the forecast additional 4C temperature rise before we even consider returning to pre-industrial age temperatures. He didn't want to answer the question about what impact Australia's action alone would have because the answer is obvious: next to nothing. But the real answer is if Australia is not prepared to do anything, how can we expect anyone else to act. I'm wondering if Abbott's next trick will be to repeat this piece of stupidity from Bolt: Twenty years or 1000? One of these "experts" is hopelessly wrong Climate scientist and warmist Andy Pitman on Thursday: If we could stop emissions tomorrow we would still have 20 to 30 years of warming ahead of us because of inertia of the system. Climate Commissioner and warmist Tim Flannery on Friday: 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 Maybe Bolt thinks stabilising is the same thing as decreasing? Who can tell? http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/tony_abbott_gets_his_climate_s.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:38am mozzaok wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:18am:
Flannery is an idiot who effectively said that no matter what we do temperatures wont change by much. ANd I repeat that no one has yet found a climate model that works yet you hysterics are continually basing all of your doom predictions on models that dont work. its now the 5th year in a row that your lot have predicted the total melt of the arctic ice cap. what happened? same thing about the antarctic. when the hysterics can get a few predictions come to pass then their credibility might rise above zero. Ive lived long enough to see multiple predictions of doom be thrown in our face, generate a major panic and then disappear without leaving a trace. This panic has all the same hallmarks. I dont expect to see any different result. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by chicken_lipsforme on Mar 31st, 2011 at 1:48pm longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:38am:
The Druids 2000 years ago in Britain got better prediction results from reading animals entrails and bones. Maybe Flannery should sacrifice a goat on the alter. Gillard would do nicely for that purpose. :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:43pm
It's just amazing to read this thread and see who the 'coolaid' drinkers are...
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Luke Fowler on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:27pm mozzaok wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:40am:
I couldn't agree more. Especially with the last part. Longy used to be one of the better right-leaning posters on the board. He would at least provide a number of cogent arguments to back his claims and I would often find myself agreeing with a lot of the points he made, while not necessary drawing the same conclusions as he did. Alas. He has gone the way of andrehicks and the like and has joined the hard-right cheer squad quoting the tabloids and shock jocks' words as gospel. Sad really. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by perceptions_now on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:30pm freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm:
What's even more worrying, is that is not the only basic thing that he does not understand, he also has no idea about Peak Energy (Oil) & it seems apparent he doesn't know much about Demographics, nor the available Resources & the Population Carrying capacity of Australia & the Planet! But, to be even handed, I'm not sure that Labor has much real knowledge &/or interest in those issues, either! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Luke Fowler on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:30pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:43pm:
1. It's Kool Aid. 2. Dismissing people who don't agree with your views on climate change as delusional and brainwashed seems like a fairly childish way to try and "win" an argument. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:46pm longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:48am:
Try reading what I posted. That is not the distinction I made. Quote:
That would damage our economy a lot more per unit of emissions reductions than the carbon tax. Quote:
I am hoping that is the case for a few here. Quote:
It does not need an excuse. There is nothing even significant about the statement. It is 'mainstream' climate change. Quote:
No he isn't Longy. Quote:
No they are not. They do not contradict them. Quote:
It is not constradictory and we do not look like idiots, except to people with some very basic reading comprehension problems.[/quote] You have some serious comprehension problems and you are jumpin thru hoops and bending backwards to try and support Flannerys ridiculous statement.[/quote] Given up on the rational argument already longy? Didn't take you long this time. Quote:
How about you start by showing that you and Abbott did not completely misunderstand and misrepresent Flannery's words. You seem to be trying very hard to avoid the actual topic of this thread. Quote:
So you admit he did not actually say it? Can you explain your reasoning for why he 'effectively' said it? There is certainly nothing in what he actually said to justify your (or Abbott's) feeble-minded misrepresentation. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:26pm Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:27pm:
Well Luke, you are also proving to be a bit of a disappointment but then again being part of the lefty arts establishment there was always going to be a fundamental disconnect between you with the real world anyhow. My argument with mozza and the like is quite a simple one. Being one of those people who actually wants FACTS as the basis of an argument (not like artsy people who prefer to 'feel' these things) Ive found those pesky 'facts' quite thin on the ground from the opposing posters. I set up a thread on what we need the NBN for. After weeks of 'debate' the end result was... wait for it... INTERNET TV. Now comes the flurry of furious disagreement but alas, not with an arguments to the contrary but rather with along list of 'amazing things we can do on the NBN' which unfortunately is 100% filled with things we already can and DO, do. And nthen comes the carbon tax. Every single point in its favour is so easily repudiated it is childs play. But when you do thatthe oppositions goes running. Like so many lefties, Luke, it was always fun for you when Labor was in ascendency and the Greens were the rising star in the third party firmament. But now that is not true. Labor is in diabilical trouble and the Greens asre clearly at a zenith and dropping. And so the arguments get ugly. You lefties only 'play nice' when you think you are winning or have won. But put the victory in someone elses lap and you put on a face of ugliness that supersedes anything an ugly conservative can come up with. Have you even noticed, Luke among you smug superiorty that not one single actual point of debate has been raised? Like Mozza, your complaint is not with me or Bolt or anyone else you like to launch your vitriol at. It is with losing an argument; with failing in the public arena. Your heroes, your beloved Labor and Greens are failing. People arent swallowing your ACC/AGW/Carbon Tax garbage with the eas you lefties think the masses should. Your problem isnt with a person. Your problem is with a growing tide of peoiple who see through the hysteria and fear that is the tool in trade of a true left-wing agenda. You guys couldnt argue a fact-filled debate if your lives depended on it. I would be happy to debate either of you on the NBN, carbon tax or whatever, but you wont and more to the point, you CANT. Left-wing doctrine despises argument and far prefers hysteria and ultimately violence. You both disappoint me and you especially Luke. I expected far more from you with your education and learning. But like any true lefty, you can be ugly when things dont work out your way. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:35pm jame-e wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 8:00pm:
The objective evidence that there is no objective evidence for man made climate change. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:36pm Quote:
If this is really what you crave, as I posted earlier today try this thread http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272798405 I have just spent the last 2 hours reading it from start to finish,clicking the links etc. I think you'll find enough to keep you busy with FACTS rather than the sermantics of a soundbite. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:40pm
Ive read too may scientifically proven predictions of doom that failed to get too concerned with global warming or climate change or whatever it is called today. The vast majority of scientists that support this apocalyptic view of the future are not climatologists or anythgineven remotely like it. Climatology is the newest and most compelx scient out there and there are very very very few people with any expertise in it. the loudest voices however are those with zero qualifications - liek Garnaut, a economist.
When I see a single climate prediction come true, when I see a single climatic event outside the normal range then call me. in the meantime you are all gullible for believing in the biggest hysteria in history. Y2K was the warm-up act folks and you fell for that as well. The emporor has no clothes but only a few of us actually know that! |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:43pm Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:36pm:
Really? Dont you remember hte long and rambling "what will we do with the NBN' thread? weeks went by and not one single use for it came up except internet TV. Im still open for the 'new and exciting thigns the NBN will do that the current network wont'. but you wont find anything either. And my point is that even after what would normally be a pretty conclusive point thatteh NBN offers NOTHING in new functionality, you lot just say it is and keep on with your mantra. When facts and logic have no impact on you, why would we care even debating it with you? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 11:07pm longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:43pm:
Im sorry you feel that way, there is no poltics in that thread and the are conversations between those that agree and those who disagree. This is a thread on climate change which is why I directed you to a thread on it's science NOT POLTICS but to answer your NBN tangent yes I remember it and agree with your conculsion however I will point out that whilst not having any real knowledge its seems the argument is not what it can do but carrying capacity and speed. If thats wrong fine the NBN is a meh on my radar, I can live with it or without it, neither of us can live in a hostile enviroment |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Luke Fowler on Apr 1st, 2011 at 1:12am
[/quote]
Well Luke, you are also proving to be a bit of a disappointment but then again being part of the lefty arts establishment there was always going to be a fundamental disconnect between you with the real world anyhow. My argument with mozza and the like is quite a simple one. Being one of those people who actually wants FACTS as the basis of an argument (not like artsy people who prefer to 'feel' these things) Ive found those pesky 'facts' quite thin on the ground from the opposing posters. I set up a thread on what we need the NBN for. After weeks of 'debate' the end result was... wait for it... INTERNET TV. Now comes the flurry of furious disagreement but alas, not with an arguments to the contrary but rather with along list of 'amazing things we can do on the NBN' which unfortunately is 100% filled with things we already can and DO, do. And nthen comes the carbon tax. Every single point in its favour is so easily repudiated it is childs play. But when you do thatthe oppositions goes running. Like so many lefties, Luke, it was always fun for you when Labor was in ascendency and the Greens were the rising star in the third party firmament. But now that is not true. Labor is in diabilical trouble and the Greens asre clearly at a zenith and dropping. And so the arguments get ugly. You lefties only 'play nice' when you think you are winning or have won. But put the victory in someone elses lap and you put on a face of ugliness that supersedes anything an ugly conservative can come up with. Have you even noticed, Luke among you smug superiorty that not one single actual point of debate has been raised? Like Mozza, your complaint is not with me or Bolt or anyone else you like to launch your vitriol at. It is with losing an argument; with failing in the public arena. Your heroes, your beloved Labor and Greens are failing. People arent swallowing your ACC/AGW/Carbon Tax garbage with the eas you lefties think the masses should. Your problem isnt with a person. Your problem is with a growing tide of peoiple who see through the hysteria and fear that is the tool in trade of a true left-wing agenda. You guys couldnt argue a fact-filled debate if your lives depended on it. I would be happy to debate either of you on the NBN, carbon tax or whatever, but you wont and more to the point, you CANT. Left-wing doctrine despises argument and far prefers hysteria and ultimately violence. You both disappoint me and you especially Luke. I expected far more from you with your education and learning. But like any true lefty, you can be ugly when things dont work out your way.[/quote] Are you speaking to me, or to the amorphous, ill-defined category of "the left" that you invent in order to blame for everything? You know, the millions of people who happened not to vote for the coalition and therefore must be stupid or "out of touch" because they disagree with your world view. I don't like Abbott or Gillard and, from what I can see, the Greens increased their (its) primary vote federally and in every recent state election. I fail to see how that is a decline. Further, do you realise how much of a hypocrite you are when you claim that "warmists" try to shut down the debate but, when you are actually faced with the science you just claim you have seen these things before and its all some huge conspiracy and, therefore AGW is garbage. How is that fostering a debate? Merely saying "climate change is crap because I know better" is no argument at all. It is no more than an angry rant. Jeez, even your hero Tony Abbott is out there preaching the "AGW is real" message. I don't hear you referring to him as a greenie wanting to shove the AGW message down your throat. Oh, and if being paid well for doing a job that I love (and all the attendant perks, such as free theatre, comedy festival, Grand Prix paddock tickets etc etc) is something I need to be ashamed of, then your mantra that us lefties are no-hopers that envy the well-off and frown on other people's success seems to ring a little hollow coming from you, don't ya think? When I first started posting on Yahoo, I was just a uni student, now I've got a great job and a fulfilling life. I worked my arse off to get here. I pay bills and taxes and all the same things you do. So I don't see where you get off with the whole I don't live in the real world crap. However, if living in the real world means hating my job and being angry and bitter like you are, you are welcome to it. I will just stay in this fantasy land I am supposed to inhabit. So there you have it. You are welcome to vent your spleen on line while I get up in the morning and go to work and write proposals and have meetings and do site inspections for the weekend and do all those other crazy non-real-world activities that we do in fantasy-land. Idiot. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by philperth2010 on Apr 1st, 2011 at 7:23am
Good on you Luke!!!
;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by vegitamite on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:07am ...Luke, I want your life... [smiley=laugh.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Ernie on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:10am
Greg Hunt also has a problem with numbers
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/04/01/3179338.htm When taken to task, he answered that he didn't mean 100 square kilometres (10,000 hectares) but 100 kms squared (1,000,000 hectares). D'ohhhh. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by vegitamite on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:15am
Longie,
I would have posted in your NBN debate thread , articles that show that faster speeds are the start of a new era for technology. It is like the chicken and egg. Also, wireless can, and could ,and will, cause many more problems - and that we should NOT rely on it, especially alone. However , I have tried in the past to do this and find it pointless . The articles written by many well respected men in the field are never noted for the value that they are. so I dont/didnt bother. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:21am Quote:
if you deigned to enter our little forum a little more you might realise that the 'stupid and out of touch' references come from your side of the polticial divide. Quote:
Congratulations. you can count. Unfortunately for you there is a little more to political analysis than mere 'counting' the figures put before you. Quote:
If you actually hung around here just a little more than your occasional royal visit you might ascertain that a few of us are trying to occupy a position on this topic that is between the two extreme positions ie hysteria and denial. What I object to is the absolute hysteria and non-science presented mainly by other non-climatoltogists. Since you absolutely dote on your mother then ask HER about the multitude of hysterias over the last 50 years and how many of them came to pass. Global Cooling, global warming, bird flue, swine flue, Y2K, literal nuclear plitting of the planet etc etc etc. Been there, done that. ALL of them were legitimate problems. ALL of them outrageously oversold. global warming has every thing in common with all these other hysterias. not one prediction made has ever come about. and you wonder why Im cynical!! Quote:
you like your job. congratulations. do you think you are alone in that? But to prove my point, you didnt debate a single point. You descend from your mountain and pontificate while supporting nothing. If you want to join the debate then fine. I look forward to it. But if your only contribution is to say whose opinion you like and whose you dont, like some wine taster then dont bother. There are plenty of idiots here who can do that. You write well. You are articulate and clearly intelligent. But it is not a substitute for a message. Well-written crap is still crap. So... Do you want to join the debate or just be an irregular commentator of no value? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:32am
No longy
You reject the so called hysteria of pro CC i.e Gaurnat/Flannery Your quite happy to quote/believe Bolt/Pilmer/Abbott/Monckton. You don't want a carbon tax, you didn't support an ETS so I ask what would you consider a worthwhile course of action??? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:39am
And if your really serious about being middle ground you'll read the thread I've posted for you ESPECIALLY from the point Gizmo becomes involved.
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by jame-e on Apr 1st, 2011 at 6:48pm Soren wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:35pm:
Motive? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by jame-e on Apr 1st, 2011 at 6:56pm longweekend58 wrote on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:21am:
For the less informed, can you tell me/us what predictions have not come true in regards to global warming? Also, can you briefly outline what exactly AGW has in common, say with the Y2K bug. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:07pm Quote:
Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge the facts about what Flannery said? Quote:
Go ahead then. There is a link to discussion at the bottom: http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html Quote:
Kind of ironic given your position on a carbon tax. Quote:
Why are you so desperate to avoid the topic of this thread Longy? Will you concede that Abbott completely misunderstood Flannery at you parroted him without thinking? Or will you desperately try to change the subject now you have finally figured it out? Quote:
It is the exact same story from both sides. This in itself is not evidence of anything. BTW, Garnaut is more than qualified to advise on the best way for government to reduce emissions. Quote:
Don't you think it would be a bit too late then? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:24pm jame-e wrote on Apr 1st, 2011 at 6:48pm:
Ideology. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:02am
Where did this ideology come from? Did we all suddenly develop the same ideology overnight?
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:12am
Quote:
when I see a single climatic event outside the normal range then call me Don't you think it would be a bit too late then? So you are in fact yourself admitting that there have been no climatic variations outside the norm. global warming is inside the usual range as well. being the pragmatist i then ask why we are getting into a hysteria about climatic variations within the usual range. Im all for cleaning up pollution but CO2 is the least damaging emission we have! BLAC carbon is far more dangerous. Im all for renewable energy and ending our dependence on oil and coal as finite resources. But I loathe unnessacry hysteria and manipulation of opinion which is EXACTLY what the ACC move is about. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:18am Quote:
Not really. I think that is a goal post that can be shifted whereever you want it. I think the rapid changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations are outside the norm. Also, the predictions for climate are not for events outside the norm, but for more events that were always in the norm. Quote:
I'm not hysterical. Are you? Quote:
huh? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by stryder110011 on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:23am Quote:
I believe the majority are in some way in agreement of a need to transfer from one abundant energy source to other alternatives, BUT NOT IN THE UNSOUND HYSTERICAL SCHEDULE AND ORWELLIAN MANNER that the Green/left wants to push and scaremonger us into submission into paying a NEW TAX sometime in the beggining of 2012. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by mozzaok on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:41am Quote:
This Hysterical schedule you refer to is now a quarter of a century old, and so far the most hysterical position I have seen is the one promoting inaction. As for Greens/Left wanting to see Carbon reductions, the Australian Liberal Party actually had very good policies regarding the setting of Carbon limits back in the early 1990's, before Howard, a confirmed opponent of the scientific opinion of the time, took over as leader, and reversed the parties position. The sad truth is that if the Libs had chosen a better leader, we would have seen Australia, and Australians, working together, in a bi-partisan effort to reduce Carbon emissions, and would not be seeing this divide because those of the right feel compelled to follow the Abbott led campaign for inaction. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by philperth2010 on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:49am
Andrew Bolt on Insiders.....Do nothing about climate change because it will have no short term affect on global temperatures.....Bolt has decided climate change will not affect him that greatly during his lifetime so why bother paying for a policy that will not benefit him personally.....Long term policy direction is not possible for a conservative who believes everything should stay the way it is....Abbott's policy is to just stick your head in the sand and ignore what does not support your short term political interests!!!
;) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by stryder110011 on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:49am Quote:
;D ;D ;D ;D What a load of garbage, No wonder you guys dont have the majority of australians on side with this Carbon tax, I mean there is no viable way to measure how this tax will reverse global warming, nor help other alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, etc which have limited potential and are a long, long way from mass commercial viability like fossil fuels, all i see is JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR A NEW TAX that people like you are getting brainwashed into. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by philperth2010 on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 10:06am stryder wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:49am:
I dont know how you can claim to know how many Australians support a carbon tax or oppose it....Once again you pass your opinions off as fact.....You also have a very narrow opinion on how Australia can reduce its emissions and meet its targets.....We can utilize our vast reserves of natural gas to reduce emissions while we integrate renewable energy into the grid.....We do not need to reduce carbon emissions by 100% we need to meet our targets......Australia is in an enviable position and can reduce emissions and take advantage of the potential for natural gas and renewable energy that other countries cannot.....Australia should take advantage of our position of having the resources to drive a low carbon economy!!! :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 10:09am Quote:
What schedule would that be? Quote:
You mean the machanism supported by most economists? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by jame-e on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 6:49pm freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:02am:
A pandemic? Now i'm hysterical :P |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 8:34pm freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:18am:
I'm not hysterical. Are you? Quote:
huh? [/quote] so you think the definition of climate change within the norm is a goal post that can be shifted? itronically you are both right and wrong. the 'norm' CANNOT be shifted. a thousand years of history clearly defines what the norm is. But the next step in this hysteria will be to do precisely that - to narrow 'the norm' so that the climat we have now miraculously falls outside this band. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by longweekend58 on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 8:38pm mozzaok wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:41am:
and ironically before this science was worried about global cooling. they eiter hcant make up their mind or they really have no idea. A bit like the hole in the ozone layer. for mileenia we went about blitely unaware that it existed but as soon as we discovered it suddenly it was caused by humans. pity that it took us so long to work out that it was predominalty because of the magnetic fields and that the lack of ozone allowed cosmic rays to enter and creat hydrogen radicals - one of the atmospheres 'scrubbers' of petrochemical pollution. so we NEED this hole. just as we need CO2 |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:34pm freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm:
oH.... THIS IS TONY GOING DOWN IN HISTORY AS WE SPEAK! :-[ :-[ :-[ oH.... THIS IS TONY GOING DOWN IN HISTORY AS WE SPEAK! :-[ :-[ :-[ oH.... THIS IS TONY GOING DOWN IN HISTORY AS WE SPEAK! :-[ :-[ :-[ oH.... THIS IS TONY GOING DOWN IN HISTORY AS WE SPEAK! :-[ :-[ :-[ GEE THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY: TONY HAS TO GO IF THEY WANT TO SAVE THEIR REPUTATION IN THE HISTORY BOOKS!! :o :o ;) :D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:12pm freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:27pm:
Well FD, even allowing for Abbott's stuff up, that's still a bit of a slap in the face to the AGW camp... It pretty much means that nothing we do RIGHT NOW is going to have much effect in the short or medium term... And considering that the currnet temperatures are still below 'optimum' for human life....perhaps a gradual change over and reduction is a better idea.... P.S...Abbott's not a scientist....very few politicians are, that's not what they're hired for....They can only rely on advice from specialists... |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Ernie on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:17pm
"It pretty much means that nothing we do RIGHT NOW is going to have much effect in the short or medium term..."
EVERYTHING we do RIGHT NOW is going to have effects down the line. Instead of 4 degree rises, we can keep it to 2 degrees, by taking action now. The longer we wait, the higher the tempereature rise. Why is that so hard to understand? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:54pm Please delete wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:17pm:
And humans evolved under a temperature +2 degrees higher than now.....why is THAT so hard to understand????? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:59pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
So at what point did we evolve and do you think the clearing of land therefore the reduction in forests to absorb CO2 would have any factor in the theory? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Ernie on Apr 7th, 2011 at 6:09pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
Where does THAT come from? Humans can survive higher temps - if you don't mind a drop in quality of life. When humans evolved, we didn't live in houses on the coast, and we weren't aware when 5 or 10% were severely affected by a climate shift or a weather event. It simply doesn't matter (in terms of humanity) what happened in the deep past, except that we survived. Unless you consider that we might not have survived. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 7th, 2011 at 9:45pm Quote:
No it doesn't. When it has an effect and when temperatures begin to drop again are very different things. Get yourself a bit of paper and draw a few lines on it to get your head around the concept. Quote:
It is not the science I am criticising Abbott on. It is his logic and ability to understand simple concepts. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Apr 7th, 2011 at 10:11pm Please delete wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:17pm:
Because it is not true. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Apr 7th, 2011 at 10:23pm freediver wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 9:45pm:
I have done the doodling. There is no way that such a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere can have such direct and severe consequence. The climate has many, many more components besides CO2, most of them far more significant. How they all interact, we don't understand. How any past climate changes came about - we do not understand fully and if we have any inkling, it towards evidence that they were evidently not related to human CO2. CO2 and temperature, futhermore, are NOT in a direct causal relationship (because of all the other, only dimply, if at all understood players in climate). We know this (that we don't quite know). SO to say that IF we control CO2 we ALSO control temperature is ludicrious. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by mozzaok on Apr 7th, 2011 at 10:54pm Soren wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 10:11pm:
Submit your doodlings to the IPCC Soren, I am sure they will be very relieved to see you have solved this problem so easily. They can spread the good news, "OK world, move along, nothing to worry about, Soren doodled with it, and everything is OK". |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:57pm Please delete wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 4:17pm:
LIBS DON'T LISTEN: THEY JUST SMOKE CRACK AND BORE THEIR MATES STUPID ABOUT PETER COSTELLO!! ;) :) :) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 8th, 2011 at 12:01am Soren wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 10:23pm:
c'MON MATE: WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE BETTER THAN THAT! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 8th, 2011 at 12:04am longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2011 at 9:12am:
You ever heard of a point of inflection?!!? Didn't think so.................! :o :o ;D :D :D :D :-X |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 8th, 2011 at 8:36am Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:59pm:
Well humans evolved LOOONNNGGGG before 1AD for a start ... For Homo Sapien, it was about 250,000 yrs ago, around the Middle Pleistocene, when the temperatures were up to 3C hotter than now... For other hominid species, it's even further back.. Depending on your definition of 'human' it can go back as far as 2 million years... |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Apr 8th, 2011 at 6:46pm mozzaok wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
You have an awful lot of time for mere authority, Mozz old fruit, considering. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by jame-e on Apr 8th, 2011 at 6:51pm mozzaok wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
He's just doing his contrarian bit... hurrah. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm Quote:
So you agree that Abbott completely misunderstood Flannery's comments? I am not asking your opinion of the science, just of your interpretation of Flannery's and Abbott's comments. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Apr 9th, 2011 at 6:39pm freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
No, I don't. Flannery made an off-the cuff remark. Its gist is that stopping the trend he assumes human CO2 has started could take centuries, even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow. All - not just 5, 10, 20 % Abbott correctly put his finger on the lunacy of this whole hyperbolic crap: If we carry on as is, catastrophty will be with us before the century is out. If we stop everything right now, the best thing we can expect is no change for centuries. It takes an idiot to make predictions for centuries into the future. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:05am Quote:
Well technically that is right, if you interpret trend in its most simplistic form. Do you think this is what Abbott said? Quote:
Now you are changing your mind Soren. Do you still not understand the difference? Flannery did not say 'no change for centuries'. He did not imply this in any way. Perhaps you and Abbott have special powers to read his mind and know what he 'really' meant, as most of your arguments seem to revolve around that. But I would like to know if you can understand what he actually said. Quote:
If your prediction allows for plus or minus a few centuries, it is not unreasonable. Again, you should have another look at what Flannery actually said. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 10th, 2011 at 5:14pm
Abbotts public persona has set like concrete: HE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL VANDAL!
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Apr 10th, 2011 at 8:49pm freediver wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:05am:
That's gobsmacking clown-talk FD. Who the bloody hell can say anything with a margin of error of 'plus or minus a few centuries'?? Who has view like that?? Flim Flannery said something so completly stupid that anybody who goes near it, trying to interpret it, will be sucked in by the colossal stupidity of the Flim Flannery and will not be able to escape uncontaminated. That's what happened to Abbot and that's what you are trying to do to me right now. ANyone who engages with what Flim said is doomed. It's just that stupid. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:00pm Soren wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 8:49pm:
I believe "no effect for a1000 years" was thing jumped on. Well if it's 1000 years, 1 or 2 even 3 centuries is a margin of error of 1,2 or 3% A margin that is quite acceptable for everything else. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:15pm Quote:
You left out some zeros. Quote:
It is quite easy Soren. Perhaps you think we should either make no long term predictions at all or only make them if we can predict the precise date and time that the weather will change in 1000 years? It seems perfectly natural to me. I think Abbott's (and his supporter's) tendency to latch onto the 1000 years number as if Flannery had no context at all highlights the absurdly simplistic take they have on the whole climate change debate. Quote:
Perhaps you should quote what he said a bit more often, because the only stupid bit was Abbott's misunderstanding of it. What Flannery said was mainstream climate science. It was so simple and straightforward that I still get a chuckle out of Abbott's mangling of the whole affair. Quote:
So it is Flannery's fault that Abbott ended up looking like a complete idiot? If Abbott is so easy simple minded how did he end up becoming leader of the opposition? Quote:
No Soren. Anyone who engages and tries to push or defend Abbott's misrepresentation is doomed. That is the only stupid bit. What Flannery said was totally unremarkable. It is only what Abbott said that drew attention, and the fault is entirely Abbott's. Of course, no-one who actually understood what was said would bother to engage, because there was not really anything interesting in it. He was just stating the obvious. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by astro_surf on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:25pm
Tim Flannery:
Just let me finish and say this. 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 because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly. IPCC AR4 Chapter 10.ES – Climate Change Commitment (Temperature and Sea Level): Results from the AOGCM multi-model climate change commitment experiments (concentrations stabilised for 100 years at year 2000 for 20th-century commitment, and at 2100 values for B1 and A1B commitment) indicate that if greenhouse gases were stabilised, then a further warming of 0.5°C would occur. This should not be confused with ‘unavoidable climate change’ over the next half century, which would be greater because forcing cannot be instantly stabilised. In the very long term, it is plausible that climate change could be less than in a commitment run since forcing could be reduced below current levels. Most of this warming occurs in the first several decades after stabilisation; afterwards the rate of increase steadily declines. The globally averaged precipitation commitment 100 years after stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations amounts to roughly an additional increase of 1 to 2% compared to the precipitation values at the time of stabilisation. ... If greenhouse gas concentrations could be reduced, global temperatures would begin to decrease within a decade, although sea level would continue to rise due to thermal expansion for at least another century. Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity with coupled carbon cycle model components show that for a reduction to zero emissions at year 2100 the climate would take of the order of 1 kyr to stabilise. At year 3000, the model range for temperature increase is 1.1°C to 3.7°C and for sea level rise due to thermal expansion is 0.23 to 1.05 m. Hence, they are projected to remain well above their pre-industrial values. Nothing Flannery has said is inconsistent with the science as presented by IPCC AR4. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:31pm
Like I said, there is nothing remarkable at all in what Flannery said. What is remarkable is Abbott's incredible stupidity in trying to misrepresent Flannery. Did he think we wouldn't notice?
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by dsmithy70 on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:37pm Quote:
Quote:
Bwhahahahah Let that be a lesson kiddies maths + 1 bottle of red do not mix ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 10th, 2011 at 9:42pm Soren wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 8:49pm:
BYE BYE ABBOTT: GOOD LUCK IN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Soren on Apr 11th, 2011 at 9:10am
FD, I undetrstand prefectly well the difference between what Flannery said (no change in what he takes to be a steady and one way change in climate, ie up) and what Abbott said - not a scrap of difference for a 1000 years, that is, no effect on climate change of any kind.
The difference is inicative of the different perceptions. Flim Flannery is on about steady and linear temperature increases as a direct effct of CO2. But this is evidently not true. Abbott doesn't share that unstated basic assumption that underlpins the Flannereesque fourish. Abbott's point is that even if we took the entire human genereted CO2 out of the equasion, nothing would happen for a 1000 years. He would say that as someone who does not believe that humn generated CO2 is all there is to climate, let alone climate change. You think this is stupid because you take it as accepted that Flim Flannery's underlying scare is true. This is why anybody who goes near the Flanneresque moonbattery will be contaminated: it will assume that there is only one basic assumption to the whole debate and everone shares it an that Flim Flannery's pronouncement ncapsulated it. Not true. However, to make comments on whatever Flim & Co say without every time spelling out the stupidity of their basic assumptions will mean this kind of childish taunting. Abbott didn't misunderstand anything. He just doesn't share the basics. Add to this the VERY important element that Abbott was talking in the Australian Parliament about an Australian carbon tax. Even if you accept Flim's basic assumptions that a total cessation of all human CO2 generation would not make a noticable difference to climate chanage for centuries, the point of an Australin tax woul be less than negligible in the climate change context. Not so, however, in the context of actual people whose liveliehood will be endangered by the tax (for no perceptible difference in their lifetime). That is a very pertinent point to make in a national parliament whose members, alas, need to pay attention to their constituents' lives for the next few years and do not have the luxury to hold forth about what may happen in the year 3000. So the underlying assumptions are everything. If we want to do something for people a dozen generations down the track, we need to be convinced that the basics and the directions of change are indisputable. You may be. Others aren't. Hence the debate. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on Apr 11th, 2011 at 2:08pm Soren wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 9:10am:
Soren doesn't know what an inflection point is ;D ;D :D 8-) 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by freediver on Apr 11th, 2011 at 7:32pm Quote:
Obviously you do not understand. Please quote him. Quote:
Please quote me. Quote:
So why use the 1000 year figure? Does he think there will be a difference after 1000 years? Or is this just more meaningless waffle? Why make a reference to Flannery at all? I'll aswer for you - because Flannery has more authority on the science. Abbott could not offer his own opinion because people laugh at it. In order for people to take him seriously he had to pretend that Flannery said it too. No amount of disagreement over the basics can explain away his misrepresentation of what Flannery said. Quote:
Again Soren, quote him. That is not what he said. Before making up elaborate and nonsensical theories for why Abbott is not an idiot, try to understand what Flannery said. There is a far simpler explanation for why Abbott copped a flogging for 'going near' Flannery - because he completely misunderstood him. Quote:
No Soren. Being able to understand basic English comes first. If you can't do that, why would anyone care about your view of the science? |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by mavisdavis on Apr 11th, 2011 at 7:37pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 2:08pm:
You`d know all about infection points deadhorse. |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on May 4th, 2011 at 4:38pm
TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[
TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[ TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[ TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[ TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[ TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[ TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[ TONY ABBOTT IS A RHODES SCHOLAR!!! :-[ :-[ :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4th, 2011 at 4:39pm
You really don't play with a full deck do you?
|
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Deathridesahorse on May 4th, 2011 at 4:49pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 4:39pm:
People like you don't get far with people like me! ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4th, 2011 at 5:06pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 4:49pm:
I rarely interact with the insane if I am honest. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |