Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8
Send Topic Print
Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem (Read 17979 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 37560
I like fish
Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
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.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #1 - Mar 29th, 2011 at 8:36pm
 
freediver wrote 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.

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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 50904
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #2 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 6:09am
 
freediver wrote 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.


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.
Back to top
 

From one poster: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nanosecond, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family their parents
 
IP Logged
 
chicken_lipsforme
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #3 - 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. Grin
Back to top
 

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11020
Perth
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #4 - 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!!!

Smiley

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)
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
Dsmithy70
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13045
Newy
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #5 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 8:39am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 6:09am:
freediver wrote 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.


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.


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.

Back to top
 

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #6 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:18am
 
freediver wrote 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.



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
Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
chicken_lipsforme
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #7 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:15am
 
philperth2010 wrote 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!!!

Smiley

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)


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?
Back to top
 

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.
 
IP Logged
 
vegitamite
Ex Member


Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #8 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #9 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:49am
 
Quote:
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.



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.
Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
chicken_lipsforme
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #10 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 1:47pm
 
Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 10:49am:
Quote:
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.



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.


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.
Back to top
 

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.
 
IP Logged
 
Foolosophy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #11 - 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 50904
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #12 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:09pm
 
Foolosophy wrote 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.



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.
Back to top
 

From one poster: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nanosecond, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family their parents
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23460
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #13 - Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:14pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:09pm:
Foolosophy wrote 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.



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.


China is not backwards.

and Indian and Egyptians aren't lazy; they are just heavily religious.
Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6222
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #14 - 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 Grin Grin Grin Grin, in which case look out Hugh Jackman.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8
Send Topic Print