Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8
Send Topic Print
Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem (Read 33274 times)
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #30 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:49am
 
philperth2010 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:16pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:18pm:
philperth2010 wrote 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???
Smiley


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 everything 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.



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!!

Wink


I like the way you use hysteria as a response. Nicely done.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Dsmithy70
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #31 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:52am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:49am:
philperth2010 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:16pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:18pm:
philperth2010 wrote 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???
Smiley


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 everything 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.



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!!

Wink


I like the way you use hysteria as a response. Nicely done.


I love the way your whole argument is based on 1/2 truths,outright lies, character assasination, intimidation, misinformation & the threat of economic ruin Cool
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
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #32 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:58am
 
mozzaok wrote 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.


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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #33 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:59am
 
Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:52am:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:49am:
philperth2010 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 9:16pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 7:18pm:
philperth2010 wrote 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???
Smiley


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 everything 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.



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!!

Wink


I like the way you use hysteria as a response. Nicely done.


I love the way your whole argument is based on 1/2 truths,outright lies, character assasination, intimidation, misinformation & the threat of economic ruin Cool


Put up reasons to support a carbon tax and I will destroy all of them using ARGUMENT and rationality. Knock yourself out.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Dsmithy70
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #34 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:07am
 
Quote:
and you pretend that ACC/AGW has the support of all these scientists but when a scientist of some note and acclaim disputes ACC


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:
Put up reasons to support a carbon tax and I will destroy all of them using ARGUMENT and rationality. Knock yourself out.


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 Wink
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.
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
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #35 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:18am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:58am:
mozzaok wrote 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.


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.


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.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
vegitamite
Ex Member


Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #36 - 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_s...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #37 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:38am
 
mozzaok wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:18am:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:58am:
mozzaok wrote 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.


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.


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.


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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, 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 #38 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 1:48pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:38am:
mozzaok wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 8:18am:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:58am:
mozzaok wrote 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.


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.


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.


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.



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. Smiley
Back to top
 

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

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #39 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:43pm
 
It's just amazing to read this thread and see who the 'coolaid' drinkers are...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Luke Fowler
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 320
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #40 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:27pm
 
mozzaok wrote 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.


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.
Back to top
 

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad. Salvador Dali
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #41 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:30pm
 
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'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!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Luke Fowler
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 320
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #42 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:30pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:43pm:
It's just amazing to read this thread and see who the 'coolaid' drinkers are...



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.
Back to top
 

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad. Salvador Dali
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47066
At my desk.
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #43 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:46pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:48am:
freediver wrote 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:
Face it. Flannery doesnt beleive anything we do wil make any difference.


He said the opposite.

Quote:
Yet the likes of Flannery will utter millenial predictions


No he won't. Read what he actually said.

Quote:
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


Try reading what I posted. That is not the distinction I made.

Quote:
Another one would be for the government to extend the rebate for solar power installation.


That would damage our economy a lot more per unit of emissions reductions than the carbon tax.

Quote:
Perhaps he is just playing dumb


I am hoping that is the case for a few here.

Quote:
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!!!!


It does not need an excuse. There is nothing even significant about the statement. It is 'mainstream' climate change.

Quote:
since he is openly admitting it wont work


No he isn't Longy.

Quote:
his argument is so far off the track of the IPCC's predictions


No they are not. They do not contradict them.

Quote:
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.


It is not constradictory and we do not look like idiots, except to people with some very basic reading comprehension problems.


You have some serious comprehension problems and you are jumpin thru hoops and bending backwards to try and support Flannerys ridiculous statement.


Given up on the rational argument already longy? Didn't take you long this time.

Quote:
Put up reasons to support a carbon tax and I will destroy all of them using ARGUMENT and rationality. Knock yourself out.


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:
Flannery is an idiot who effectively said...


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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 31st, 2011 at 7:08pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's 1000 year reading comprehension problem
Reply #44 - Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:26pm
 
Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:27pm:
mozzaok wrote 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.


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.


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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8
Send Topic Print