Australian Politics Forum - Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #255 - May 17^th, 2011 at 1:05pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:03am:

Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.

More flagrant lies from somebody whose entire understanding of the science comes from denier screeds and polemicists like Andrew Bolt.

Citation or it didn't happen, numbnuts.

What lies are those.
You think it's easy to guesstimate world average temps from a thousand years ago when no white man was in the Pacific region let alone anyone in Europe logging temperatures, as opposed to in nine years time or a thousand years in the future.
The only citation you require is the one from the court putting you in the loony bin if you do.
Face it, the 'science' and entire arguement is based on guesstimate figures.

You should know by now that the guesstimations are only reliable when it is able to be used by scaremongerers to support the world wide scam of climate change or global warming.

Back to top

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #256 - May 17^th, 2011 at 1:08pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:07am:

astro_surf wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 11:56am:

adelcrow wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 8:31pm:

Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies Grin

His quals aren't the problem
It's the simple fact that not one of his doom and gloom predictions has happened.
Perhaps he should try reading tea leaves instead.

You keep repeating the lie even though you can't support it. Other than the lies Andrew Bolt writes, I doubt you've ever even read a anything Flannery has every written. And you keep repeating the lie even after it's been shown to be a lie. You people sure do like to revel in your pig headed ignorance, don't you?

Support what, like the dams aren't empty of water?
The lie is in that they are full, and we haven't run out.
Nice try.

If there wasnt such an abundance of water the gullible gerties would be shouting about global warming, and Flannery would be repeating his claims of no rain cause of global warming.

Guess all the rain flushed those gerties down the sink.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #257 - May 17^th, 2011 at 1:49pm

I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-quee...

But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-...

Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!

That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one,
the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

Back to top

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #258 - May 17^th, 2011 at 2:29pm

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-quee...

But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-...

Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!

That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one,
the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets.

Back to top

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

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #259 - May 17^th, 2011 at 2:42pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-quee...

But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-...

Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!

That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one,
the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets.

I think, you will find that is incorrect!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53199
At my desk.

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #260 - May 17^th, 2011 at 7:37pm

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 9:54pm:

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 9:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 4:38pm:

you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.

I'm not talking about weather events,

Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).

Do you agree that Abbott lied about what Flannery said?

No.

(we've done this already, FD, don't be like a goldfish; for them it's a brand new world at every turn of the aquarium.)

You keep getting distracted before you are able to comment on it Soren. Remember the picture I drew for you?

No. Do you?

Here you go again Soren. Seeing as you keep having trouble with it, I'll add it to my signature for you.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 1:02pm:

So basically Abbott lied and you now try desperately to change the topic, but as soon as you are offered a chance to defend Abbott, you suddenly get all shy on us?

WHat did Flannery say? And what did Abbott say that was a lie about what Flannery said?

From the opening post in this thread:

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:07pm:

If the coalition keeps stumbling on such basic mathematical and logical concepts, how can they be expected to grasp the science and the economics of the issue?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#should-to...

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #261 - May 17^th, 2011 at 8:30pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 7:03am:

Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.

More flagrant lies from somebody whose entire understanding of the science comes from denier screeds and polemicists like Andrew Bolt.

Citation or it didn't happen, numbnuts.

What lies are those.
You think it's easy to guesstimate world average temps from a thousand years ago when no white man was in the Pacific region let alone anyone in Europe logging temperatures, as opposed to in nine years time or a thousand years in the future.
The only citation you require is the one from the court putting you in the loony bin if you do.
Face it, the 'science' and entire arguement is based on guesstimate figures.

A. You don't need "white men" to record temperature, you racist piece of poo, there are many, many ways to accurately reconstruct past climatic conditions through a wide variety of proxy measurements.

B. Calculating future climatic conditions is merely a case of knowing the physical properties of particular gasses and extrapolating the rate at which they reabsorb and scatter longwave radiation. A very basic technique but one accurate enough for Sventius Arrenhius to calculate over 120 years ago and predict with a very high degree of accuracy what the temperature would be once CO2 concentrations reached the level they are at today. The only thing he got wrong was WHEN that would happen because the one thing he couldn't predict was the sudden rise in CO2 emissions. Based on CO2 levels at the time he made the calculations, he didn't think we'd see warming to the degree that we are for atr least 500 years. But the basic physical model for HOW the climate warms and the rate that it happens at is really quite elementary.

Once again, your simplistic assumptions belie the vacuousness of you grasp on the science that underpins AGW. You're basically just an ignorant chump with an ideological axe to grind.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 17^th, 2011 at 9:30pm by astro_surf »

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #262 - May 17^th, 2011 at 8:51pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets.

What are you, a guinea pig or something? You going to have a lot of descendents over the next hundred years!

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #263 - May 17^th, 2011 at 9:20pm FD, where did Flannery say in that interview - or anywhere ele - that temperature will rise as per your diagram (scary red line ) if emission is not cut to zero tomorrow by the whole world?
Back to top	IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #264 - May 17^th, 2011 at 9:27pm

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 1000 years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed

...

Even if every country in the world adopts economy-killing carbon caps, they’ll have to wait about 1,000 years for global temperatures to fall, says Australia’s newly appointed climate commissioner.

Tim Flannery, a zoologist and author of an acclaimed 2005 book on climage change, “The Weather Makers,” compares skeptics of global warming to “flat Earth believers.” But he made a point that most global warming alarmists gloss over when he threw down this lightning bolt in an interview with Macquarie Radio’s Andrew Bolt:

“If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.”

That’s not just in Australia, mind you. That’s cutting emissions worldwide.

Under continued questioning by Bolt, Flannery said: “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.”

A stunned Bolt says in a classic understatment: “That doesn’t seem a good deal… Someone surely must have done the sums that for all these billions of dollars we’re spending in programs that it’s got to have a consequence in terms of cutting the world’s temperature. So you don’t know about Australia, you wouldn’t dispute that it’s within about a thousandth of a degree, around that magnitude, right?”

Flannery agrees: “It’s going to be slight.”

A thousand years is a long time to wait for results.

———-

and here is the translation..you will never defeat global warming so you will be taxed infinitely for it..what a great idea..a problem that they say can never be fixed means you will ALWAYS pay for it..

and if we look at the accuracy of flanneys other predictions..he probably means 10, 000 years

Great scaremongering, but only the gullible gerties believe Flannery......a zoologist!

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/tim-flannery-if-we-cut-emissions-today-global-temperatures-are-not-likely-to-drop-for-about-a-thousand-years/

And check out the video, some global warmists are starting to realise the hoax that they were scammed by.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 17^th, 2011 at 9:35pm by creep »

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #265 - May 17^th, 2011 at 9:37pm

creep wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:

and here is the translation..you will never defeat global warming so you will be taxed infinitely for it..what a great idea..a problem that they say can never be fixed means you will ALWAYS pay for it..

and if we look at the accuracy of flanneys other predictions..he probably means 10, 000 years

Great scaremongering, but only the gullible gerties believe Flannery......a zoologist!

What is a gertie anyway?

Flannery's comments are made on the basis that that is how long iot takes the carbon cycle to absorb CO2. It's a very elementary fact that anybody with even the vaguest of familiarity with geology should know. The only controversy here is the willful misinterpretation of the comment by Bolt, which seems to be a really prominent constant in everything you have to say about AGW, funnily enough. And if you think he said it because it will allow the Left Wing Elite to tax people for 1000 years instead of merely for 500 years, it shows just how much of a deads**t moron of a conspiracy theorst you really are! Grin

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #266 - May 17^th, 2011 at 9:43pm

And when a gullible gertie "cant handle the truth" they resort to attacking.

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.

But what is funny, my comment was from another source LOL
And funniest is that it refers to a scientist that once believed in the world wide global warming scam but has realised that the global warming crap is nothing but a scam.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53199
At my desk.

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #267 - May 17^th, 2011 at 9:44pm

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:20pm:

FD, where did Flannery say in that interview - or anywhere ele - that temperature will rise as per your diagram (scary red line ) if emission is not cut to zero tomorrow by the whole world?

He didn't. There is an arrow to illustrate what Flannery said. The whole point is that he did not say what Abbott claims he said.

Quote:

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.

Abbott was parrotting Bolt. Bolt is just as wrong as Abbott.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #268 - May 17^th, 2011 at 9:51pm

creep wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:43pm:

And when a gullible gertie "cant handle the truth" they resort to attacking.

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.

We already have, you just refuse to acknowledge it because you're too stupid to understand what's being discussed.

Quote:

But what is funny, my comment was from another source LOL
And funniest is that it refers to a scientist that once believed in the world wide global warming scam but has realised that the global warming crap is nothing but a scam.

O Rly? And just how many citations does Dr. seeker401 have exactly? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #269 - May 17^th, 2011 at 9:58pm

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

creep wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:43pm:

And when a gullible gertie "cant handle the truth" they resort to attacking.

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.

We already have, you just refuse to acknowledge it because you're too stupid to understand what's being discussed.

No, you haven't debunked Bolt in the slightest. In fact you can't.
It really is quite funny that you wish to go up against Bolt when he has already done the research and you just "can't handle the truth" of the results.
Just cause you say a circle is a square does not make it so.
The rest of the world know that it is a square.
But you can keep trying to convince yourself, meanwhile the rest of the world will sit back and ...just laugh at you.

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Quote:

But what is funny, my comment was from another source LOL
And funniest is that it refers to a scientist that once believed in the world wide global warming scam but has realised that the global warming crap is nothing but a scam.

O Rly? And just how many citations does Dr. seeker401 have exactly? Roll Eyes

Yessssss....a scientist, a global warming scientis, Muller a former advocate of the crap global warming. But sanity got the better of him.
Maybe if you opened your eyes then you'd see.

Back to top

IP Logged