Australian Politics Forum - Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?

Flying Binghi

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 252
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #270 - May 17^th, 2011 at 10:09pm

From the thread starter link -

“Over the next two decades Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal –fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like France and in doing so we would have done something great for the world” via Tim Flannery.

Flannery's got a good idea there. We could then turn our coal into cheap self suficiant jet-A to power all them tourist carrying jets bringing money to Oz.. Cool

i
.

Back to top

IP Logged

Flying Binghi

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 252
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #271 - May 17^th, 2011 at 10:26pm

While i'm on Flannery and nuclear -

Climate change is so catastrophic and imminent that only nuclear power can save us,”….”If Australia were to switch from coal to nuclear power, we would make only a small reduction (about 1 per cent) in global carbon dioxide pollution. But it would be a noble act, for our carbon dioxide pollution is devastating the entire world.”- (The Age 5/8/ 2006)

http://antinuclear.net/2011/02/11/pro-nuclear-tim-flannery-is-wrong-choice-for-climate-change-communicator/

........ One percent.. Huh

...fek the entire countrys economy fer ONE PERCENT !!! Angry

i
.

Back to top

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #272 - May 17^th, 2011 at 10:27pm

creep wrote on 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.

No, you're an idiot, your Bolt quotes have already been thoroughly pwned but you're to stupid to admit it.

And who is this "Muller"? What papers has he published and how many citations does he have?

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

astro_surf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2981	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #273 - May 17^th, 2011 at 10:30pm Flying Binghi wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 10:26pm: .fek the entire countrys economy No.
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 #274 - May 17^th, 2011 at 10:35pm

The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.
The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.

Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!

What the ...

So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!

But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.

But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.

Back to top

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #275 - May 17^th, 2011 at 11:05pm

creep wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.

No it's not.

Quote:

The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.

Interesting. I'll give you points for at least being across the latest sceptic line from ACTUAL sceptical climatologists, ie. Spencer and Christy. The fact that your citing a current debate, no matter how redundant the debate may actually be, is pretty impressive for a denier.

Personally, I'm happy to leave such debates to those qualified to have them and let evidence fall where it may. I'd be happier than anyone if Spencer et al proved correct but the weight of evidence suggests that won't happen. Spencer is a crusty old contrarian but he is qualified to make such arguments, whereas i am sure as poo not qualified to dispute them. However, there are those who ARE qualified enough to make the argument and they aren't to enamored with his hypothesis. i guess for plebes like us only time will tell!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback...

Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al. [/quote]

It IS great logic. Why should China pay for America's pollution? We developed this carbon intensive model of economic growth, we have an interest in and a responsibility to develop a low carbon model of growth. Granted, the Kyoto model was drawn up before China went into two decades of unimaginable growth and there is a good argument to be made that the previous designation of China as a developing economy isn't exactly true anymore, the fact is that whoever DOES successfully develop a low carbon growth model will be the power thatr leads the world throught the 21st century and it would be in the West's interest that it be us.

Quote:

Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!

What the ...

The goal isn't to reduce emissions to zero, it is to try and prevent a warming of >2 degrees C. Although the window is rapidly closing, we can still achieve something close to this if we do something and the models floated at Copenhagen COULD achieve it, but that it requires the West developing the model for China to adopt. Yes, we will have to do more, but as you correctly point out, we (the West) is responsible for the vast majority of excess carbon in the atmosphere today.

Quote:

So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!

No it's not. How can it be "irrelevant" if the worlds second biggest emitter reduces emissions by 80%? If we can slow emissions to almost zero within 50 years hen we MIGHT have a chance of NOT tipping the planet into an uncontrollable warming event of >4 degrees C.

But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.

Quote:

But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.

There WILL be a global agreement soon and we will have some form of green tariff's in place.

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

astro_surf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2981	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #276 - May 17^th, 2011 at 11:06pm Still waiting for you 'Muller' citations, whoever the hell he might be.
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

Flying Binghi

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 252
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #277 - May 17^th, 2011 at 11:25pm

"...But it would be a noble act, for our carbon dioxide pollution is devastating the entire world..." via Tim Flannery

Yo, Flannery, get with the act. Yer gotta be more hip and call it carbon pollution now, not carbon dioxide pollution.

...and "our" carbon dioxide 'pollution' is devastating the entire world.. Huh

WOW!!!.. our ONE PERCENT of 'pollution' is doing that.. Roll Eyes

............ Grin

i

.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #278 - May 18^th, 2011 at 12:09am

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

Still waiting for you 'Muller' citations, whoever the hell he might be.

Would the scientist David Evans do you, or maybe the climatologist Richard Lindzen.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

I like the following.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 18^th, 2011 at 8:47am by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #279 - May 18^th, 2011 at 12:44am

freediver wrote on 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.

I had another look. Global temperature averages incresed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees in the last century or so, depending on who you are listyening to. Not all (if any) of it is due to humans, and not all of that human contribution (if any) is due to CO2.

Flannery made a prediction about when tempratures would fall (in centuries), if all human CO2 emission topped (not methane or water vapor emission). I think it is a very stupid thing to say. He was rattled by Bolt and he came out ith a massive howler.

So Abbott is exactly right when he says that an Australian carbon tax will not make a scrap of difference to the environment in a 1000 years. He could have said any number between 1 and a million.

So no apology is due, Flannery is an ass.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #280 - May 18^th, 2011 at 1:23am

Soren wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 12:44am:

freediver wrote on 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.

I had another look. Global temperature averages incresed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees in the last century or so, depending on who you are listyening to. Not all (if any) of it is due to humans, and not all of that human contribution (if any) is due to CO2.

Flannery made a prediction about when tempratures would fall (in centuries), if all human CO2 emission topped (not methane or water vapor emission). I think it is a very stupid thing to say. He was rattled by Bolt and he came out ith a massive howler.

So Abbott is exactly right when he says that an Australian carbon tax will not make a scrap of difference to the environment in a 1000 years. He could have said any number between 1 and a million.

So no apology is due, Flannery is an ass.

If only he could have answered about our 1% emissions. Does that mean it could take 100000 years to show a difference in temperature if we go it alone and stop all emissions.

/sarcasm

Back to top

IP Logged

creep Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1881	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #281 - May 18^th, 2011 at 5:45am And for the gullible gerties out there Here's a global warmist Professor in Physics Richard Muller
Back to top	IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #282 - May 18^th, 2011 at 6:03am

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 11:05pm:

creep wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.

No it's not.

Quote:

The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.

Interesting. I'll give you points for at least being across the latest sceptic line from ACTUAL sceptical climatologists, ie. Spencer and Christy. The fact that your citing a current debate, no matter how redundant the debate may actually be, is pretty impressive for a denier.

Personally, I'm happy to leave such debates to those qualified to have them and let evidence fall where it may. I'd be happier than anyone if Spencer et al proved correct but the weight of evidence suggests that won't happen. Spencer is a crusty old contrarian but he is qualified to make such arguments, whereas i am sure as poo not qualified to dispute them. However, there are those who ARE qualified enough to make the argument and they aren't to enamored with his hypothesis. i guess for plebes like us only time will tell!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback...

Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.

It IS great logic. Why should China pay for America's pollution? We developed this carbon intensive model of economic growth, we have an interest in and a responsibility to develop a low carbon model of growth. Granted, the Kyoto model was drawn up before China went into two decades of unimaginable growth and there is a good argument to be made that the previous designation of China as a developing economy isn't exactly true anymore, the fact is that whoever DOES successfully develop a low carbon growth model will be the power thatr leads the world throught the 21st century and it would be in the West's interest that it be us.

Quote:

Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!

What the ...

The goal isn't to reduce emissions to zero, it is to try and prevent a warming of >2 degrees C. Although the window is rapidly closing, we can still achieve something close to this if we do something and the models floated at Copenhagen COULD achieve it, but that it requires the West developing the model for China to adopt. Yes, we will have to do more, but as you correctly point out, we (the West) is responsible for the vast majority of excess carbon in the atmosphere today.

Quote:

So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!

No it's not. How can it be "irrelevant" if the worlds second biggest emitter reduces emissions by 80%? If we can slow emissions to almost zero within 50 years hen we MIGHT have a chance of NOT tipping the planet into an uncontrollable warming event of >4 degrees C.

But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.

Quote:

But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.

There WILL be a global agreement soon and we will have some form of green tariff's in place.
[/quote]

You're just embarrassing yourself now.
You don't understand the issue whatsoever.

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 #283 - May 18^th, 2011 at 7:07am

perceptions_now wrote on 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!

Ke?
I suspect I won't be around.
Will you?

Back to top

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

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

buzzanddidj Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14248 Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC Gender:	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #284 - May 18^th, 2011 at 7:20am creep wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:50pm: Wonder when Flannery will be retracking his outrageous comments As in *repeating* ?
Back to top	'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.' - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi IP Logged