Australian Politics Forum - What Makes Nick Tick

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #45 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 4:02am

Quote:

The Yale-George Mason University poll being released Thursday found that 76% of Americans support regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas pollutant and that two-thirds believe the U.S. should pursue policies to reduce its carbon footprint.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-enviro-poll-20120426,0,5490023.story

Perhaps the weird weather they are experiencing in the US is concentrating people's attention.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #46 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 6:03am

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 4:02am:

Quote:

The Yale-George Mason University poll being released Thursday found that 76% of Americans support regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas pollutant and that two-thirds believe the U.S. should pursue policies to reduce its carbon footprint.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-enviro-poll-20120426,0,5490023.story

Perhaps the weird weather they are experiencing in the US is concentrating people's attention.

Perhaps it is a BS poll to conjure up fake support. Wouldn't be the first or last time the left try that on.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #47 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:02am

Looks like lefties dont like giving equal time to the other side. Hardly a surprise when you know where the ideology has its roots.

-------------
An Australian television documentary that gives equal weight to a climate sceptic and a believer has been strongly criticised by scientists as unfairly skewing the evidence on global warming.

Love this stupid statement
Australian documentary gives 'misleading impression that the debate on the science of climate change is not settled'

Then they go onto making all the strange and expected BS about the other side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/26/climate-change-sceptics-austra...

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #48 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:47am

Quote:

"At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism.

While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

olde.sault

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2913

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #49 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:06am

cods wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:42am:

nairbe wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:59am:

____ wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:29am:

[quote author=333F3423500 link=1335381863/1#1 date=1335383236]morning woody

I find it hard to believe they are even talking about this topic still.

havent you taken care of GW???? Cheesy

The carbon tax is not, and have never been claimed to be, the silver bullet.

It is, for the fifty zillionth time, the beginning step.

Hopefully it may register for you this time.

It's about shifting our economy, and sifting all other economies, onto sustainable footing.

Without doing this, everything is lost. Everything including your family.

So continue being selfish for your self while knowing you are dragging the rest of your family to an early grave.

Quite so, it really is hard to believe that caring for the planet we live on, the only planet that can sustain a life form of our type in our solar system, the only planet that we have the ability to reach having never been to another planet is so incredibly difficult. You would think that keeping our life support system in perfect condition would be objective no 1 for us all, but no we would rather have it running on reserve all the time and when it has an issue we use cheap secondhand parts to fix it. It's the low socio attitude, we will eat our resources today and complain when there is nothing left next week, no work, no ecology, no atmosphere, no community but never mind i have it all with no sacrifice the grand kids can go jum

oh poohoo what garbage.. so throwing money at it will change it all.. HOHUM..

I have yet to see where throwing money at something saved or stopped it..

didnt stop the starving in Ethiopia did it???

no matter how much they threw...

no offence here but you are so patronising I find it hard to come to grips with you CARBON TAX FANATICS..

the world is changing its called a natural phenomenon... we dont use the horse and cart anymore it was superseded..

and one day soon so will the car and aeroplane be superseded, not in my time or yours.. but it will happen..

mankind is very inventive you know..in fact its only happy if it is changing things day in day out..

industry is being taken over by technology, most of which goes over my head I will grant you

but I do know my car only goes in for a service every once in a while.. where as once upon time it was every few months..why because its improved its cleaner its a fact..I make sure I have all sorts of stars on my appliances or white goods..they are improving on them.. I do all the recycling..I waste very little I wear clothes I bought 20 years ago..dont you tell me I dont care....just because I dont think ..

""oh well lets sit back and throw money at it.. at us are'nt we the clever people?".....what more can we do..we care.. you dont!

I can think of saving a few kids lives RIGHT NOW.. not in 50 years might be a goer...

the first step was taken a few years ago... like I said industry was changing..

just because you believe a picture of Cate standing in front of a "power station" that went out of service 30 years ago..

doesnt mean you have saved the world.

And I bet that power station (adorned by Cate) was belching black smoke--

Cate is a good actress and she should stick to acting.

It is a pity she has revealed her beliefs or her stupidity. I used to watch all her films now I shrink when I see her on the screen.

My question is, is she a dumbbell who has been sucked in by this hoax or is she deriving some benefit from siding with the stinking leftards?

Back to top

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #50 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:09am

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:47am:

Quote:

"At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism.

While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow.

You do realize that in the time of Galileo, the vast majority of 'scientists' were certain the sun revolved around the earth?
A small percentage believed the earth revolved in an orbit around the sun.

The majority are not always right - and at times - have been catastrophically wrong.

Or do you take a 'safety in numbers' view?

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

olde.sault

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2913

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #51 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:17am

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:36pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

I'm not willing to gamble on my grand kids future when it comes to climate change and a clean energy future but its obvious that some people are.
Just remember to tell your grand kids what side you were on when the burden is placed wholly on their shoulders.

Your grand kids are more likely to ask 'grandpa, were you one of those idiots that thought the world was going to fry?' as they look to a world that has a bit of a 'cooling problem'. I trust you will be honest.

I doubt that he has any grandchildren or anybody to care about and that's why he is helping the leftards to destroy this country with hoaxes.

If pensioners are going to be compensated for this carbon "dioxide" tax (CO2 that is a clear gas
and necessary for all living things) many care about the future of their descendants so won't be backing Labor or Greens during the next election.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #52 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:36am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:09am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:47am:

Quote:

"At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism.

While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow.

You do realize that in the time of Galileo, the vast majority of 'scientists' were certain the sun revolved around the earth?
A small percentage believed the earth revolved in an orbit around the sun.

The majority are not always right - and at times - have been catastrophically wrong.

Or do you take a 'safety in numbers' view?

Ridiculous analogy. Today's scientists are using the evidence based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. If there was a Galileo type maverick out there who had the scientific evidence to disprove AGW his position would quickly gain traction amongst other scientists. That has not happened. If you believe that scientific methods have not improved since the time of Galileo, it would explain your willingness to discard the vast bulk of scientific evidence in this field.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #53 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:52am

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:36am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:09am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:47am:

Quote:

"At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism.

While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow.

You do realize that in the time of Galileo, the vast majority of 'scientists' were certain the sun revolved around the earth?
A small percentage believed the earth revolved in an orbit around the sun.

The majority are not always right - and at times - have been catastrophically wrong.

Or do you take a 'safety in numbers' view?

Ridiculous analogy. Today's scientists are using the evidence based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. If there was a Galileo type maverick out there who had the scientific evidence to disprove AGW his position would quickly gain traction amongst other scientists. That has not happened. If you believe that scientific methods have not improved since the time of Galileo, it would explain your willingness to discard the vast bulk of scientific evidence in this field.

For starters, there is no climate scientist that has proved the theory and the climate science has taken science to pseudo science and peer-review to a joke.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: What Makes Nick Tick
Reply #54 - Apr 28^th, 2012 at 10:15am

What would prove AGW to your satisfaction, progs?

What bit has not been proven to your satisfaction. The properties of CO2 that allow it to absorb and kick back radiated heat, the directly observed increase in atmospheric CO2 brought about by human activity, the satellite measurements that show us less energy is escaping to space at the CO2 absorption wavelength or is it the ocean and temperature measurements that show us our planet is continuing to warm.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged