Australian Politics Forum - Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.

Frances Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3577 In a Castle in the Hills Gender:	Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors. Reply #30 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:15am Alan Jones submitting to ''factual accuracy'' training? That would be a bit like training a pit bull terrier to play with toddlers....
Back to top	Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece. IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors. Reply #31 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:34am if this thread isnt the biggest waaaaaaambulance thread I have seen........
Back to top	IP Logged

bambu

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1084
Gender: male

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #32 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:46am

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:04am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:25am:

Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training.

Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple. "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.''

Fair enough, I've heard him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear.

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Which begs the question:

Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature?

Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful.

No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

Another question;

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

Back to top

IP Logged

bambu

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1084
Gender: male

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #33 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:51am

Frances wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:15am:

Alan Jones submitting to ''factual accuracy'' training? That would be a bit like training a pit bull terrier to play with toddlers....

LOL

He said, para; "Factual accuracy? I'll give them factual accuracy, factual accuracy about everything wrong this govt [the Gillard govt] is doing!!!"

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors. Reply #34 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:58am The problem with these lefty dictators is that they dont like jones giving people the other side of the debate in such a way that they may get it. You cant control the people if you have alan jones types on the radio.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors. Reply #35 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:03am progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:34am: if this thread isnt the biggest waaaaaaambulance thread I have seen........ Just think of it as another opportunity to display your intellectual cowardice, progs.
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

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 61818 Here Gender:	Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors. Reply #36 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:06am I would say to boycott all the right wing media propagandists and their advertisers. Show them that if they can not provide an honest balanced broadcast they will not be viable.
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #37 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:06am

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:58am:

The problem with these lefty dictators is that they dont like jones giving people the other side of the debate in such a way that they may get it.

You cant control the people if you have alan jones types on the radio.

on one hand you have every major scientific organisation arguing the science .... and on the other you have crackpot Alan arguing against the science .... progs your an idiot to even think he presents 'another side of the debate' ..... all the major scientific bodies agree that there is no debate ...

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors. Reply #38 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:09am I wouldnt take toilet cleaning advice from Jones let alone advice on the future of the planet.
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #39 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:11am

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:04am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:25am:

Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training.

Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple. "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.''

Fair enough, I've heard him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear.

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Which begs the question:

Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature?

Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful.

No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

Another question;

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

What are you disagreeing with bambu. You sound confused and we've hardly started.

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

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61818
Here
Gender: male

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #40 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:14am

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:31am:

Quote:

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

It goes to show how vindictive, insidious and downright nasty these lefties still are, and still going after one man all because of one OFF THE CUFF REMARK which everyone acknowledge was low, But nooooo, they want to politically persecute him further

Yet it is absolutly OK to go after Slipper in the same manner over some personal texts which should have never been made public. vindictive, insidious and downright nasty looks accurate.

Back to top

IP Logged

bambu

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1084
Gender: male

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #41 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:15am

John Smith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:58am:

The problem with these lefty dictators is that they dont like jones giving people the other side of the debate in such a way that they may get it.

You cant control the people if you have alan jones types on the radio.

on one hand you have every major scientific organisation arguing the science .... and on the other you have crackpot Alan arguing against the science .... progs your an idiot to even think he presents 'another side of the debate' ..... all the major scientific bodies agree that there is no debate ...

Really, not according to the congaline of scientists Alan Jones has intervewed on his show over the last few years...the podcasts are on his 2GB page.

Oh, and sea levels fell last year...so much for having to build a 'beach house in the Blue Mountains'.

All or most Central Coast councils have now cancelled the 'warnings/notations' or whatever they had on properties...about rising sea levels and the 'climate change/global warming permanent floods' that were claimed to be going to happen.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #42 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:16am

As far as CO2 being a pollutant, I don't plan on getting bogged down in semantics. I think the US EPA words it well.

Quote:

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment

Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity

WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252

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

bambu

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1084
Gender: male

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #43 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:18am

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:11am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:04am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:25am:

Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training.

Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple. "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.''

Fair enough, I've heard him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear.

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Which begs the question:

Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature?

Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful.

No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

Another question;

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

You sound confused and we've hardly started.

Nah, just asking some simple questions.

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
Yes, or no, it's one or the other.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61818
Here
Gender: male

Re: Time to boycott 2GB and all its sponsors.
Reply #44 - Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:18am

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:04am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:25am:

Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training.

Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple. "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.''

Fair enough, I've heard him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear.

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Which begs the question:

Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature?

Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful.

No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

Yes but that 97% is also used by nature. It is the Human component which breaks the balance and causes an accelerating accumulation of excess carbon in the atmosphers.

Back to top

IP Logged