Australian Politics Forum - When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #15 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:10am

Fuzzball wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:05am:

Why tag onto my opening post with your propaganda pictures.

Like your "propaganda" picture?

Not even in the same league.

Not a competition lovey......

Tasmania fires: First images of World Heritage Area devastation emerge, show signs of 'system collapse'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454149439

An actual photo of the face of dangerous climate collapse.

Not propaganda that you posted.
Perhaps you should frequent the kiddy section of the internet.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #16 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:34am

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:46am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:30am:

The greens are climate terrorists. They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia.

That particular debate was between Labor and the climate denialists in the Liberal party, so to stitch up a deal where coal emissions wouldn't be effected until after 2033.

Well done Greens for destroying that debate ... however they were supposed to have achieved the two old parties falling out when Greens were not present at the dirty dealings ... me think the climate terrorists here in this thread ~ trying to blame the Greens ~ don't have very good memory recall.

Keep telling yourself that. History sees it a different way. The greens said no to an ETS and then brought in the same, only with a much higher price that was denounced by even the Grattan institute. As a result of this the greens destroyed any hopes of proper action. Well done greens. The real terrorists.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #17 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:03am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:34am:

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:46am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:30am:

The greens are climate terrorists. They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia.

That particular debate was between Labor and the climate denialists in the Liberal party, so to stitch up a deal where coal emissions wouldn't be effected until after 2033.

Well done Greens for destroying that debate ... however they were supposed to have achieved the two old parties falling out when Greens were not present at the dirty dealings ... me think the climate terrorists here in this thread ~ trying to blame the Greens ~ don't have very good memory recall.

Keep telling yourself that. History sees it a different way. The greens said no to an ETS and then brought in the same, only with a much higher price that was denounced by even the Grattan institute. As a result of this the greens destroyed any hopes of proper action. Well done greens. The real terrorists.

The damage had already been done by Labor ... your argument is false.

Labor was terrified by the majority desiring real action on dangerous climate change and so they created a false prophet in Kevin Rudd, who crashed that support onto the rocks with a dirty deal with the denialist in the coalition. Labor then ran away from any action on dangerous climate change.

It's about time you educated yourself on this issue ... and if you are educated, then stop lying.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #18 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:28am

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:34am:

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:46am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:30am:

The greens are climate terrorists. They systemetically destroyed the debate in Australia.

That particular debate was between Labor and the climate denialists in the Liberal party, so to stitch up a deal where coal emissions wouldn't be effected until after 2033.

Well done Greens for destroying that debate ... however they were supposed to have achieved the two old parties falling out when Greens were not present at the dirty dealings ... me think the climate terrorists here in this thread ~ trying to blame the Greens ~ don't have very good memory recall.

Keep telling yourself that. History sees it a different way. The greens said no to an ETS and then brought in the same, only with a much higher price that was denounced by even the Grattan institute. As a result of this the greens destroyed any hopes of proper action. Well done greens. The real terrorists.

The damage had already been done by Labor ... your argument is false.

Labor was terrified by the majority desiring real action on dangerous climate change and so they created a false prophet in Kevin Rudd, who crashed that support onto the rocks with a dirty deal with the denialist in the coalition. Labor then ran away from any action on dangerous climate change.

It's about time you educated yourself on this issue ... and if you are educated, then stop lying.

Who's lying? If the ETS was so bad why did the greens bring in an exact same policy, except with a higher price that was too high????? Greens destroyed the debate. They are the true terrorists.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

____ Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 33410 Australia Gender:	Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism? Reply #19 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 11:39am You are. Labor destroyed majority support for action on dangerous climate change and then walked away from a Double Dissolution since their trickery would of been exposed. Labor crashed the debate.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism? Reply #20 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 11:43am Greens voted down the CPRS because they do not want an effective, permanent ETS. Their behavior since Rudd’s CPRS confirms this. Greens are Libs in green coats really.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #21 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 11:53am

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 11:43am:

Greens voted down the CPRS because they do not want an effective, permanent ETS.

Their behavior since Rudd’s CPRS confirms this.

Greens are Libs in green coats really.

Greens voted against Labor and Coalition's negotiated CPRS because it locked in no reduction in coal pollution emissions until after 2033 ... locked in massive payouts to the polluters for nothing in return ... and locked in massive compensation to the polluters if the dirty scheme was retro-fixed later on.

Then when the coalition pulled out to stuff up Labor, the dirty scheme failed. Rather than take it to a DD, labor retreated because voters would of realised Labor and Liberal's trickery.

Greens were happy to green up Labor's scheme yet Labor refused to negotiate ... including a ban on meeting with Greens Leader, Bob Brown, for over 12 months.

Gingko is suppose to be good herbal assistance for memory ... increases the oxygen to the brain. Perhaps you should consider it !

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism? Reply #22 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 12:23pm Blah de blah de blah It is because of the Greens that we do not have an ETS right now.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

____ Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 33410 Australia Gender:	Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism? Reply #23 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 1:13pm Poor little labor supporter ... blaming all of labor's mistakes on everyone else.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism? Reply #24 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 2:31pm Open your eyes: the Greens have ensured we have no ETS now!
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

Kiron22

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 896
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #25 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:06pm

An ETS that would have done nothing and is no better than direct action.

What was the point?

On topic, One of my friends is a climate scientist and he says pretty much to us we're f**ked, humanity might not go extinct, but for real intents and purposes, the human race will likely collapse due to climate change and we're already done for and the data shows this already.

Even when I was a kid, Scientists were far more open about how dangerous climate change was and that was decades ago, the witch hunt you can tell has really taken its toll.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #26 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:19pm

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:09am:

A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic.

However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky:

It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist...

Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes.

Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc

Back to top

IP Logged

Kiron22

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 896
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #27 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:23pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:19pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:09am:

A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic.

However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky:

It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist...

Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes.

Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/climate-findings-suppressed-researchers/2007/03/09/1173166991649.html

Exactly the opposite, Government agencies suppressed lots of the final draft as so they could excuse themselves not taking action on climate change.

Back to top

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #28 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:25pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:19pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:09am:

A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic.

However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky:

It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist...

Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes.

Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc

We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: When Will Libs Stop Supporting Climate Terrorism?
Reply #29 - Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:45pm

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:25pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:19pm:

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:09am:

A sizable group of climate scientists tends to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic.

However, mostly these scientists tend to be shunned by the media, as stated by Chomsky:

It's interesting that these (public climate) debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist...

Too optimistic? Based on what? Must be on flawed model predictions because it certainly cant be on actual outcomes.

Anyhow, the 'sizable group', is only 10 people anyhow and we've already heard their names before. Mann, Hanson etc

We can always rely on Maria to pluck her evidence out of the ether. Bonus is, we all know she will never back up her made up facts with links.

The FACTS are all around you. Temperature barely changing, polar ice not disappearing, seas scarcely changing and no identifiable climate change outside of natural variation. There is in fact NOT ONE SINGLE bit of evidence to suggest human-driven catastrophic climate change is a risk of any kind.

Back to top

IP Logged