Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Another Dud QA I won't watch (Read 1031 times)
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 7238
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #30 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:54pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:44pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:13pm:
The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser.


And here is a perfect example.
You've just made an off-the-cuff comment which is pretty ridiculous. After all, the Bureau of Meteorology were specifically set up to predict our future weather.

How would you feel if in 13 years time some shock jock hack like Andrew Bolt was continuing to quote you?


Dude this guy isn't talking about the result of a grand final here.

His saying its the end of the world....FFS.....!!!

...
Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
RightSaidFred
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1094
Sydney
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #31 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:56pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:44pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:13pm:
The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser.


And here is a perfect example.
You've just made an off-the-cuff comment which is pretty ridiculous. After all, the Bureau of Meteorology were specifically set up to predict our future weather.

How would you feel if in 13 years time some shock jock hack like Andrew Bolt was continuing to quote you?


So where is the apology from Flannery ?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41012
I like fish
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #32 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 2:46pm
 
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility.



It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it.

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature.

The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!!

We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street.

1. Bag Filters
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbing
4. Gas instead of coal fired

We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion.

CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.


There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
RightSaidFred
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1094
Sydney
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #33 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 3:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 2:46pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility.



It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it.

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature.

The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!!

We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street.

1. Bag Filters
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbing
4. Gas instead of coal fired

We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion.

CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.


There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.


And you can believe in all the junk science you like, being part of a cult especially one your interested is, does not make them correct.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 7238
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #34 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 3:05pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 2:46pm:
Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature.

The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!!

We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street.

1. Bag Filters
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbing
4. Gas instead of coal fired

We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion.

CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.


There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.


You mean buying air space over the Maroondah Dam forest or the Amazon forest on wall street Lower Manhattan in New York so you can keep on polluting the atmosphere through the carbon credit scheme.

Is better than retrofitting existing power stations with the equipment mentioned above which reduces pollution straight away.

Sounds as bad as banks creating money out of thin air, just a number on a computer.

Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41012
I like fish
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #35 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:33pm
 
Quote:
And you can believe in all the junk science you like, being part of a cult especially one your interested is, does not make them correct.


I was talking about a statement on economics, by about 2000 mainstream economists. Do you have any reason, other than some misinformed wishful thinking, to assume they are wrong? Do you even know what they said?

Quote:
You mean buying air space over the Maroondah Dam forest or the Amazon forest on wall street Lower Manhattan in New York so you can keep on polluting the atmosphere through the carbon credit scheme.


I mean carbon taxes.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8576
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #36 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:39pm
 
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:38am:
Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:32am:
AGW one of the greatest hoaxes the oligarchy has ever bestowed upon people to get trillions of dollars up and running on wall street.

The bottom line is they want every man woman and child to pay for the air that they breathe.

Financial slavery under the guise of saving the environment, what other cause can gather so many willing foot soldiers.

Gillard is a traitor to this nation, she should be jailed for life.

Quote:
What a curious way for Julia Gillard to sell a tax - even to businessmen - which we were originally told was needed simply to save the world from disastrous overheating:
 
"International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share."  Julia Gillard


Hmm. That explains why so many bankers are global warming preachers, too. Think of those billions! Those tickets to clip! That share of the dosh! UPDATE Labor winds down yet another of its green schemes that have cost so much to do no good at all:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/is-the-carbon-tax-great-just-ask-t...






I am a fence sitter on this, show me the evidence and real usefulness of the science then I might believe it. Flannery by his own incompetence has done far more damage to the religion of global warming then any sceptic has done Smiley

He is the modern day snake oil salesman and a very unconvincing one at that.



Flannery is Australias version of Man Bear Pig (Al Gore).
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8576
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #37 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:44pm
 
Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature.

The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!!

We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street.

1. Bag Filters
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbing
4. Gas instead of coal fired

We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion.

CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.


If it's "fracked" gas it is worse than coal ... environmentally is a potentially big disaster in the making.

Gas is still a fossil fuel & if the side effects of it's extraction is worse than coal, you achieve nothing.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8576
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #38 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:47pm
 
Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am:
Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy.



There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts.

He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him.

Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming.


Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub.


A professor money-seeking grub.


Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8576
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #39 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:52pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 2:46pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility.



It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it.

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature.

The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!!

We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street.

1. Bag Filters
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbing
4. Gas instead of coal fired

We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion.

CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.


There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.


So Economists are now Scientists?

There's a lot of bought & paid for economists doing the rounds.

The GFC was a classic example.

The bastards like the bankers should be in jail.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 56570
Gender: female
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #40 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:56pm
 
Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:47pm:
Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am:
Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy.



There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts.

He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him.

Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming.


Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub.


A professor money-seeking grub.


Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for.


No, Gonads, Al Gore's an ex-politician. Tim Flannery's an academic and ex-head of the Climate Council.

They're totally different people.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
RightSaidFred
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1094
Sydney
Gender: male
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #41 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 7:46pm
 
Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:56pm:
Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:47pm:
Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am:
Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy.



There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts.

He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him.

Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming.


Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub.


A professor money-seeking grub.


Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for.


No, Gonads, Al Gore's an ex-politician. Tim Flannery's an academic and ex-head of the Climate Council.

They're totally different people.


One is an arrogant lunatic the other is just arrogant ?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41012
I like fish
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #42 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 8:15pm
 
Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:52pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 2:46pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility.



It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it.

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am:
There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.


There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature.

The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!!

We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street.

1. Bag Filters
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbing
4. Gas instead of coal fired

We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion.

CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.


There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.


So Economists are now Scientists?

There's a lot of bought & paid for economists doing the rounds.

The GFC was a classic example.

The bastards like the bankers should be in jail.


If you wanted to know what was the cheapest way to achieve a large scale change in how we obtain goods and services, would you ask a 'scientist' or an economist?

Their advice is not some unfathomable mystery either, that you have to take their word on.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 56570
Gender: female
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #43 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 8:16pm
 
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 7:46pm:
Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:56pm:
Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:47pm:
Karnal wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm:
RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am:
Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy.



There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts.

He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him.

Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming.


Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub.


A professor money-seeking grub.


Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for.


No, Gonads, Al Gore's an ex-politician. Tim Flannery's an academic and ex-head of the Climate Council.

They're totally different people.


One is an arrogant lunatic the other is just arrogant ?


No one would ever describe Tim Flannery as arrogant, dear.

You?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41012
I like fish
Re: Another Dud QA I won't watch
Reply #44 - Mar 12th, 2018 at 8:19pm
 
I don't think he knows who Flannery is, other than what he has read in his CEC pamphlets.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print