OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[dee-luded 2,959]

In May 2008 Flannery created controversy by suggesting that sulphur could be dispersed into the atmosphere to help block the sun leading to global dimming, in order to counteract the effects of global warming.

they're doing it now over Bali dc, & blaming the volcanoes.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Hey Wrecker

The people you are quoting are pretty knowledgeable types. I'd be listening to what they say. Sure, we haven't had a bad drought since the 12 year one leading up to 2009, but it does seem pretty certain that the general temperature patterns are only going one way, and that will inevitably lead to drought - and increased risk of fire. As I said in my first post, the fact that we had such terrible fires in early October should be enough to put the wind up anybody with eyes in their head.

This probably all seems rather academic to people down in the city (though I don't know where you live) , but it's not to me. We lost so many friends on Black Saturday - nine, all up, their ages ranging from 4 to 70 - I can't help but find it dispiriting when I see our society doing nothing about global warming. Also, as a firefighter and a person whose family lives in the bush, I'm rather worried about the forthcoming summer.

Anyway, I don't like getting into arguments - intelligent dialogue works better for me.

All the best

Arguments and intellectual dialogue are not mutually exclusive and I'm not sure how my linking to quotes from the BOM and CSIRO is arguing. The only argument is if you are disagreeing with the referenced quotes?

I would love nothing more than to engage in intellectual dialogue on this matter but if (when) dialogue contradicts real world data I will call it out (with reference) every single time.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Wrecker45

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Wrecker so some people made some statements. Big deal, including "Tim the target". We know you guys want to shoot them down. do you feel better? But what is your fricking point? The physics is indesputable, we keep pumping C02 into a closed system, feed energy by the Sun and we are getting warmer but you don't want to deal with it, you want to score points on whether someone predicted that something would happen, and whether a model has got it right. Your Andrew Bolt style "attack the man" stuff bears no weight with me. Diversionary tactics I believe.

EH - You say some people made statements big deal? I am linking to quotes from the BOM and CSIRO. That is not some people, they are supposed to be our peak scientific bodies in this field. Real world data proves them wrong as it does time and time again. That is my whole "frickin" point, their predictive models are wrong. Just wait till 2020 when we still have snow in Australia despite the CSIRO's predictions. Then I will really rant.

You say the physics are indisputable? You obviously don't understand physics very well. The physics of gravity are disputable and they're a damn site tighter than any climate change physics and application in a chaotic system. Not attacking you personally just your understanding of physics.

I loathe ad hominem attacks. Let me know who I personally attacked and I will apologise (dee-luded you might be in for an apology). But I think you will find in the post you are referring to I was just linking to quotes from the two peak scientific bodies on climate in Australia. I'm sorry if the peak scientific bodies are hopelessly wrong time and time again but that is my point. How is fact based evidence a personal attack on someone?

And as for "Tim the target" (I was linking to BOM and CSIRO quotes not Tim's) he is probably a bit unlucky. I'l give you a spring racing analogy. There are plenty of celebrity tipsters who never back a winner over their lifetime and still get a tip in the paper every week. It is just a shame that "Tim the target" is the go to man at the ABC when they should interview someone with more credibility or at the very least put their heavily tax payer funded, fact checking unit onto him.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Wrecker45

[Jara 1,153]

Jara - Dr David Jones the head of BOM's climate analysis predicted that it could be permanent in 2008. This drought may never break.

A 3 year collaboration between BOM and the CSIRO suggested in 2009 we are just not going to have that good rain again while the system is heating up.

So yes Australia's two peak scientific bodies were that dogmatic.

Hi Wrecker

Finally had a look at those two articles - sorry for delay - was busy - wouldn't have thought that either of them was particularly 'dogmatic' - both simply scientists doing what they do - using their knowledge to put hypotheses out there - haven't spoken to any of the BOM guys for a while, but I believe that they do accept, as a general rule, that the climate is warming and that this is man-made. Since they are the best climate specialists we have, I'd be listening to them. One thing I learnt from studying the weather is that it's bloody complicated - funny that we can put a robot on Mars but we can't accurately predict next week's weather. But the temperatures are definitely trending upwards - I heard a scientist interviewed - think on The Science Show - just a few weeks ago - said we've broken something like 30 records for high temperatures in Australia in recent years, and only one at the other end. .

Still waiting for you to show me where Flannery says that drought will be 'permanent' - and for you to prove him wrong (depends on what time scale he uses I suppose- I'm not doubting you're right, but I'd like to see it, if you can find it.).

Cheers

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Hey Grape

Haven't read Tims book for a few years - The Weathermakers, wasn't it,? So I don't recall him saying that specifically and I'm not sure what timeframe he was referring to. At present, I gather we're heading for an increase of somewhere between 2 and 4 degrees by the end of the century. I believe anything like the latter will lead us into a situation in which - well, I don't know if you could say "permanent" drought but pretty close to it.

My own book was called Kinglake-350. I did a lot of research about fire history, science etc Spent a solid eighteen months harassing every fire scientist, meteorologist, environmental historian, etc I could lay my hands on. I discuss these things much more comprehensively in the book. The fire history of our own nation is quite extraordinary. In a nutshell, Europeans entered an environment which had been shaped by constant mosaic burning by nomads. They then did two things: first they burnt furiously, to clear the land (which had the unexpected result of increasing pyrophiliac plants) Then, when they had established farms, fences, roads, etc, they tried to suppress fire all together. Both activities had a terrible effect upon the environment; meant that when fires did come, they would be monsters.

Daisy, if you happen to read this, yes, thanks for the Wikipedia thing about Black Thursday. I've read it, of course, but my scientist friend was a little sceptical about some of the reports. Suspects that they were somewhat exaggerated due to the (quite understandable) terror these misplaced Englishmen felt upon encountering the "red steer". I'm not denying that monster fires have always been a feature of the Australian landscape; there are even Aboriginal myths describing what sound very much like crown fires. The problem is just that they seem to be getting worse with global warming.

Cheers

Jara - why did you waste your time interviewing fire scientists, meteorologists and environmental historians when I know everything and you could have just asked me

In all seriousness I will be asking father Christmas for your book and look forward to reading it.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Hi Wrecker

Finally had a look at those two articles - sorry for delay - was busy - wouldn't have thought that either of them was particularly 'dogmatic' - both simply scientists doing what they do - using their knowledge to put hypotheses out there - haven't spoken to any of the BOM guys for a while, but I believe that they do accept, as a general rule, that the climate is warming and that this is man-made. Since they are the best climate specialists we have, I'd be listening to them. One thing I learnt from studying the weather is that it's bloody complicated - funny that we can put a robot on Mars but we can't accurately predict next week's weather. But the temperatures are definitely trending upwards - I heard a scientist interviewed - think on The Science Show - just a few weeks ago - said we've broken something like 30 records for high temperatures in Australia in recent years, and only one at the other end. .

Still waiting for you to show me where Flannery says that drought will be 'permanent' - and for you to prove him wrong (depends on what time scale he uses I suppose- I'm not doubting you're right, but I'd like to see it, if you can find it.).

Cheers

Jara - I don't think I ever said Flannery predicted the drought would be permanent? I've largely ignored Flannery because his alarmist views are so irrelevant. The only time I can see that I have spoken about him was in a response to a "Tim the target" mention on this page and you can see I have been more than fair to him.

[Jara 1,153]

Jara - I don't think I ever said Flannery predicted the drought would be permanent? I've largely ignored Flannery because his alarmist views are so irrelevant. The only time I can see that I have spoken about him was in a response to a "Tim the target" mention on this page and you can see I have been more than fair to him.

Oh yeah, sorry, misread that. I must get out of the habit of reading these things so late at night. It was Grape who made the comment about Tim - and since he was kind enough to buy my book (well, I assume you bought it, Grape - I only get about a cent if you got it from the library) I'm certainly not going to harass him.

[Jara 1,153]

Jara - why did you waste your time interviewing fire scientists, meteorologists and environmental historians when I know everything and you could have just asked me

In all seriousness I will be asking father Christmas for your book and look forward to reading it.

Thanks Wrecker - I should have realised Demonland would contain all the expertise I needed. Could have saved myself a lot of trouble.

Hope you enjoy the book.

[Grapeviney 9,541]

Oh yeah, sorry, misread that. I must get out of the habit of reading these things so late at night. It was Grape who made the comment about Tim - and since he was kind enough to buy my book (well, I assume you bought it, Grape - I only get about a cent if you got it from the library) I'm certainly not going to harass him.

The Flannery quote is from this article from the Sydney Morning Herald in 2005.

"If the computer models are right then drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia."

For anyone thinking about reading Jara's book, don't take my word for it - there's an endorsement from Kerry O'Brien on the cover which says it's "a masterpiece of story-telling", which is pretty high praise!

[dee-luded 2,959]

OUT: Abbott

The next Dick Cheney. Very scary this man!

they just keep Poppin up... are they cloned, maybe sent from another place ?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 11/12/2015 at 11:12 PM, Grapeviney said:

The Flannery quote is from this article from the Sydney Morning Herald in 2005.

"If the computer models are right then drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia."

For anyone thinking about reading Jara's book, don't take my word for it - there's an endorsement from Kerry O'Brien on the cover which says it's "a masterpiece of story-telling", which is pretty high praise!

Thanks Grapeviney. So because we are not in permanent drought can we say the computer models are wrong? Do you think the ABC will correct him? What does the tax payer funded ABC fact checking unit do?

[nutbean 8,838]

I do like this quote from Tony's farewell speech...

"My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can.

"There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping. I've never leaked or backgrounded against anyone. And I certainly won't start now."

I would like to ask - how's that working for you Mr Abbott ?

(before the replies come back - I acknowledge that Tony Abbott is not the first ex PM to be chipping away at his "assassin" from the back blocks and he won't be the last)

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

42 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I do like this quote from Tony's farewell speech...

"My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can.

"There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping. I've never leaked or backgrounded against anyone. And I certainly won't start now."

I would like to ask - how's that working for you Mr Abbott ?

(before the replies come back - I acknowledge that Tony Abbott is not the first ex PM to be chipping away at his "assassin" from the back blocks and he won't be the last)

He didn't have to say that in his speech. Everyone knew it was a lie.

I'm liking Turnbull so far, although he's going to have to actually CHANGE some policies at some point. Otherwise it's just the same crap from a different mouthpiece.

Hopefully he does, still early days.

[nutbean 8,838]

11 minutes ago, Choke said:

He didn't have to say that in his speech. Everyone knew it was a lie.

I'm liking Turnbull so far, although he's going to have to actually CHANGE some policies at some point. Otherwise it's just the same crap from a different mouthpiece.

Hopefully he does, still early days.

I don't mind Turnbull either.

I understand that policy substance is important but with Turnbull as least I don't have to hold my breath, followed by severe bouts of cringing as I did every time Abbott opened his mouth.  

Turnbull's biggest problem is I believe he is a lot more progressive in his outlook than his predecessor but he has the right wing of his party that he had to "deal" with to get the top gig. It will be interesting to see how he navigates through those issues. It didn't take long for the right of his party to make their feelings known regarding any accommodation to changes to climate policy post Paris.

[dee-luded 2,959]

23 hours ago, nutbean said:

I do like this quote from Tony's farewell speech...

"My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can.

"There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping. I've never leaked or backgrounded against anyone. And I certainly won't start now."

I would like to ask - how's that working for you Mr Abbott ?

(before the replies come back - I acknowledge that Tony Abbott is not the first ex PM to be chipping away at his "assassin" from the back blocks and he won't be the last)

 

23 hours ago, Choke said:

He didn't have to say that in his speech. Everyone knew it was a lie.

I'm liking Turnbull so far,   although he's going to have to actually CHANGE some policies at some point. Otherwise it's just the same crap from a different mouthpiece.

Hopefully he does, still early days.

uncle tony is like a Ground Hog,  actually more to the point he's a rabbot...  pops up here,  pops up there,  still making off the cuff remarks to shirt front decent thinking.  t rabbot,  would make 'w' proud

 

I think he thinks,  he's 'the christian soldier'...

....... back in you burrow now uncle 't'

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 12/14/2015 at 3:52 PM, nutbean said:

I do like this quote from Tony's farewell speech...

"My pledge today is to make this change as easy as I can.

"There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping. I've never leaked or backgrounded against anyone. And I certainly won't start now."

I would like to ask - how's that working for you Mr Abbott ?

(before the replies come back - I acknowledge that Tony Abbott is not the first ex PM to be chipping away at his "assassin" from the back blocks and he won't be the last)

Enough time has passed to say he is no Rudd.

Abbott sits on the back bench and makes international speeches as former PM about border protection. He is widely acclaimed for it; but it is in contract to Turnbull (at least in language). Abbott is probably delusional enough to think he will get back in. He wont. 

Rudd undermined Gillard with every journalist that would listen to him. Abbott states his principals publicly as a backbencher, Rudd just undermined Gillard and tried to kill her. 

Politics is a grubby game but comparing Abbott to Rudd now is just silly.

 

 

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 12/14/2015 at 4:52 PM, nutbean said:

I don't mind Turnbull either.

I understand that policy substance is important but with Turnbull as least I don't have to hold my breath, followed by severe bouts of cringing as I did every time Abbott opened his mouth.  

Turnbull's biggest problem is I believe he is a lot more progressive in his outlook than his predecessor but he has the right wing of his party that he had to "deal" with to get the top gig. It will be interesting to see how he navigates through those issues. It didn't take long for the right of his party to make their feelings known regarding any accommodation to changes to climate policy post Paris.

Of course you don't mind Turnbull. I wouldn't mind if Kennett or Costello lead Labor or the the Greens.

 

[nutbean 8,838]

13 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Enough time has passed to say he is no Rudd.

Abbott sits on the back bench and makes international speeches as former PM about border protection. He is widely acclaimed for it; but it is in contract to Turnbull (at least in language). Abbott is probably delusional enough to think he will get back in. He wont. 

Rudd undermined Gillard with every journalist that would listen to him. Abbott states his principals publicly as a backbencher, Rudd just undermined Gillard and tried to kill her. 

Politics is a grubby game but comparing Abbott to Rudd now is just silly.

 

 

 

I see a contradiction in what you say - you suggest on the one hand that Abbott is delusional enough to think he will get back in and then you criticise Rudd for undermining Gillard. Abbott trying to get back in is not undermining ?

I will agree that the Rudd/Gillard show was as toxic as anything I have ever seen and Abbott/Turnbull are certainly not in their league.

[nutbean 8,838]

13 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Of course you don't mind Turnbull. I wouldn't mind if Kennett or Costello lead Labor or the the Greens.

 

You picked two pollies that I actually had time for.

I was a big Costello fan.

Whilst I disagreed with many of Kennett's policies I admired him for not giving a rat's on what was popular or not  - he did what he thought was right. His actions said to me that he was not poll driven like so many of the late crop.

[Willmoy1947 3,972]

Liberals are like Essendon, they are always getting business mixed up with pleasure.

[Earl Hood 6,065]

On 7 January 2016 at 9:12 AM, nutbean said:

You picked two pollies that I actually had time for.

I was a big Costello fan.

Whilst I disagreed with many of Kennett's policies I admired him for not giving a rat's on what was popular or not  - he did what he thought was right. His actions said to me that he was not poll driven like so many of the late crop.

Nutbean I can handle your thoughts on Kennett despite my hatred for his policies, yes they were what he thought was right at the time, misguidedly I believe. But Costello really? The local parliamentary clown for how many years, with no ticker to take on Howard when he needed to be moved on in his last term and the treasurer who squandered most of the mining boom income with tax cuts to the rich! 

The treasurer who then left us all with a financial time bomb, his policy of zero tax for all superannuates over 60, a growing sector of wealthier citizens who will never have to pay their way. 

And this after lecturing us all on the inter generational Report and the dire economic problems we all faced with an ageing population. I mean the man is not just a clown but a fool who should never have been let near our national accounts. 

But then they let him take control of the future fund, another one of his follies. What is it but a multi billion dollar slush fund from the sale of Telecom and other assets that is used to invest in various stock markets and has been losing money slowly over its lifetime. It invests in nothing of any use to anybody except the multitude of financial intermediaries who take their cut.

 Other than that he is a top bloke. 

 

 

 

 

 

[nutbean 8,838]

9 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Nutbean I can handle your thoughts on Kennett despite my hatred for his policies, yes they were what he thought was right at the time, misguidedly I believe. But Costello really? The local parliamentary clown for how many years, with no ticker to take on Howard when he needed to be moved on in his last term and the treasurer who squandered most of the mining boom income with tax cuts to the rich! 

The treasurer who then left us all with a financial time bomb, his policy of zero tax for all superannuates over 60, a growing sector of wealthier citizens who will never have to pay their way. 

And this after lecturing us all on the inter generational Report and the dire economic problems we all faced with an ageing population. I mean the man is not just a clown but a fool who should never have been let near our national accounts. 

But then they let him take control of the future fund, another one of his follies. What is it but a multi billion dollar slush fund from the sale of Telecom and other assets that is used to invest in various stock markets and has been losing money slowly over its lifetime. It invests in nothing of any use to anybody except the multitude of financial intermediaries who take their cut.

 Other than that he is a top bloke. 

 

 

 

 

 

I never buy into arguments about tax as there has not been a politician/leader over the last 25 years from either side of the fence who had has the intestinal fortitude to restructure the tax system.

He did leave the books in a good state albeit he was the beneficiary of a mining boom.

I think he was a liberal in the Turnbull mould that given a chance of the top gig would have been more centrist in his outlooks (especially socially). I vividly recall when Hanson hit the headlines with a bang and started to make ground Howard kept very quiet and did not attack as he knew there were votes in her outrageous opinions. The only two liberals who publicly criticised her were Kennett and Costello.

[dee-luded 2,959]

On 7/1/2016 at 9:12 AM, nutbean said:

You picked two pollies that I actually had time for.

I was a big Costello fan.

Whilst I disagreed with many of Kennett's policies I admired him for not giving a rat's on what was popular or not  - he did what he thought was right. His actions said to me that he was not poll driven like so many of the late crop.

do you 'mean', that you like autocrats & dictatorial types.  I think you love wrecka, nut.

wrecka should have been put in charge of 'pells' defence.  they both don't believe anyone but themselves.  so the case would go nowhere,  but in ever diminishing circles .... round & round he goes, where he stops,  god only knows.

[dee-luded 2,959]

21 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Nutbean I can handle your thoughts on Kennett despite my hatred for his policies, yes they were what he thought was right at the time, misguidedly I believe. But Costello really? The local parliamentary clown for how many years, with no ticker to take on Howard when he needed to be moved on in his last term and the treasurer who squandered most of the mining boom income with tax cuts to the rich! 

The treasurer who then left us all with a financial time bomb, his policy of zero tax for all superannuates over 60, a growing sector of wealthier citizens who will never have to pay their way. 

And this after lecturing us all on the inter generational Report and the dire economic problems we all faced with an ageing population. I mean the man is not just a clown but a fool who should never have been let near our national accounts. 

But then they let him take control of the future fund, another one of his follies. What is it but a multi billion dollar slush fund from the sale of Telecom and other assets that is used to invest in various stock markets and has been losing money slowly over its lifetime. It invests in nothing of any use to anybody except the multitude of financial intermediaries who take their cut.

 Other than that he is a top bloke. 

 

 

 

 

 

just an ess'n'dope  polly... & blue tie liberal

[nutbean 8,838]

Deeluded...

Answer me... has there been one liberal politician over the last 20 years you have liked ?