OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Hannibal 5,814]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/growing-evidence-of-great-climate-change-scams/story-e6frg6zo-1226789709693#

[dpositive 1,663]

Rather than me concede anything how about you articulate the problems you're referring to. My children are a little old for guessing games these days, so I'm out of practice.

I'm not suggesting you're not right, btw, just would prefer you articulate the major ones.

You say ''nothing concerns you''. A breakthrough for you I'd suggest.

Again I do not wish to be pedantic but I did not say ''nothing concerns ''me, but rather in response to your post, "What information particularly concerns you ?

Please quote." I said "None actually concerns me." and I think it is time to withdraw from this discussion because of that concession. I appreciate the points of hardtack and admire his/her capacity to respond to your opinions.

The problems have been articulated throughout the thread by yourself,hardtack and others, with the principle being in the title and to which the ensuing debate has seemed to bypass.

In my opinion Tony Abbott is an embarrassment because he fails to recognise the complexity of the argument reducing it "to crap", and denying an aware and concerned portion of the population any consideration of progressive or alternative practices to reduce their concerns.

The ancillary problems which have been identified subject to much better credentialed experts than me are still under dispute and I will watch the hopefully continuing exposure of alternative opinion from them.

I thank you for your comment "I'm not suggesting you're not right," which is more of a concession than is usually made, and in return I can offer that I am not suggesting you are not right, rather I am waiting for an indication of effective action supported by informed opinion. I am still forming my opinion and will take such actions as are available to me.

While I do not recommend civil disobedience I did not support all of the actions of previous governments and do not see myself slavishly following every edict of this or future governments.

I hope yourself and others can continue to provide me with illuminating information and I assure you that I appreciate all advice even when I choose to ignore it.

[dpositive 1,663]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/growing-evidence-of-great-climate-change-scams/story-e6frg6zo-1226789709693#

I know I said I would retire but Thanks for this (I cant just like it as we used to )

I did find the opening para appropriate.

The latest information in isolation is not conclusive as is indicated .

I await further analysis, with my last comment still applying. "I appreciate all advice even when I choose to ignore it." .

[Hannibal 5,814]

I know I said I would retire but Thanks for this ...

No problem. If you liked that, you'll be interested in this. Murry Salby's views will turn this whole debate on its head if he's right. He contends that CO2 increases because of temperature rises and that temperature doesn't rise because of CO2. In other words his theory is the opposite of the generally held beliefs. Even those scientists that don't agree with his view can't presently fault his research. Here's the view of one scientist (and yes, I acknowledge that there's a long way to go in analysing Salby's theory).

Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby’s work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Read the Full Article

'Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation]. Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative [Google translation + light editing]:Murry Salby, climate science innovator who challenges established views -- Murry Salby is a highly qualified and well-respected professor, academic teacher, and climate scientist. He has a series of innovative talks challenging the leading circles representing the IPCC sanctioned culture of consensus in climate science. He presents startling research that fundamentally questions the established views of the IPCC consensus. An important hypothesis that he advances is that the atmospheric CO2 rate of change is a function of only the global temperature changes and that this may explain the increase in carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times. This result was I able to reproduce, in a report given here.'

Edited January 7, 2014 by The Myth

[hardtack 10,514]

Do you believe that man is ''dangerously'' warming the planet ?

I believe that man is warming the planet at an ever increasing rate since the start of the Industrial Revolution. I believe that over time if nothing is done, yes it will become dangerous, even if it isn't at this moment in time. For the sake of my kids and generations to come, I would prefer to see preventative action... you obviously are happy for someone else to clean up the mess once it has happened. After all, by that time it won't be your problem, will it.

[hardtack 10,514]

I know I said I would retire but Thanks for this (I cant just like it as we used to )

I did find the opening para appropriate.

The latest information in isolation is not conclusive as is indicated .

I await further analysis, with my last comment still applying. "I appreciate all advice even when I choose to ignore it." .

I would recommend that you do a little searching on James Delingpole (the author). It was recommended to me and it is very enlightening with regards to the voracity of BH's sources. This was one quote I was shown that was particularly amusing considering he is promoting himself as some kind of expert after 10 years of "covering this territory":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Delingpole

"On the programme itself (BBC Horizons), when he was pitched against a real Nobel Prize winner, Professor Sir Paul Nurse, he came off second best. He said that "it is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers." ...However, he admits that he doesn't "have the scientific expertise" to deal with the contents of the peer reviewed literature. Instead, he sees himself as an "interpreter of interpretations" "

For someone who denies being right wing BH, you sure like to source a lot of your "information" from those who are happy to fly that flag.

[daisycutter 29,604]

I would recommend that you do a little searching on James Delingpole (the author). It was recommended to me and it is very enlightening with regards to the voracity of BH's sources. This was one quote I was shown that was particularly amusing considering he is promoting himself as some kind of expert after 10 years of "covering this territory":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Delingpole

"On the programme itself (BBC Horizons), when he was pitched against a real Nobel Prize winner, Professor Sir Paul Nurse, he came off second best. He said that "it is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers." ...However, he admits that he doesn't "have the scientific expertise" to deal with the contents of the peer reviewed literature. Instead, he sees himself as an "interpreter of interpretations" "

For someone who denies being right wing BH, you sure like to source a lot of your "information" from those who are happy to fly that flag.

sounds like another "al gore expert", hardtack

like al he's not a career environment scientist either so it's no surprise he came off second best against a nobel prize winner. reckon most "experts" on here would too.

[hardtack 10,514]

sounds like another "al gore expert", hardtack

like al he's not a career environment scientist either so it's no surprise he came off second best against a nobel prize winner. reckon most "experts" on here would too.

Agreed DC... I think none of us would survive that.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I would recommend that you do a little searching on James Delingpole (the author). It was recommended to me and it is very enlightening with regards to the voracity of BH's sources. This was one quote I was shown that was particularly amusing considering he is promoting himself as some kind of expert after 10 years of "covering this territory":

For someone who denies being right wing BH, you sure like to source a lot of your "information" from those who are happy to fly that flag.

Never heard of him before. Just saw the article in the Australian. But you don't need to be a scientist to cover the issue as a journalist and form valid opinions of the industry. Or are you suggesting otherwise ?

It's not a matter of denying anything, I'm a conservative, which is obviously to the right of centre in politics.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I believe that man is warming the planet at an ever increasing rate since the start of the Industrial Revolution. I believe that over time if nothing is done, yes it will become dangerous, even if it isn't at this moment in time. For the sake of my kids and generations to come, I would prefer to see preventative action... you obviously are happy for someone else to clean up the mess once it has happened. After all, by that time it won't be your problem, will it.

You may, or may not be right about man warming the planet, although nearly all scientists would agree with you.

You would prefer to act now in case it becomes a problem, which is fine in theory. Nothing Australia is doing now is helping. No money being spent is helping. Nothing Australia does in the future will help. Even if the world followed suit, which they haven't and won't, it wouldn't matter anyway. Tim Flannery stated that the whole world could follow suit and it could take a thousand years to notice a difference in the world's temperature. Will your children thank you in a thousand years ? How much money will be spent in the next 50 years for what might help in a thousand ? What technology will they have centuries from now compared to today's horse and cart technology ? These efforts of yours are completely token.

Your willingness to spend money on climate change is a laughable farce. Spend money to feel good. Got it.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

You may, or may not be right about man warming the planet, although nearly all scientists would agree with you.

You would prefer to act now in case it becomes a problem, which is fine in theory. Nothing Australia is doing now is helping. No money being spent is helping. Nothing Australia does in the future will help. Even if the world followed suit, which they haven't and won't, it wouldn't matter anyway. Tim Flannery stated that the whole world could follow suit and it could take a thousand years to notice a difference in the world's temperature. Will your children thank you in a thousand years ? How much money will be spent in the next 50 years for what might help in a thousand ? What technology will they have centuries from now compared to today's horse and cart technology ? These efforts of yours are completely token.

Your willingness to spend money on climate change is a laughable farce. Spend money to feel good. Got it.

Myth, where are your priorities? Money is money, you can't take it with you. The economy operates on human activity as in for example a major car crash on the Hume actually adds to the national GDP. In that it creates work for car repairers, tow truck operators, the medical profession and undertakers. It is all negative in our minds but positive to our economists.

Money thrown at renewables, more acceptable energy, even if it more costly will still stimulate economic growth. A by product of the RET and the carbon tax has always been an opportunity for Australian entrepreneurs to get into fledgling renewable industries ahead of others but only if we provide incentives in the home market. As far as I can see we are not going to move in that space as the Abbott Government is anti everything to do with clean energy, reduced carbon emissions. We have given up competing in the mature end of manufacturing as in cars! Here is a chance to get a foot in the door of new technology implementation but we may miss the boat yet again.

[daisycutter 29,604]

lol - you had to bring up boats

but thanks for your illuminating economic theories

[Hannibal 5,814]

Love this...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling

Edited January 7, 2014 by The Myth

[Biffen 12,940]

You may, or may not be right about man warming the planet, although nearly all scientists would agree with you.

You would prefer to act now in case it becomes a problem, which is fine in theory. Nothing Australia is doing now is helping. No money being spent is helping. Spend money to feel good. Got it.

It's a tax on pollution, particularly older business models.

If you don't like it , don't pay.

Politically, you're not conservative, you are a neocon . You are denying climate change and scientific facts in an effort to avoid a proposed tax.

You are even quoting Tim Flannery now.

Better that you just tell your accountant to write down some losses.

Your dads business will survive this and live to produce more widgets.

It's ok.

[dpositive 1,663]

I would recommend that you do a little searching on James Delingpole (the author). It was recommended to me and it is very enlightening with regards to the voracity of BH's sources. This was one quote I was shown that was particularly amusing considering he is promoting himself as some kind of expert after 10 years of "covering this territory":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Delingpole

"On the programme itself (BBC Horizons), when he was pitched against a real Nobel Prize winner, Professor Sir Paul Nurse, he came off second best. He said that "it is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers." ...However, he admits that he doesn't "have the scientific expertise" to deal with the contents of the peer reviewed literature. Instead, he sees himself as an "interpreter of interpretations" "

For someone who denies being right wing BH, you sure like to source a lot of your "information" from those who are happy to fly that flag.

Thanks HT

[dpositive 1,663]

Sorry had to return

The article Myth presents on 814 is a continuation of the extremes that are always provided and I am sure HT will be looking to refute although I doubt it is worth the effort.

The opening para does acknowledge the catastrophic weather events?

I think some of the confusion I have is the capture of a simple term often misused to amplify a point and avoid the simple truth

Carbon Tax was never a tax but a quite complex pricing mechanism and economic tool to alter financial direction

Global Warming was not just warming but climate change and a complex analysis of weather patterns and influencing factors

I am reminded of Newtons immutable 4th? law

for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

I wont insert it in quotes coz I dont think thats exactly it

The severe snow and cold currently in America would be an indication for the coldists where will the droughts occur for the warmists

do we need these terms when there are obvious issues arising with weather and the changing placement and allocation of humans.

I suppose I think it is a bigger issue than those engaging in [censored] for tat arguments seem to recognise.

and with that I will try and restrain myself from further comment while admitting to reading and liking most of the information disseminated by all

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Serious question, what's the difference between "right-wing" and "conservative"?

[daisycutter 29,604]

Serious question, what's the difference between "right-wing" and "conservative"?

they are spelt differently

[hardtack 10,514]

Sorry had to return

The article Myth presents on 814 is a continuation of the extremes that are always provided and I am sure HT will be looking to refute although I doubt it is worth the effort.

The opening para does acknowledge the catastrophic weather events?

You're right DP, it's not worth the effort of refuting it as every side can interpret these events however they like. Sea ice is not necessarily indicative of global warming or cooling and, as one of the scientists on the recently freed Russian boat said, the current levels of sea ice are a result of weather as opposed to climate.

It was however brought to my attention that the New American is a part of the right wing organisation The John Birch Society... for a conservative, BH tends to cite the right wing press one hell of a lot.

And Clint... there is no question that has not been asked before (some funny and some useful answers in here):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2161619/posts

[Hannibal 5,814]

Myth, where are your priorities? Money is money, you can't take it with you. The economy operates on human activity as in for example a major car crash on the Hume actually adds to the national GDP. In that it creates work for car repairers, tow truck operators, the medical profession and undertakers. It is all negative in our minds but positive to our economists.

Money thrown at renewables, more acceptable energy, even if it more costly will still stimulate economic growth. A by product of the RET and the carbon tax has always been an opportunity for Australian entrepreneurs to get into fledgling renewable industries ahead of others but only if we provide incentives in the home market. As far as I can see we are not going to move in that space as the Abbott Government is anti everything to do with clean energy, reduced carbon emissions. We have given up competing in the mature end of manufacturing as in cars! Here is a chance to get a foot in the door of new technology implementation but we may miss the boat yet again.

There must be a better way to encourage the private sector to invest in technology for renewable energies. You may as well place a tax on air based on your theory. Wait...

As for car manufacturing ? Firstly only a moron would blame Abbott, although I hasten to add that I'm not suggesting you are. These decisions have been in the pipeline for a long time. When it is so much cheaper to manufacture elsewhere and local demand falls away you don't have to be Einstein to work out what is going to happen.

Is there a manufacturing industry world wide that hasn't suffered at the hands of union demands for greater wages and conditions ? Eventually these spiraling costs take their toll. There are only so many slices of the cake.

[Hannibal 5,814]

It's a tax on pollution, particularly older business models.

If you don't like it , don't pay.

Politically, you're not conservative, you are a neocon . You are denying climate change and scientific facts in an effort to avoid a proposed tax.

Biffen, the best part of you ran down your mummy's leg.

Climate has always changed, so who would deny that ?

Nearly all scientists agree that CO2 warms the atmosphere, who has stated otherwise ?

By how much will these taxes in Australia cool the temperatures and when ?

Is the warming dangerous ?

The climate models have been wrong and reports state we now may come into a period of cooling. This on the back of 17 years without warming when the alarmists said otherwise.

Dope.

Read the first line again.

Edited January 8, 2014 by The Myth

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I am not talking about us taking a leading role... just about us doing something. As I said in my first post... I have the choice of putting my rubbish in a bin, knowing full well it will probably have no impact on the reduction of littering, or I can take the defeatist route and drop it on the ground just because no-one else seems to care about a tidy environment... I know which option I would take... what would you do?

If you put your bag in the bin but Fatty Boom Bah throws his 50 sandwich wrappers on the ground then your effort is tokenism, unless of course you can convince FBB to throw his in as well. Then there's the cost, if it cost you $1 every time you had to put your bag in the bin would you continue to do so; do you think FBB would pay $50 to get rid of his appropriately?

[hardtack 10,514]

If you put your bag in the bin but Fatty Boom Bah throws his 50 sandwich wrappers on the ground then your effort is tokenism, unless of course you can convince FBB to throw his in as well. Then there's the cost, if it cost you $1 every time you had to put your bag in the bin would you continue to do so; do you think FBB would pay $50 to get rid of his appropriately?

Understand RF, but in reality I am paying to dispose of my rubbish... it's called rates :-)

[nutbean 8,838]

If you put your bag in the bin but Fatty Boom Bah throws his 50 sandwich wrappers on the ground then your effort is tokenism, unless of course you can convince FBB to throw his in as well. Then there's the cost, if it cost you $1 every time you had to put your bag in the bin would you continue to do so; do you think FBB would pay $50 to get rid of his appropriately?

Maybe the cost is $1 to dispose of it properly but if you put a price for non disposal in the correct method of sandwich wrappers of say $2 then this tax ( or lets call it a fine for littering) may change his behaviour and look to alternate methods of disposal - like a rubbish bin - its just a theory...

Edited January 8, 2014 by nutbean

[dpositive 1,663]

Thanks again

Conservative from its original definition was about preserving and retaining which was adopted in a political sense as the more cautious approach which could be where I am and maybe why Myth is holding on to that.

Interestingly Liberal (in the thesaurus) is related to free spending generous etc and makes a marked contrast to the current policies and practice of the current government.

Left wing and right wing are related to the main body as there are left and right wing Labour and despite their denials left and right wing Liberals. I am sure there are left and right wing Greens but as they start out to the left of the above its hard to identify them.

The press is by its nature to report both left and right views is a little more fickle with playing to its market and so can and has changed sides in various elections in various countries. I find it difficult when people target the ABC as left wing when it has the most conservative and traditional views aired so often (how they justify Peter Reith as a liberal I do not know) however I am prepared to look at all sides including extremes before probably taking my conservative middle of the road approach.

I have been accused of both being too provocative and of being too boring so I can probably live with that.