I don't need to show you anything, wrecker. the rabbot & cohorts are wrecking this place

Of course you won't show me anything. Facts or evidence aren't really your thing. But keep posting meaningless links all you like.

Wrecker... well let's face it, Ben Her, is all for children in custody and for exposing them to the possibility of assault in the gulags in Nauru. If Tony says it ok, then BH is all for it.

Maybe you should start a Ben Her hatred thread, What is the point of your post?

A hiatus is one thing (kind of like the ups and downs in the stock market in the short term)... what matters is the long term trend; or doesn't that concern you as you won't be around to suffer the effects?

And as you love to cite the IPCC, from November last year:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-little-time-left-to-act-on-climate-change-20141103-11g2er.html

Hardtack- over what period do you classify as long term? I've explained extensively in the climate change thread that the climate has warmed since the little ice age.

You can't seriously be so naive as to think Abbott has prevented any deaths. Relocated some deaths, perhaps.

Sorry, I see you use the term "Team Australia". Anything is possible.

P-man I'll agree the deaths have been relocated and change my stance on the issue if you can show me the evidence that these unfortunate people were fleeing persecution and Australia was the closest destination for their welfare.

I also don't understand the hate for "team Australia". Are you arguing some of our citizens aren't on our team?

"Team Australia" is such a joke. I can't believe fear politics and appeals to the more parochial sections of society still works.

I would prefer to be part of "Team Humanity" myself.

TBH this is the first time I've seen someone use the term outside of a polly. I really hope it doesn't catch on.

I'm not sure what the problem is with saying you are on the same team as your fellow country men.

I do agree about fear politics. Climate Change is coming watch out...

As Golda Meir once said ( and I am taking some licence) " Tony never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity"

I watched Q&A with Zaky Mallah on it. I found Zaky's last comment quite confronting and Tony Jones put paid to it very rapidly.

I reflected after the show that Tony Abbott would have a field day with this in regards to his stripping people of their citizenship. . I thought that Zaky Mallah being on Q&A did far more for Tony's case than any amount of debating. Here in the flesh was a shining example of who the legislation was targeting. Even though I do not agree with philosophy behind stripping people of their citizenship ( making them someone else's problem). To suggest that what this government was doing was pushing Muslims to go and fight for ISIL is patent nonsense. I can see that this guy helped the Abbott argument.

Tony Abbott ( and the rest of the libs) have seemed to miss that point altogether and gone on a ABC witch burning frenzy.

No doubt Zak's ignorance on live TV played into the hands of common sense and the Abbott Government but that's not the point it gave Abbott a chance to address the bias against them at Q&A and the ABC.

Edited July 12, 201510 yr by Wrecker45

Wrecker did you catch 4Corners tonight? The AFP's investigation into some big drug busts and the Mafia in 2007/8. It mentioned a number of known Calabrian Mafia personalities flying in on Visas unhindered. Wrecker, you and Team Australia better head out to Melbourne airport to check who is coming into the country, they are coming in on tourist visas, student visas and 457 visas by the hundreds every week. Who knows how many evil doers may be amongst them.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying I only want to stop illegal immigrants if they come by boat?

If so so I can assure you I want them stopped no matter if they are coming by boat, helicopter, aeroplane, submarine, tunnel or any other way I haven't thought of.

actually - there is now lots out there debunking the hiatus

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4462281.ece

http://thebulletin.org/global-warming-“hiatus”7639

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/pause-in-warming-debunked

to name a few.

What gets me is those on the sceptical side of the debate is the notion of requiring "absolutes". Has some of the modelling had flaws in it ? - for sure - but this is such uncharted territory that as new data and "discovery" comes to light the models are refined. The flaws in some modelling does not disqualify the overall science.

But I keep going back to the same argument - even if we consider that what is being offered by climate change scientists is not conclusive - can we afford to gamble and suggest that this is all a myth and do nothing. I stand firmly in camp of effective policies being put in place to combat climate change and it all being a load of nonsense rather than do absolutely nothing and then finding out that the warnings being given regarding the consequences of climate change were accurate. I do concede that I am unsure as to effective policies need to be in place and also concede that there is a lot of greenwashing going on by Governments - say a lot and do pretty

much nothing.

Nutbean - I appreciate you posing links but I asked for you to show me one climate scientist (or anyone really) who predicted a hiatus before it happened.Not after.

Flimsy arguments denying a measurable fact are not persuasive. And if you you do believe those links you posted are you arguing the IPCC is no longer believable as they do recognise a hiatus? The science is settled right? So one has to be incorrect. Let me know which.

But I keep going back to the same argument - even if we consider that what is being offered by climate change scientists is not conclusive - can we afford to gamble and suggest that this is all a myth and do nothing. I stand firmly in camp of effective policies being put in place to combat climate change and it all being a load of nonsense rather than do absolutely nothing and then finding out that the warnings being given regarding the consequences of climate change were accurate. I do concede that I am unsure as to effective policies need to be in place and also concede that there is a lot of greenwashing going on by Governments - say a lot and do pretty much nothing.

I just don't think that is a valid argument. You admit it is not conclusive. Science is littered with incorrect predictions.

wrecker's fishing yet again for information to help the rabbot get re-elected. we tell him what we're unhappy with, & they smooth out their dogeared corners to suit the electorate.

just wonder where the eyebrows without a face is hiding all this time.

Maybe you should start a Ben Her hatred thread, What is the point of your post?

The point is that you show faux concern about the lives lost at sea, yet show little or no concern for the children exposed to all sorts of danger in the camps that your pal Abbott gleefully sends them to.

Hardtack- over what period do you classify as long term? I've explained extensively in the climate change thread that the climate has warmed since the little ice age.

Read the article; if you have read it, you would not really need to ask me that question.

Edited July 13, 201510 yr by hardtack

It seems Tony now wants the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to not invest in wind or small scale solar. The CEFC's brief is to invest in viable, established green energy projects to promote carbon reduction and make a profitable rate of return. That brief has been turned on its head, the mad Abbott is restricting their investment to the more risky end of the scale and if that does not make a profit, Tony will shut them down, no doubt. What now must the CEFC invest in green coal? Green uranium perhaps? Green cobalt?

The point is that you show faux concern about the lives lost at sea, yet show little or no concern for the children exposed to all sorts of danger in the camps that your pal Abbott gleefully sends them to.

You do realize Abbott stopped the boats? What children is he sending to the camps?

I think you will find the children in detention are a legacy of the previous Government and Abbott is actually releasing them.

It seems Tony now wants the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to not invest in wind or small scale solar. The CEFC's brief is to invest in viable, established green energy projects to promote carbon reduction and make a profitable rate of return. That brief has been turned on its head, the mad Abbott is restricting their investment to the more risky end of the scale and if that does not make a profit, Tony will shut them down, no doubt. What now must the CEFC invest in green coal? Green uranium perhaps? Green cobalt?

Abbott went to the election promising to shut them down. He just can't get the numbers in the senate.

Why did man move from horse and carriage to the automobile? From ship to plane? From typewriter to computer? From windmill to coal (irony)? Did Government assistance help the transition or did we evolve because the technology was better?

If wind or solar were more efficient or effective without subsidies we would transistion to them. The fact is they are not.

Read the article; if you have read it, you would not really need to ask me that question.

I read both your article and Nut beans. I did not bother with all the links dee-luded posted. My question was what period do you classify as long term not what the article says.

You do realize Abbott stopped the boats? What children is he sending to the camps?

I think you will find the children in detention are a legacy of the previous Government and Abbott is actually releasing them.

Proof? The only move that I can see he has made is to attempt to silence those working at the detention camps by threatening them with incarceration. As for stopping the boats, aren't the boats still attempting to come and isn't he simply turning them around and exposing them to the same dangers regardless?

I read both your article and Nut beans. I did not bother with all the links dee-luded posted. My question was what period do you classify as long term not what the article says.

It matters not what I regard as long term or short term... the fact is that the very organisation (IPCC) you are claiming supports your hiatus stance, are saying that despite the unforeseen hiatus, global temperatures ARE increasing and ARE reaching a critical point. What do you consider "little warming since the ice age"? Regardless of what you think, the facts would seem to be saying that the warming is enough to cause deep concern.

What is it that makes you want to argue this point continually? Do you have a vested interest in fossil fuels? Are you more concerned about your hip pocket than future generations? I would seriously be interested to know why you invest so much time in arguing these points with everyone and anyone on the forums who expresses a concern over global warming.

Abbott went to the election promising to shut them down. He just can't get the numbers in the senate.

Why did man move from horse and carriage to the automobile? From ship to plane? From typewriter to computer? From windmill to coal (irony)? Did Government assistance help the transition or did we evolve because the technology was better?

If wind or solar were more efficient or effective without subsidies we would transistion to them. The fact is they are not.

coal & electricity were just easier than grinding flour under stones wrecker. with no apparent downside... the problem is they weren't thinking of the 'Up' side, of the cost at the end of the hire-purchase agreement.

well the invoice arrived some time back, & we're copping the late payment fees, as we go along refusing to pay that cost... soon the heavies will come knocking on your door & windows, & roof, etc.

Wind & Solar are more efficient, they just don't work the HEALTH argument into the debit & credit columns,,,, YET. but they do add health

when it suit s THEM; when they have to pay compensation on things due to their wreck-lessness.

Wind & Solar are way more efficient within the environment. just not on the accountants books of $$$ profit loss columns. But that isn't what LIFE is about. LIFE isn't about $$$$.

Its about good healthy Living, & happiness & camaraderie.

.............you see wrecker, Mother Nature doesn't understand or play by cheque book rules... she just gets angrier.

Edited July 18, 201510 yr by dee-luded

It seems Tony now wants the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to not invest in wind or small scale solar. The CEFC's brief is to invest in viable, established green energy projects to promote carbon reduction and make a profitable rate of return. That brief has been turned on its head, the mad Abbott is restricting their investment to the more risky end of the scale and if that does not make a profit, Tony will shut them down, no doubt. What now must the CEFC invest in green coal? Green uranium perhaps? Green cobalt?

Yellow Cake ?

Proof? The only move that I can see he has made is to attempt to silence those working at the detention camps by threatening them with incarceration. As for stopping the boats, aren't the boats still attempting to come and isn't he simply turning them around and exposing them to the same dangers regardless?

Proof - If I show evidence the previous Government put children into detention and the current Abbott Government is releasing them would that change your opinion at all? I am happy to do it but want you confirm you are open to change your mind.

Stopping the boats - No the same number of boats are not attempting the journey anymore because by turning them around the Abbott Government has broken the people smugglers business model. Do you think the same number of boats are still setting sail knowing they have a near zero percent chance of getting in to our waters as opposed to a near 100% chance with the previous Government? It is very easy to see why turning back the boats in conjunction with a number of other measures has been very successful.

It matters not what I regard as long term or short term... the fact is that the very organisation (IPCC) you are claiming supports your hiatus stance, are saying that despite the unforeseen hiatus, global temperatures ARE increasing and ARE reaching a critical point. What do you consider "little warming since the ice age"? Regardless of what you think, the facts would seem to be saying that the warming is enough to cause deep concern.

What is it that makes you want to argue this point continually? Do you have a vested interest in fossil fuels? Are you more concerned about your hip pocket than future generations? I would seriously be interested to know why you invest so much time in arguing these points with everyone and anyone on the forums who expresses a concern over global warming.

I only point out that the IPCC acknowledges the hiatus because they are an alarmist gravy train and rely on global warming to get paid and go on their junkets. The hiatus is measurable and undeniable unless you "homogenise" the data. Regardless of what I think the warming that has stopped is enough for you to be deeply concerned? Are you also concerned about the seas that are not rising as predicted and the polar bears that are thriving?

I argue factual information continually because I hate being fead BS and will call it out when I see it. I do not work or hold any interest in fossil fuels. Having said that I would invest in them over wind farms as if it is a far superior technology and isn't relying on tax payer subsidies that could be rightly ripped away at any time. If you want to invest your money in over sized wind mills propped up Government subsities good luck to you.

Proof - If I show evidence the previous Government put children into detention and the current Abbott Government is releasing them would that change your opinion at all? I am happy to do it but want you confirm you are open to change your mind.

Stopping the boats - No the same number of boats are not attempting the journey anymore because by turning them around the Abbott Government has broken the people smugglers business model. Do you think the same number of boats are still setting sail knowing they have a near zero percent chance of getting in to our waters as opposed to a near 100% chance with the previous Government? It is very easy to see why turning back the boats in conjunction with a number of other measures has been very successful.

Proof... as long as the evidence is NOT from govt sources, from right wing journos or shock jocks, but rather is from sources to do with human rights issues, then yes, you might manage to convince me. I would be interested to know why you think Abbott is trying to silence the workers at the detention centres?

Stopping the boats... on what do you base your claim that the numbers are down? Didn't Abbott put a code of silence in place with regards to sea going naval operations in relation to the boats? How would you have even the vaguest idea of how many boats there are? You can assume all you like, but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

I only point out that the IPCC acknowledges the hiatus because they are an alarmist gravy train and rely on global warming to get paid and go on their junkets. The hiatus is measurable and undeniable unless you "homogenise" the data. Regardless of what I think the warming that has stopped is enough for you to be deeply concerned? Are you also concerned about the seas that are not rising as predicted and the polar bears that are thriving?

I argue factual information continually because I hate being fead BS and will call it out when I see it. I do not work or hold any interest in fossil fuels. Having said that I would invest in them over wind farms as if it is a far superior technology and isn't relying on tax payer subsidies that could be rightly ripped away at any time. If you want to invest your money in over sized wind mills propped up Government subsities good luck to you.

You are basing that on what... a hiatus of how long? A couple of decades? Of course I am concerned, because the long term affects are far more important that a hiatus. And it is interesting that you are quite happy to use the term "hiatus", as that would indicate that the cessation in warming is NOT permanent and that you too agree with the rest of us that temperatures will continue to rise over time.

Proof - If I show evidence the previous Government put children into detention and the current Abbott Government is releasing them would that change your opinion at all? I am happy to do it but want you confirm you are open to change your mind.

Stopping the boats - No the same number of boats are not attempting the journey anymore because by turning them around the Abbott Government has broken the people smugglers business model. Do you think the same number of boats are still setting sail knowing they have a near zero percent chance of getting in to our waters as opposed to a near 100% chance with the previous Government? It is very easy to see why turning back the boats in conjunction with a number of other measures has been very successful.

the numbers of boats had already started to reduce when Rudd secretively & belatedly started closing the borders, & sending all leaky boat arrivals to New guinea first, & saying no economic refugees would get to australian shores. the boats all-but stopped, soon after.

... the indonesian politicians screamed blue murder when they heard the news, as it wasn't discussed with them. (upset their plans grafting $$$)

this was done months before the election was even announced.

but that doesn't change the children in detention does it

In 2005..... I see Children in there; Men & Women.

..... and what about the children overboard fiasco ????