Know the Enemy

[John_R]

For anyone wanting a good read on how Glowball Warming, anti-fishing and anti-smoking all tie together, this site is a great read:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=321&Itemid=1


I particularly urge the Jeremys on this site to take a read. ::)

[Grunter71]

Good read that. I hope it doesn't offend any zealots!

[kc]

What a good read and how easily it can adapted to the zealots who attack our way of life.

Outstanding.

KC

[Obi _ Wan]

Thanks for that, it's agood read.

[TimiBoy]

Good read. I do take issue with the smoking bit. I know how much my health improved when I stopped. Major League! 15 years now without a gasper. And I don't think being allowed to smoke in public is any more a right than being allowed to be in public without having to breathe in the vile stuff. Smoke all you want, in your house!

What percentage of arable land is dedicated to tobacco production, I wonder. I doubt it's much but I bet it would help if we changed the crop? Not to sugar cane FFS!

Spoken like a true ex smoker, huh? ;D;D;D

Tim

[Atriplex]

"The demonisation of carbon, the very basis of all life on earth (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Carbon.htm), can only be explained as a religious phenomenon (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm).

It (global warming) provided a means of attacking industry and capitalism through the one great essential to modern life, energy."

This sounds terribly familiar (remember "clean coal" and "we call it life"). And to believe it finishes with this:

"This new Green eco-religion is like a wolf in sheep's clothing and is as dangerous. Unchecked it could result in the downfall of Western civilization as we know it today, or should I say, of yesterday, for already some Governments have implemented very unwise climate change policies derived from unscientific Green beliefs"

Come on, that is just idiotic.

If you need help reading between the lines ask any questions you want.

[PinHead]

excellent stuff..should be a lot more of it...the CC Lemmings obviously will not like it.

[kc]

Don't know if you looked more but this link, off the NZ site is one of the better attempts at explaining the junk science used by the Carbon/Climate change "industry".

The authors even acknowledge the shortcomings of their own position but any balanced and fair reading of the paper would have to have even the most CC converted asking questions.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

[TimiBoy]

Dany balanced and fair reading of the paper would have to have even the most CC converted asking questions.


Unfortunately you're incorrect. If a committed Greenie sees a good argument, he switches to emotion, brands it a lie, washes his hands (with sorbolene) and runs in the other direction, hands in the air, gibbering (like) an idiot!

They are not interested in good science. Just drama. And control. And power over us hicks.

Cheers,

Tim

[manchild]

What an absolute pile of shit. If you believe websites like this than you are simply an idiot....sorry but thats all there is to it.
Calling most of us blokes on this site an idiot in your 3rd post on here is a bit rude methinks.Believing in something based on unproven theorys is more idiotic i must say.
George

[creature100]

ok i withdraw the idiots comment but this stuff is garbage.

[siegfried]

Jeez mate dunno about you but Im not qualifiedd to simply discard this as garbage ,however it must be rememberd that alot of unproven sientific shi&t from dubiously qualified "Kebbin " supporters has been adopted as gospel over the last 12 months, ffs how can you take a bloke seriously that reckons he came from a family of hard workin farmers and had to sleep in the family car when they went broke (insert bullshit yarn icon here) and now wants to tax COW FARTS along with everything else. The chinese etc must be laughing their rings or at us.

[Atriplex]

Calling most of us blokes on this site an idiot in your 3rd post on here is a bit rude methinks.Believing in something based on unproven theorys is more idiotic i must say.
George
Well don't hold back then, he thinks you're an idiot; why don't you prove him wrong, me wrong, every single credible scientist, and most of the Australian public wrong.

This is something you ought to know and everyone on this site should know; no scientific theory has ever been proven. They can't be proven. It's as simple as that.

I should explain, Science, the products of which are infinite, relies on induction not deduction.

So therefore the theory of Global Warming cannot be proved; but you'd be stupid, irresponsible selfish etc. not to heed the signs that are so obvious wherever you look.

[manchild]

Well don't hold back then, he thinks you're an idiot; why don't you prove him wrong, me wrong, every single credible scientist, and most of the Australian public wrong.

This is something you ought to know and everyone on this site should know; no scientific theory has ever been proven. They can't be proven. It's as simple as that.

I should explain, Science, the products of which are infinite, relies on induction not deduction.

So therefore the theory of Global Warming cannot be proved; but you'd be stupid, irresponsible selfish etc. not to heed the signs that are so obvious wherever you look.
Not interested in fighting and shitestirring for that matter if you know what i mean.By the way is nasa measurements are credible source?Mate im not denying or aggreing on global warming or climate change as its called now ,im just dont believe its manmade full stop.So tryphony or arti whichever you prefer i finished right here with this tread.
George

[Atriplex]

Not interested in fighting and shitestirring for that matter if you know what i mean.By the way is nasa measurements are credible source?Mate im not denying or aggreing on global warming or climate change as its called now ,im just dont believe its manmade full stop.So tryphony or arti whichever you prefer i finished right here with this tread.
George
NASA the same organisation that faked the first landing on the moon? Well, I would say they are not to credible considering their recent history, they obviously have a political agenda.

If it's not man made, then surely that means that the coal companies, the oil, car, and mining companies can continue doing what they want. And we too can continue doing whatever makes us happy, wow, wouldn't that be great. All those big companies can keep destroying our earth because they, obviously, aren't doing anything wrong, after all it would be preposterous to believe that only 6,000,000,000 people can have any influence on our planet.

Do you get the picture? If you still see a future where we can continue with a total disregard for the system that supports us (earth), than you are severely deluded.

Logic says; 6,000,000,000 people will have a very strong impact upon the environment.

If you can't bear the words of science understand the words of logic.

[manchild]

So it cant be proven you said?Well then ,lets stuff up the economy for the sake of it while india ,china and the us going ahead full song.Did you tought of the consequences if the theorys wrong?
George

[TimiBoy]

NASA the same organisation that faked the first landing on the moon?


Oh for God's sake you don't really believe that do you AXXX? I think people had doubts before, but I'd suggest you have just proven to most people... well, I don't want to be disciplined so I'll hold back.

( edited by Mod,,,,,, bordering on personal comments )

Tim

[PinHead]

have you read this one Trippy..or aren't you allowed to read what is happening down there at The MGS???

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

The signs are not so obvious at all...but they can be when one is indoctrinated into the realms of a green outlook...daren't look at the whole picture.

You mention, "all credible scientists"..funny that the bloke that originally did the modelling for the Fed Govt has now changed his tune also and says that the modelling. based on new information, is wrong.

I will give you an example of a person in a scientific field that was berated and howled down at first with his theories on the subject matter he was involved in.
The clinician William McBride..thankfully the man had the guts to stand his ground.

[Tangles]

[QUOTE=Atriplex;877079]NASA the same organisation that faked the first landing on the moon? Well, I would say they are not to credible considering their recent history, they obviously have a political agenda.

::) how about you prove it ATripper, back it up that Nasa didnt land on the moon, ie prove the negative... love to hear it and dont give me the Hollywood movie or the internet conspiracy sites, give me science and logic that your so keen on setting yourself up here as the arbiter of... love to hear it...so what are your facts, science and logic Tripper?

if you cant back this up mate how can anyone take you seriously on the Green stuff your shoving down our throats as your own facts, whats the difference Tripper? dont give me an opinion Tripper, just hit me with the facts and science on this? Enlighten Me?

(ps wasnt james brolin in that movie from memory ?::) I love conspiracy theories like the best of them but how about you back up your statement of fact mate???? cant wait...:-X



Mike

[TimiBoy]

how about you prove it ATripper, back it up that Nasa didnt land on the moon, ie prove the negative...


Like Mike, I can't wait.

It is important when you do argue this, AXXX, to ensure you keep all emotion from your comment. Cite your sources in a clear and detailed fashion. Be very complete in your discussion. You will require witnesses (no third party accounts please), and all sources must be viewable by us Ausfishers, as you can be guaranteed we will want (indeed need, so we can be enlightened) to read them.

Should you fail in this task, any credibility you had a tenuous grasp upon will flee, and any future Greenie comments will be greeted with howls of derision (you'll have to keep it to fishing).

Should you fail in this task, the disservice done to the Green cause by such a backdown will echo though the ages.

Do, please, enlighten us.

Tim

[creature100]

Also an interesting read....

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/27/environment.science

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand. Associated with coal research, has not published any peer-reviewed work in regards to climate. Hasn't published anything in over 17 years. Also a member of the NRSP, which gets funding from energy companies such as Exxon.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray_(scientist)

Dr. Robert. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. Paleoclimate scientist. Member of the institute of public affairs. a Industry funded think tank that takes money from places like Monsanto, Big Tobacco and so on.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc

These two guys are founding members of the "autonomous" NZ climate science coalition......peer review is the cornerstone of modern science. Know your enemy indeed.
Wake Up!!!

[PinHead]

peer review is not the be all and end all...all depends on what the peers are.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

from the above article:

"The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. "

I would love to know which scientists got their chop of that 50 billion..quite a lot I bet. All for some theories...and people are blindly following these theories.

[PinHead]

the greenies want everyone to use alternative power sources..we have coal fired , hyrdoelectric and nuclear..any other suggestions that are reliable and can produce enough power to meer current and future requirements.

[Stuart]

Pinhead

Just had a great idea, Instead of burning coal we burn the weed these greenies are smoking. Clean, green and every one will be happy.

Stu

[manchild]

Well if the satellite data is wrong perhaps this are the sources?
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

[bushbeachboy]

Pinhead

Just had a great idea, Instead of burning coal we burn the weed these greenies are smoking. Clean, green and every one will be happy.

Stu

Only for a short time Stu. A new theory is that long term use is harmful.

But remember it's only a theory, so not proven, can't be proven according to AXXX.

Is gravity a theory? Might be ok if a whole bunch of greenies tried to disprove it. Or is gravity a law, like the greenies would like their theories to be? But only when it applies to us rednecks. The greens can still swan around in their private jets like their demi-god Gore. Now he wouldn't have any kind of political axe to grind would he?

[TimiBoy]

Well if the satellite data is wrong perhaps this are the sources?
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Ah yes. Good, solid, incontravertible science.

Love it.

Come on AXXX, I hope the reason we haven't heard from you is that you are busy organising and checking your facts on the Moon landing?:-X:-X:-X

Tim

[bushbeachboy]

With a bit of luck, XXX will be off having a XXXX, and thinking a bit. Might come back with something more sensible than faked moon landings.

[mod5]

The only fact about the moon landing being a fake is that the company who made the documentary trying to prove it made a fortune.

;D;D;D;D;D

[bushbeachboy]

On another thought, if the moon landing was faked, what difference does it make?

[TimiBoy]

On another thought, if the moon landing was faked, what difference does it make?

If it means nothing to you, that's fine.

The point is that some folks (one folk?) believe it was staged, whereas it quite obviously was a real event, enormously important in the context of Human exploration and growth as a Race, IMO.

The belief that it was faked, when presented in the context of an argument which has been vigorously presented by the "disbeliever" regarding the "reality" of human influenced climate change, provides a torpedo in the engine room for his argument, unless he presents a clear, succinct argument to back this statement.

Given no one has managed to prove it ever, I think he's retreated to the warm, dark atmosphere under his bed, because at least the hicks on Ausfish can't get him there!!!

It may even be possible that the Climate change Guru's who seem to think some of us need "reeducation" may back off and lick their wounds for a while, and give us some peace. Oh to be allowed to share my redneck hick opinions with my fellow fishers without being tackled with blah blah blah blah.

Or was that me? Damn whiskey again...;D;D;D

Cheers,

Tim

[Jeremy87]

For anyone wanting a good read on how Glowball Warming, anti-fishing and anti-smoking all tie together, this site is a great read:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=321&Itemid=1


I particularly urge the Jeremys on this site to take a read. ::)

Which Jeremy are you referring to John_R. I initially assumed that there was a bit of sarcasm in your post but the vast majority of replies seem to regard it is convincing eveidence. All i got out of it was the opinion of a seriously p!ssed of bloke who seems to think that the government has an agenda to wreck everthing for everyone. I don't think I've actually stated an opinion yet on any of these topics other than stating that backing yourself up with newspaper articles or propeganda driven web sites is not a good way of expressing an opinion (I'm talking either side here both green groups and what ever you want to call conservative organisations). There seems seems to be alot of critiscism of pier reviewed scientific method. I'd like to hear someone on this site give an accurate description of what it actually is.

[bushbeachboy]

Fortunately I'm old enough to remember it, and it was a significant day.

And I completely agree with you Timi Boy, AXXX has made a goose of himself with that one statement. Any (small) amount of credibility he may have had before has completely disappeared.

AXXX if you're reading this, don't be totally discouraged about stating your beliefs in public. Quite a few of the people on here, including me, have said plain silly things in our younger days. Sometimes that's how you learn stuff.

If you're a true believer in your cause, you will have the guts to reply. Please make some sense, and put forward sensible debate about this issue. You might need to apologise to all us dumb redneck hicks for treating us with such disrespect, but that would be a small price to pay to get your message across a bit more. But only do it if you're serious. Don't waste our time otherwise.

[Lovey80]

[quote=Atriplex;877046]Well don't hold back then, he thinks you're an idiot; why don't you prove him wrong, me wrong, every single credible scientist, and most of the Australian public wrong.

Atriplex, I am neither for or against doing something about carbon emmissions, well I am as long as it is done responsibly. I Believe there has to be a better way of doing things and don't like to see that haze over our cities but as long as Australian's don't screw themselves over in the process. I have made comments on my position on this n the past to which I think you and I are "close" to being on the same page.

However I must severly protest to the "every single credible scientist" quote. What really pisses me off in todays age is that the only scientists to be considered "CREDIBLE" are the ones that tow the company "green" line. These are the facts of environmental science today and they can not be disputed. In particular are the marine scientists. It doesn't matter how much experience a marine scientist has or how credible anything he reports is as long as it is to the advantage of the Greens/EPA/AMCS he/she will get credibility/backing/funding and media airtime. While people with many more years experience and actual REAL science behind them get outcasted by thier own people.

Some need to put this in perpective, you can not argue the above paragraph because it is FACT. Or to put it like a scientist would. it isnt a theory it is LAW as far as science and pollitics work in this country.


My two cents

Cheers Chris

[Lovey80]

Oh by the way, as a side note I disagree with the authors stance on smoking. I am a smoker (one in hand as I type). i was originally discusted in the new smoking laws. However I am man enough to say that I was wrong! I find it much better having to go to my little congested smoking room during a night of drinking. I smoke far less and effect no one else but myself. Not too sure about smoking in the open air in public is quite the same thing..... your thoughts all?

Cheers Chris

[TimiBoy]

Oh by the way, as a side note I disagree with the authors stance on smoking. I am a smoker (one in hand as I type). i was originally discusted in the new smoking laws. However I am man enough to say that I was wrong! I find it much better having to go to my little congested smoking room during a night of drinking. I smoke far less and effect no one else but myself. Not too sure about smoking in the open air in public is quite the same thing..... your thoughts all?

Cheers Chris

Probably a worthy discussion in a new thread. I'll leave that up to you, Lovely!

Cheers,

Tim

[Atriplex]

[quote=Atriplex;877046]Well don't hold back then, he thinks you're an idiot; why don't you prove him wrong, me wrong, every single credible scientist, and most of the Australian public wrong.

Atriplex, I am neither for or against doing something about carbon emmissions, well I am as long as it is done responsibly. I Believe there has to be a better way of doing things and don't like to see that haze over our cities but as long as Australian's don't screw themselves over in the process. I have made comments on my position on this n the past to which I think you and I are "close" to being on the same page.

However I must severly protest to the "every single credible scientist" quote. What really pisses me off in todays age is that the only scientists to be considered "CREDIBLE" are the ones that tow the company "green" line. These are the facts of environmental science today and they can not be disputed. In particular are the marine scientists. It doesn't matter how much experience a marine scientist has or how credible anything he reports is as long as it is to the advantage of the Greens/EPA/AMCS he/she will get credibility/backing/funding and media airtime. While people with many more years experience and actual REAL science behind them get outcasted by thier own people.

Some need to put this in perpective, you can not argue the above paragraph because it is FACT. Or to put it like a scientist would. it isnt a theory it is LAW as far as science and pollitics work in this country.


My two cents

Cheers Chris
An interesting point. To me; a credible scientist is someone who is willing to admit their theory is wrong. Scientists who are given grants by influential groups (oil companies, coal companies, cigarette companies, etc.) will not change their theory if the facts do not fit the theory.

A very famous scientist; whom, my good friend Aigusto quoted in another post; Albert Einstein once said: "if the facts don't fit the theory; change the facts."
If someone goes out, like Einstein did with his theory of relativity, and just looks for the facts that fit their theory then they cannot be considered credible. Because the conclusion that they reach will not be scientifically credible.

Well, that's my opinion anyway. Scientific organisations like NASA should not be trusted with the truth of Global Warming.

I often read The Australian at "MGS," believe it or not; I read it because it's interesting, and luckily I'm able to take most of their articles about the Environment with a grain of salt, because most of the time the argument that is presented is far inferior to the opposing argument.

In unrelated matters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations. Read that; and see what you think. Remember anyone can edit this information. If you're still 100% certain that the moon landing was authentic, please say so. As I would be interested to see you're well formulated, and articluate response, keeping in mind that it would be a good idea to talk about relevant things. BTW I'm not 100% that the moon landing was a hoax, but I'm always interested in the other side of the story. The article that I read, at school, about the moon landing proposed a very good argument. If I see it I shall enlighten youse.

P.S. The way you behaved in the other post TimiBoy (you didn't answer any of my questions (DUH!!) and you didn't formulate any sort of argument) I would say it's you who needs to regain a bit of credibility.

P.S.S. I was gone fishing just so you know :wink:.

EDIT: Just remembered that I'll be heading up to Moreton Bay in September. If you want to meet me, just let me know.;D

















I'm joking by the way:D

[PinHead]

Scientists are also given grants by Govts and when those Govts have a definite green leaning I wonder which way the scientists lean??

Once again, I notice a green supporter make a statement and then is challenged to put forward the evidence. The standard response is : you show your opposing evidence first. Watch all green activists, they all have the same MO.

[Tangles]

Atrip,

Your too much fun, I believe the quote i made was:

'Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts'

And you never answered my original query on your grand statement on the moon landing? except with a 'youse' prove it to me line as Pinhead noted,,

We are still waiting Atripper, hit me with the facts, not a 'youse' prove it to me response, surely for such an socially aware and enlightened person as you set yourself up to be, you can at least provide us mere mortals with a morsel of facts. And bear in mind that quote on facts???

Atripper its simple, like i said, if you cant state your facts then you cant be taken seriously, I think people here have given you a fair amount of rope to play out your arguments and fun.

PS, you cant escape the fact you made the statement, back it up for once.

[TimiBoy]

Ditto, Aigutso. AXXX, you are suffering a credibility drain. You started your arguments, and then have continued all the way from that point, by demanding we provide proof, while steadfastly refusing to provide same.

And then you hit us with the moon landing stuff, and now you suggest Wikipedia as a primary source. Well, every self respecting Conspiracy Theorist has an entry there, and it is all speculation and conjecture.

You have answered our request for evidence with a demand that we supply evidence first. You brought it up first, Mate, so put your money where your mouth is. You have failed to provide a clearly argued and factual account.

I'd suggest this is exactly where you sit on the environment, too, "Choosing your own facts"...

And regarding me answering questions, I would quote myself above. You have answered questions with questions, lambasted every suggestion from everyone about the presentation of views from the opposite side (which you have already discounted by stating that your views are supported by every reputable scientist" - your words).

It is now your responsibility to be presenting clear facts. Until I see you do so, I will waste no further time on you. Your problem is you fail to recognise that by aligning yourself with the Conspiracy Theorists on the Moon bit, you have dragged all your arguments down to that line. If the due diligence you use to establish your beliefs is measured by that benchmark, you are just not credible.

Tim

[bushbeachboy]

[quote=Lovey80;877506]
An interesting point. To me; a credible scientist is someone who is willing to admit their theory is wrong.

Why?

Scientists who are given grants by influential groups (oil companies, coal companies, cigarette companies, etc.) will not change their theory if the facts do not fit the theory.

And that is a theory according to whom?

A very famous scientist; whom, my good friend Aigusto quoted in another post; Albert Einstein once said: "if the facts don't fit the theory; change the facts."
If someone goes out, like Einstein did with his theory of relativity, and just looks for the facts that fit their theory then they cannot be considered credible. Because the conclusion that they reach will not be scientifically credible.

Has the Theory of Relativity been shown to be wrong? Who is more credible than Einstein?

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

The truth!!!!! It's all your opinion. Stop preaching to me, and start proving your arguments. At least reference your work!!!!!!

Scientific organisations like NASA should not be trusted with the truth of Global Warming.

If they are truly 'scientific' why not? Or is it because they are paid by the US Government? Do they have a political agenda? What about the demi-god Gore of the US Democratic Party? Would he have a political agenda? Maybe to try and discredit his political opposition? Perhaps payback to Bush?

I often read The Australian at "MGS," believe it or not; I read it because it's interesting, and luckily I'm able to take most of their articles about the Environment with a grain of salt, because most of the time the argument that is presented is far inferior to the opposing argument.

In unrelated matters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations. Read that; and see what you think. Remember anyone can edit this information. If you're still 100% certain that the moon landing was authentic, please say so. As I would be interested to see you're well formulated, and articluate response, keeping in mind that it would be a good idea to talk about relevant things. BTW I'm not 100% that the moon landing was a hoax, but I'm always interested in the other side of the story. The article that I read, at school, about the moon landing proposed a very good argument. If I see it I shall enlighten youse.

Interesting...when my wife was doing her management studies they specifically stated that Wikipedia was not to be used as a referencing source. Why would that be? Maybe because it can be edited by anyone? With any axe to grind? And the ability to put up whatever their argument is as fact, then use it against those who disagree with them? That would certainly be easier than actually researching with an open mind.

P.S.S. I was gone fishing just so you know :wink:.

Any photo's to prove it?

EDIT: Just remembered that I'll be heading up to Moreton Bay in September. If you want to meet me, just let me know.;D

How are you getting there? Not burning fossil fuels I hope......Big Al will be cross with you.

I'm joking by the way:D

Cheers

BBB

[Jeremy87]

Scientists are also given grants by Govts and when those Govts have a definite green leaning I wonder which way the scientists lean??

Once again, I notice a green supporter make a statement and then is challenged to put forward the evidence. The standard response is : you show your opposing evidence first. Watch all green activists, they all have the same MO.

Regardless of who funds the study you can relly on scientific method and pier reviewing to make sure any findings are scientifically sound. I can't help thinking that you regard scientists and green groups to be the same thing. It really isn't the case.

[PinHead]

Regardless of who funds the study you can relly on scientific method and pier reviewing to make sure any findings are scientifically sound. I can't help thinking that you regard scientists and green groups to be the same thing. It really isn't the case.

No Jeremy. I do not regard scinetists and green groups as the same thing at all.
I do have a problem with using those with a definite green leaning when making recommendatos that affect my lifestyle. eg Moreton Bay zonings.
Green seems to be the cathcry of the 21st Century...a pity I did not catch onto it sooner...could be making squillions by now with crap based on crap...just like the greens are doing now.

[Jeremy87]

No Jeremy. I do not regard scinetists and green groups as the same thing at all.
I do have a problem with using those with a definite green leaning when making recommendatos that affect my lifestyle. eg Moreton Bay zonings.
Green seems to be the cathcry of the 21st Century...a pity I did not catch onto it sooner...could be making squillions by now with crap based on crap...just like the greens are doing now.

Then why do you keep taking shots at scientist. Have a go at the green groups for a change. You keep calling on people to back up their statements with evidence, now its your turn. Find the evidence that proves fisheries aren't collapsing, climate patterns aren't shifting, fossil fuel supplies aren't depleting, human population is not exceeding the productivity of food, species aren't going extinct at elevated levels. I'm as open minded as they come but i only take heed from credible scientific sources. Come on i'm waiting to be convinced.

[PinHead]

how about you show me that all of the above is happening. The Green groups are the ones that want so many changes but where is all their irrefutable evidence. They are the ones getting paid grants etc to produce this evidence.

[TimiBoy]

Don't know if you looked more but this link, off the NZ site is one of the better attempts at explaining the junk science used by the Carbon/Climate change "industry".

The authors even acknowledge the shortcomings of their own position but any balanced and fair reading of the paper would have to have even the most CC converted asking questions.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Having read this article, one thing is proven. There are reputable scientists who DO refute Man Made Global Warming Theory.

It does not necessarily discredit those who are for the theory, but it does postulate, and backs with good science, a very powerful alternative, that warming is caused by the Sun. Hey, that makes sense doesn't it?

It does show that there is a very good alternative theory, and it is also quite scary. I don't have time to discuss it. Read it yourself. Please.

Cheers,

Tim

[kc]

I found it that way too Tim. A credible alternative theory to the Carbon induced Climate Change doomsday model.

If authors bio


James A. Peden - better known as Jim or "Dad" - Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Seems to suggest this is a pretty well qualified fellow.....no doubt in the employ of the evil energy industry !!

The clear case he makes is that increased CO2 levels are a consequence of warming not a cause and that a small increase in CO2 is a good thing, not a sky is falling outcome. He also makes the point, a point ignore by the CC deciples, that for every shinking glacier, more are growing. For the reduced Arctic Ice Cap of 2007 summer the antarctic cap was the largest in recorded history. This is the issue I have always taken with the CC model. Selective use of data. Just as selective use of data has been used in fisheries "management".

This is a fishing web site but there are clear links here between the methods used to justify fisheries closures and the methods used foistering this hoax.....and for that matter the Y2K hoax when "every credible computer programer in the world" taked up the millenium bug.

As I said earlier, any read of this should cause any reasoned thinker to question the CC/carbon link. It might not suit the evangalistic climate change crusaders but surely it has to raise some red flags.

I for one think that cutting back fossil fuel usage has to be a good thing. It is obviuos on the TV every day what is going on in China. Cleaner options are just better options but the crusade towards a carbon trading scheme, all in the name of saving the planet really has become a new religion and pity help anyone who dares be a heritic.

I think all of us should have an open mind. Do we cling to "denial" information because we want everything to be right or do we want to be informed of alternative theory? Seems to me the CC evangalists take the same view as any zealots.........entertain no alternatives.

KC

[Jeremy87]

Having read this article, one thing is proven. There are reputable scientists who DO refute Man Made Global Warming Theory.

It does not necessarily discredit those who are for the theory, but it does postulate, and backs with good science, a very powerful alternative, that warming is caused by the Sun. Hey, that makes sense doesn't it?

It does show that there is a very good alternative theory, and it is also quite scary. I don't have time to discuss it. Read it yourself. Please.

Cheers,

Tim

Yeh i read it. I reakon the writers got cheek criticising that paper for not being pier reviewed when his spiel doesn't even reference its data sources nor has he encapsulated his figures with appropriate explanations of the sources origin. Climate is variable, you can't look at temperature in one place over x many years and say this is what is happening over the whole world. It might be cooler over here, warmer over here and the same temperature over there. It's very easy to make a case for just about anything if you only use data that suits you. Anyway my point climate has changed this guy even agree's with that much. Whether it is anthropogenic or natural is debatable but to a certain extent irrelevent. What is relevent is is finding out what the repercussions are of this climate shift and how we are going to respond to it.

[kc]

Jeremy you hit it on the head exactly "it's very easy to make a case for just about anything if you use the data that suits you".

Here bloody here.

For what it's worth I agree with you. Any of us can look into our own back yards and see a need for change. Change the way we look after our environment, our fishery and our use of energy/fossil fuel We don't need science, peer reviewed or otherwise to recognise we can do things better and get a better outcome.

What has always bugged me is that the science of climate change, just as has been the science of MPA's is at best "selective" and at worst plain bald faced deception.

I notice, having a dig around the web that the Manhattan declaration by a group of scenitists, made after an international climate change conference, puts forward an alternate view to the IPPC and this "group" is then dubbed the "Evil Twin Brother to the IPPC"...............this is unbeliavable media biaise, despite the actual position having some merit the media only wants to shoot the messanger, not report what they have to say or why. Yet at the same time we are told "the science is settled"....No it's not! In fact more and more "sceptics" seem to be arising within the science community itself. Are they all wrong?

Why is it that anyone offering a disenting view is howled down rather than have their theory and science debated?

Seems to me the best way to shoot down the climate change sceptics would be to disprove "their" science, yet something as simple as the carbon dioxide level following, not leading any warming of the planet seems unable to be contadicted, yet we continue with this absurd carbon trading scheme, which WILL costs us all and that seems to be a fact everyone agrees with.

Here seems to be a couple of clear "facts" (and I use this term ready to be howled down).

* History shows atmospheric carbon di-oxide is a consequence of temperature increase not a cause.
* The infamous "hockey stick" warming graph, used so graphically by Al Gore, has been proven (at law) to be incorrect.
* Temperature, at a global level, has been falling over the last 3 years not rising.
* At a global level polar ice caps and glacier cover are actually increasing

If the climate change debate has done anything it has caused every one of us to look at little closer at our own backyard and look after our environment a little better and that can only be a good thing.

If the next step takes us to a point of absurdity and allows our economy and lifestyle to be ruined by a few zealots and complient media who love a nice juicey doomsday scenario then that destroys any good our environmental awakening has achieved.

For the time being the popular media will continue to push the doomsday theory. It sells papers and everyone loves good "chicken little" story.
The media was full of Y2K articles and yet when it didn't happen, hardly a word.

I'm sick to death of the propogander about the reef dying out, and the absolute bul%$%$# about fish stock levels recovering after green zones. Now even crown of thorns have been stopped by green zones, green zones will stop the effects of climate change and yes...wait for it....(true) the green zones will lead to a cure for cancer (I kid you not....this was one newspaper marine science puff piece).

The absolute beauty with the whole CC rubbish is when nothing happens the CC brigade will be able to say. Look.....told you....if we hadn't changed our ways we would have all been doomed....no time lines (like Y2K) and just an ongoing gravey train for the "sceince" community/marine parks community.

In business we operate on budgets and with key performance indicators. The CC model is an open cheque book with absolutely no accountability. A bunch of kids loose in a lolly shop.

Regards

KC

[TimiBoy]

Yes it's amazing that if you don't jump on the CC bandwagon you are assumed to not care about the environment at all. I care very deeply. I have protested on it's behalf (looong ago, I will admit;D) and I am deeply concerned about the crap we pump into it, and the stuff we take out of it.

But not so much that I am prepared to throw away a pretty workable lifestyle on the basis of a poorly constructed freak show. It has failed to convince me, and has failed to convince a lot of people who are significantly better educated than I. It's poster boy (Big Al) should be wrapped in celluloid and set on fire, because his production really is the worst kind of populist crap.

What if in a few years it becomes obvious that we really have entered a cooling cycle? It'd be really good if we were working hard to develop plants which will yield well at low temperatures, with a consequent low CO2 count. I will be among the first to kill, skin, tan and wear a GW focussed Greenie to keep warm.

I am actually very, very worried about the implications on the local economy when we start our carbon trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world. The only place we will lead the world is down the gurgler. They will stand and laugh at us while all our best industries jump ship to cheaper climes. Does KRUDD own a violin? I bet he'll stand there fiddling while the Australian economy burns...

Tim

[Atriplex]

Jeremy you hit it on the head exactly "it's very easy to make a case for just about anything if you use the data that suits you".

Here bloody here.

For what it's worth I agree with you. Any of us can look into our own back yards and see a need for change. Change the way we look after our environment, our fishery and our use of energy/fossil fuel We don't need science, peer reviewed or otherwise to recognise we can do things better and get a better outcome.

What has always bugged me is that the science of climate change, just as has been the science of MPA's is at best "selective" and at worst plain bald faced deception.

I notice, having a dig around the web that the Manhattan declaration by a group of scenitists, made after an international climate change conference, puts forward an alternate view to the IPPC and this "group" is then dubbed the "Evil Twin Brother to the IPPC"...............this is unbeliavable media biaise, despite the actual position having some merit the media only wants to shoot the messanger, not report what they have to say or why. Yet at the same time we are told "the science is settled"....No it's not! In fact more and more "sceptics" seem to be arising within the science community itself. Are they all wrong?

Why is it that anyone offering a disenting view is howled down rather than have their theory and science debated?

Seems to me the best way to shoot down the climate change sceptics would be to disprove "their" science, yet something as simple as the carbon dioxide level following, not leading any warming of the planet seems unable to be contadicted, yet we continue with this absurd carbon trading scheme, which WILL costs us all and that seems to be a fact everyone agrees with.

Here seems to be a couple of clear "facts" (and I use this term ready to be howled down).

* History shows atmospheric carbon di-oxide is a consequence of temperature increase not a cause.
* The infamous "hockey stick" warming graph, used so graphically by Al Gore, has been proven (at law) to be incorrect.
* Temperature, at a global level, has been falling over the last 3 years not rising.
* At a global level polar ice caps and glacier cover are actually increasing

If the climate change debate has done anything it has caused every one of us to look at little closer at our own backyard and look after our environment a little better and that can only be a good thing.

If the next step takes us to a point of absurdity and allows our economy and lifestyle to be ruined by a few zealots and complient media who love a nice juicey doomsday scenario then that destroys any good our environmental awakening has achieved.

For the time being the popular media will continue to push the doomsday theory. It sells papers and everyone loves good "chicken little" story.
The media was full of Y2K articles and yet when it didn't happen, hardly a word.

I'm sick to death of the propogander about the reef dying out, and the absolute bul%$%$# about fish stock levels recovering after green zones. Now even crown of thorns have been stopped by green zones, green zones will stop the effects of climate change and yes...wait for it....(true) the green zones will lead to a cure for cancer (I kid you not....this was one newspaper marine science puff piece).

The absolute beauty with the whole CC rubbish is when nothing happens the CC brigade will be able to say. Look.....told you....if we hadn't changed our ways we would have all been doomed....no time lines (like Y2K) and just an ongoing gravey train for the "sceince" community/marine parks community.

In business we operate on budgets and with key performance indicators. The CC model is an open cheque book with absolutely no accountability. A bunch of kids loose in a lolly shop.

Regards

KC
That's a good read.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the last bit of what you said: that acting upon Climate Change will lead to misery (or a less happy lifestyle).

"If the next step takes us to a point of absurdity and allows our economy and lifestyle to be ruined by a few zealots and complient media who love a nice juicey doomsday scenario then that destroys any good our environmental awakening has achieved."

I take issue with the above statement especially. I understand that you are exagerrating things a little bit (?), but the next step in improving the environment is to turn to reknewable energies. This is what the Rudd government has said. Their actions are questionable though. I believe that the whole idea behind an emmissions trading scheme is to alleviate the pains of change. The Rudd government would like to see the coal companies continue to make as much money as possible. And this is what the emissions trading scheme will provide: an excuse for the big emmiters to keep on emmiting for longer.

If you disagree with me please say so? But, if you don't mind could I ask you a silly question: how exactly do you think being environmentally conscious/aware/active will affect you. I'm not implying anything here, I would like to know, is it because of the proposed taxes on environmentally unfriendly things?

[Atriplex]

Yes it's amazing that if you don't jump on the CC bandwagon you are assumed to not care about the environment at all. I care very deeply. I have protested on it's behalf (looong ago, I will admit;D) and I am deeply concerned about the crap we pump into it, and the stuff we take out of it.

But not so much that I am prepared to throw away a pretty workable lifestyle on the basis of a poorly constructed freak show. It has failed to convince me, and has failed to convince a lot of people who are significantly better educated than I. It's poster boy (Big Al) should be wrapped in celluloid and set on fire, because his production really is the worst kind of populist crap.

What if in a few years it becomes obvious that we really have entered a cooling cycle? It'd be really good if we were working hard to develop plants which will yield well at low temperatures, with a consequent low CO2 count. I will be among the first to kill, skin, tan and wear a GW focussed Greenie to keep warm.

I am actually very, very worried about the implications on the local economy when we start our carbon trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world. The only place we will lead the world is down the gurgler. They will stand and laugh at us while all our best industries jump ship to cheaper climes. Does KRUDD own a violin? I bet he'll stand there fiddling while the Australian economy burns...

Tim
European Union Emission Trading Scheme.

Never heard of it?

We are not starting well ahead of the rest, we are starting well behind other nations. It started in 2005.

Need I hammer the point home? ;D

[Mike Delisser]

I notice, having a dig around the web that the Manhattan declaration by a group of scenitists, made after an international climate change conference, puts forward an alternate view to the IPPC and this "group" is then dubbed the "Evil Twin Brother to the IPPC"...............this is unbeliavable media biaise,
Regards
KC

KC can you show me somewhere this "Group" has been dubbed the "Evil twin brother to the IPPC"?

[kc]

www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/nipcc_manhattan_declaration/ - 32k

KC

[kc]

No. It's because of taxes on ordinary things...like transport and electricity, which flows on to every day prices, fuel costs and everything "we" do which requires energy...just the very act of sitting here on a computer will cost more.

If my prices go up do my customer numbers go down? One would expect so. If business suffers do I lay off staff? Yep! If unemployment goes up does business suffer. Yep! If the coal/mining industry driven wealth boom our country enjoys suffers do all our way of lives suffer. Yep! Do house prices fall in this environment. Yep. Do bank foreclosures increase. Yep! Will a stupid tax on emmitting a harmless gas acheive anything positive. NO

[PinHead]

"renewable energy"..there is another term that keeps cropping up...other than nuclear there is no other source of electricity that is effective and relatively inexpensive...and that can meet the requirements of the populace.

[Mike Delisser]

www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/nipcc_manhattan_declaration/ - 32k

KC

Thanks KC--- It seems like a crack pot site don't you think,

However, you do know who paid for the Manhattan Declaration don't you???
That could explain why HL Mencken (the "good read" at the start of this post) has concluded that there's nothing wrong with passive smoking in his article.

Me thinks scientists don't come cheap on either side of the fence

[kc]

Not the point and I don't like smoking either. The point is media, in general, love a good global warming doomsday story but almost ignore any alternate view.

It seems pretty well acknowledged, for example, that CO2 follows, not leads any increase in temperature cycles and yet the media still perpetuate the myth that CO2 is causing CC.

This may be a "crackpot site".....don't know, but here it sits on page 1 of Google as a commentary on the Manhattan Declaration.

KC

[TimiBoy]

European Union Emission Trading Scheme.

Never heard of it?

We are not starting well ahead of the rest, we are starting well behind other nations. It started in 2005.

Need I hammer the point home? ;D

I stand corrected, we will not be the first. Thanks for that!

The EU system appears quite similar to what we will have here. They are, however, implementing it in stages, with the first complete after 3 years (2005-7, covering big power generation, iron, steel and combustion plants and selected high emission production.

In the second stage, NO2 will be included, from 2008-12, with slight increases in National targets within the EU.

This is a phased introduction, with intensive review, designed to minimise economic impact. The EU acknowledge the limited scope of their ETS, and are looking to broaden it in 2013.

Is the same intended here? It doesn't look like it. I see fundamental differences between the EU and Australian models. While I am no expert (far from it) it appears the Australian model is a far deeper and broader example, but doesn't include coal... I smell politics.

Our scheme also will be the first in our sphere of economic influence, which validates the idea of our prices being forced up, and business being forced overseas.

It is certainly a valid process from the perspective that we will reduce the level of filth being poured into the environment. IF you believe that CO2 is filth, which I cannot see has been proven.

Alternate views would suggest that perhaps we should be targeting other gasses. Indeed there is a strong argument that we are targeting the wrong gas. But the politics of the Greens and the Labour Party are in the way.

Hell, this and we want to introduce Ethanol (which is 1.7 times as good at making photo chemical smog than petrol, I read in another thread. Politics again...)

So what should we do? Keep reading, keep learning, and keep discussing, because our Government and our Electorate need to gain wisdom on this, and stop getting their knowledge from the media bandwagon.

Cheers,

Tim

[Mike Delisser]

Kc how can you use being on page 1 of Google as an example that alternitive views of the Manhattan Dec suffer from "unbeliavable media biaise" when your example sits at the end of the page following several pro Manhattan Dec sites.
I just checked out some of this weeks papers and the wieght of articles that shone a bad light on Aus moving to a carbon trading sceme massively outnumbered any pro trading sceme stories. This was in the Courier Mail, the paper that we're told on Ausfish likes to ram their pro green pro Rud agenda down our throats.
I try to stay open minded on the CC issue ("try") but some on Ausfish want to have their cake and eat it 2. Many here (on both sides of the CC and political debate) seem to be of the opinion that only their road is the right one and all sience that they don't agree with is corrupt, all media that doesn't report their side the way they'd like it is biased.
It seems to me that the "possie" has just about scared all but Atriplex and a few of his mates off the fishing news pages but then again that could be what they want. The problem with that is when you need to get some info out to the masses you'll only be preaching to the converted.
Cheers
Mike

[PinHead]

M62..I am NOT in favour of destroying the environemtn HOWEVER..before people start jumping on bandwagons they should make sure that what they are supporting is proven ..not just based on supposition and the "theories" of a few. I am also not in favour of altering people's lifestyles based on what a few "green scientists" want. ie Moreton Bay.
It is up to these groups that are demanding change to put unequivocal proof on that table that what they are saying is not open to conjecture or debate. That it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that what they are saying is true.

These days the average bloke is starting to get hit in the hip pocket to appease the greenies. I, for one, aqm not in favour of it, and if that makes me part of your so called posse and it drives these greenies off the fishign pages and anywhere else than that is also a good thing.

When the greens can provide the indisuptable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do.

To be prefectly honest, I have had an absolute gutful of all these green ideologists wanting everyone to change their lives just to suit the greenies ideals.
Their ideals are based on some wierd dreams of Nirvana and they do not care to what lengths they have to go to achieve it.

Basically they are all hypocrites.

[kc]

Mike you have to agree that mainstream media love a good "sky is falling" story and have hepled perpetuate the general public opinion that carbon induced climate change is the real deal. It is just a mainstream media view. If we can't agree on that point then ::)

The view of the 500 signatories to the Manhattan declaration "should" have been big news. It wasn't. Why? Either they are all "crackpots" in the employ of the evil energy industry OR the media isn't really interested in "good news"...just the bad.

It's the same up here in regards the reef. If a marine researcher comes out and says "all is well, the reef is doing fine...no one (in the media) seems to give a damn, but issue a press piece saying "The reef will be dead in 20 years" and they are all over it like a rash.

Maybe it's just human nature. Maybe we want to be afraid of something, anything and need to have this shadow hanging over our collective heads. Beats me!

From my reasonabley well read position, the CC debate is dominated by the believers with the help of a supportive media and anyone who dares dissagree is howled down, ridiculed or if they have a valid point, ignored, all while this country works towards an emmissions trading scheme which will achieve no climate change benifits and will cause economic hardship which will make the current interest rates/petrol price downturn look like a picnic.

KC

[Jeremy87]

kc seems to be on the right track to me. At uni we refer to it as critical thinking, it's when you take a piece of evidence and instead of listening to what someone else has to say about it you sit down and nut it out by yourself. Take the temp co2 relation that keeps coming up. It shows the temperature rising and then shortly followed by elevated CO2 the two factors correlate but one isn't causing the other. So really unless someone figures out wether or not temperature causes CO2 to increase the data is rubbish, just 2 factors that correlate with no cause. So based on that graph you can't use it to say that co2 causes temp to increase and equally you can't say that it doesn't. Similarly global temperatures over a 3 year period cannot be used to talk about climate, because climate is on a longer time scale. I'm not on anyones side here, I have very similar feelings towards alot of environmentalists as pin head does. What i'm saying is you should really think critically about things before you take a stance on them because just going on the information iv'e seem on this thread none of it is actually convincing evidence for either case.

[Atriplex]

M62..I am NOT in favour of destroying the environemtn HOWEVER..before people start jumping on bandwagons they should make sure that what they are supporting is proven ..not just based on supposition and the "theories" of a few. I am also not in favour of altering people's lifestyles based on what a few "green scientists" want. ie Moreton Bay.
It is up to these groups that are demanding change to put unequivocal proof on that table that what they are saying is not open to conjecture or debate. That it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that what they are saying is true.

These days the average bloke is starting to get hit in the hip pocket to appease the greenies. I, for one, aqm not in favour of it, and if that makes me part of your so called posse and it drives these greenies off the fishign pages and anywhere else than that is also a good thing.

When the greens can provide the indisuptable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do.

To be prefectly honest, I have had an absolute gutful of all these green ideologists wanting everyone to change their lives just to suit the greenies ideals.
Their ideals are based on some wierd dreams of Nirvana and they do not care to what lengths they have to go to achieve it.

Basically they are all hypocrites.
Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying.

"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

[Tangles]

Atripper;

"Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying'

Does your view compromise others and their lifestyle?


"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

"You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

Sort of sticks at odds with your past posts doesnt it Tripper, ie science , now you say science cant be based on indisputable facts, IE your saying there are no facts here Tripper.

So does this mean CC and Green policies you espouse etc isnt based on facts as according to you science cant provide indisputable evidence? So whats your argument or is it a Feeling?

SO: According to Tripper:
1: Science isnt fact and can never provide 100% facts/evidence
2: Atripper relies on science for his arguments? so now how do we treat your statements Tripper? oops its disputable? ie how can you credibly back up any future statement Tripper when you quote a scientist?
3: Therefore given your right then you must recognise your view can only be seen as being based on opinion and emotion only


Keep it up Tripper love it;D

PS still waiting for the facts Tripper

mike

[Atriplex]

Atripper;

"Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying'

Does your view compromise others and their lifestyle?


"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

"You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

Sort of sticks at odds with your past posts doesnt it Tripper, ie science , now you say science cant be based on indisputable facts, IE your saying there are no facts here Tripper.

So does this mean CC and Green policies you espouse etc isnt based on facts as according to you science cant provide indisputable evidence? So whats your argument or is it a Feeling?

Keep it up Tripper love it;D

PS still waiting for the facts

mike
I'll try to be as sensitive as I can.

Fact: 2 + 2 = 4. You could say it's a truth; a mathematical fact and truth. There are also scientific truths; i.e. the Bunsen Burner will cause A flame when gas meets match. That's a scientific fact, no? But it would be illogical to say that every time gas comes into contact with a match there will be a flame. We just don't know do we.

And it would be illogical to think that the sun will rise everyday. Even though there has been no case of the sun not rising when it should. So therefore science will never provide us with indisputable evidence!!

Do you understand now?

The Greens policies that I prefer to the opposing policies are based upon Scientific facts as separate from indisputable/logical/deductive facts.

Does my view compromise others and their lifestyle?

An interesting question. I believe my view does not unfairly compromise the lives of others. Would it compromise the lives of people who get pleasure from/while wrecking the environment? Yes most definitely.

Do you think my view would unfairly compromise the lives of others?

"SO: According to Tripper:
1: Science isnt fact and can never provide 100% facts/evidence
2: Atripper relies on science for his arguments? so now how do we treat your statements Tripper? oops its disputable? ie how can you credibly back up any future statement Tripper when you quote a scientist?
3: Therefore given your right then you must recognise your view can only be seen as being based on opinion and emotion only"

According to me putting words into someone else's mouth is the worst form of argument, and is the argument of someone who does not know what they are talking about, or they don't understand what the other person has said properly. I'm afraid, though, I can't dumb down any further.

I hope I've covered what you said in the above.

[disorderly]

Do you think my view would unfairly compromise the lives of others?

Oh you are such a silly,unthinking young person...so happy to jump on the popular environmental bandwagon without having really done or experienced anything in life to make you so narrowminded...

I could write a ten thousand word report of the world of hurt perpetuated onto mine and my wifes small company purely by ridiculous new rulings pertaining to national parks/forestry/water resources purely to appease the greenies...not to mention problems we have also had and continue to have since landclearing laws came in that showed our property in a zone that with the stroke of a pen was zoned "critical habitat" despite have been clearfelled 15 years prior....none of which is making us more environmentally friendly...in actual fact it's having quite the opposite effect by making a very sustainable eco'freindly business into one that will become far more polluting over the next few months....

Big problem is, individual cases are not assessed ...blanket rules are made and can adversely affect many otherwise good,caring people.

And I make my living by growing and selling thousands of plants ,propagating,conserving and selling "rare" and endangered plants from all over the world as well as re- vegetating and landscaping.

Tripper you have no idea.:(

Scott

[siegfried]

Stick to spongebob and wiggles concerts AXXX, your having a shocker.

[Mike Delisser]

Kc wrote-
"Mike you have to agree that mainstream media love a good "sky is falling" story and have hepled perpetuate the general public opinion that carbon induced climate change is the real deal. It is just a mainstream media view. If we can't agree on that point then "
Of course I agree Kc

Kc wrote-
"The view of the 500 signatories to the Manhattan declaration "should" have been big news. It wasn't. Why? Either they are all "crackpots" in the employ of the evil energy industry OR the media isn't really interested in "good news"...just the bad"

Although I think you could be close with "in the employ of the energy industry" ($via Heartland Institute) I'm sure the MS press wouldn't give a shit about that, it would be because they love to sell papers and add space and that = bad news.

critical thinking yes Jeremy, and critical discussion on these pages would be great 2, not just abuse & bully so n so untill he leaves just because I can't make him change his mind or he doesn't see things my way.

Pin wrote
. I, for one, am not in favour of it, and if that makes me part of your so called posse and it drives these greenies off the fishign pages and anywhere else than that is also a good thing.

And what would that achieve Greg?
One of the problems I see is that so many here (esp the stubborn ones) seem to label anyone who isn't 100% with them a ratbag greenie.

[Chris Ryan]

ok i withdraw the idiots comment but this stuff is garbage.


This message is from a different login responding to the quote of calling people idiots which was made form another user. Am I to assume this same person ahs different logins?? i though that was against the rules of Ausfish?

[PinHead]

Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying.

"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

yes lease..bedazzle me with your youthful brilliance and your comprehensive library of facts that are totally indisputable.

Now tell me how my lifestyle comprimises that of others.more like greens wanting me to compromise my lifestyle for the sake of their ideologies..not going to happen...it anything I will go the other just to annoy the buggers.