MARYROSE02 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 This sounds like another 'Captain's Pick' Diane http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prime-minister-tony-abbotts-office-the-origin-for-controversial-bjorn-lomborg-centre-decision-20150423-1mrha2.html What a hypocrite that Larissa Waters is! Calls herself a democrat but wants to shut down any views that are contrary to her own. That is what makes me proud to be a 'sceptic.' If she had her way, universities would only teach one side of any argument, being the one that the Greens favour. https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/bj%C3%B8rn-lomborg-resilient-environmentalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) What utter BS. I'm a sceptic too, and there are many of us. Why shouldn't 'the other side' get a bit of funding? I read his biography. He is not a charlatan. $4 million! A drop in the ocean compared to what Krudd and Juliar wasted. MR2 I think it would help me if you could try to see that my concern is not about the messenger but about the message and the fact is that the worldwide scientific community concurs that climate change is happening and that unless the world changes how it operates then human life will not be sustainable on earth in something between 200 and 500 years, we have a window of between 50 and 100 years to control the rate of rise of the earth's temperature, if we do not achieve that reduction in pollution in that time scale then the rate of rise will be uncontrollable. It is not a theory it is proven science and the sooner it is accepted and understood then the sooner people will start to pressure their governments to take action. Funding this climate denier is simply giving a platform to a mouthpiece for the carbon companies, their greed and their tentacles are condemning us and our children to a very dangerous world which the oil and coal barons are assuming their wealth will insulate them from as it always has in the past. By believing these very dangerous people we are yet again making ourselves victims of the system Edited April 23, 2015 by BacktoDemocracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 MR2 I think it would help me if you could try to see that my concern is not about the messenger but about the message and the fact is that the worldwide scientific community concurs that climate change is happening and that unless the world changes how it operates then human life will not be sustainable on earth in something between 200 and 500 years, we have a window of between 50 and 100 years to control the rate of rise of the earth's temperature, if we do not achieve that reduction in pollution in that time scale then the rate of rise will be uncontrollable. It is not a theory it is proven science and the sooner it is accepted and understood then the sooner people will start to pressure their governments to take action. Funding this climate denier is simply giving a platform to a mouthpiece for the carbon companies, their greed and their tentacles are condemning us and our children to a very dangerous world which the oil and coal barons are assuming their wealth will insulate them from as it always has in the past. By believing these very dangerous people we are yet again making ourselves victims of the system I put climate change deniers right up there with the flat Earth society. How much evidence do people need to see the bleeding obvious ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I put climate change deniers right up there with the flat Earth society. How much evidence do people need to see the bleeding obvious ? Of all the stupid things Abbott has done his attitude to climate change is by far the most concerning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Of all the stupid things Abbott has done his attitude to climate change is by far the most concerning. That's a big call as it is a long list lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 MR2 I think it would help me if you could try to see that my concern is not about the messenger but about the message and the fact is that the worldwide scientific community concurs that climate change is happening and that unless the world changes how it operates then human life will not be sustainable on earth in something between 200 and 500 years, we have a window of between 50 and 100 years to control the rate of rise of the earth's temperature, if we do not achieve that reduction in pollution in that time scale then the rate of rise will be uncontrollable. It is not a theory it is proven science and the sooner it is accepted and understood then the sooner people will start to pressure their governments to take action. Funding this climate denier is simply giving a platform to a mouthpiece for the carbon companies, their greed and their tentacles are condemning us and our children to a very dangerous world which the oil and coal barons are assuming their wealth will insulate them from as it always has in the past. By believing these very dangerous people we are yet again making ourselves victims of the system Well, for a start, Australia could start making use of its uranium reserves and set a target of 100 per cent nuclear power within those 50-100 years. After all, if we are happy to mine the uranium and sell it to other countries to produce nuclear power, we may as well do the same thing. There is no way that an industrialised country like Australia could ever produce sufficient power from wind and sun alone. Don't tell about the alleged dangers of nuclear power either. If climate change is THE GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY, then the drawbacks of nuclear power are the lesser of two (or more) evils. Having said that, I don't believe that the science of climate change is 100 PER CENT proven. When was there ever a subject on which there is never an alternative view? And when was democracy improved by shutting down alternative views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Of all the stupid things Abbott has done his attitude to climate change is by far the most concerning. Add all his stupid things together, and they still don't add up to even one of the idiotic things that KRUDD and Juliar did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Add all his stupid things together, and they still don't add up to even one of the idiotic things that KRUDD and Juliar did. Oh I really don't think you are giving Abbott the credit he deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Well, for a start, Australia could start making use of its uranium reserves and set a target of 100 per cent nuclear power within those 50-100 years. After all, if we are happy to mine the uranium and sell it to other countries to produce nuclear power, we may as well do the same thing. There is no way that an industrialised country like Australia could ever produce sufficient power from wind and sun alone. Don't tell about the alleged dangers of nuclear power either. If climate change is THE GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY, then the drawbacks of nuclear power are the lesser of two (or more) evils. Having said that, I don't believe that the science of climate change is 100 PER CENT proven. When was there ever a subject on which there is never an alternative view? And when was democracy improved by shutting down alternative views? That is the exact point when the science does not correspond with peoples belief systems they want to deny it as proven fact, nucleu5r power is science and you want to believe that because it corresponds with your beliefs, does anyone any longer believe that antibiotics are questionable but they were as much a product of unproven science in their conception as any other scientific endeavour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I put climate change deniers right up there with the flat Earth society. How much evidence do people need to see the bleeding obvious ? No the flat earthers aren't doing anybody any harm the climate change deniers are costing lifes now and into the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No the flat earthers aren't doing anybody any harm the climate change deniers are costing lifes now and into the future Yes that is very true of course. The problem seems to be that it doesn't fit into Abbotts religious beliefs, never mix religion with politics or for that matter anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Who says that climate change is the greatest threat to the future of the human race? Why not disease? Or overpopulation? Anyway, I just remember the 'climate changers' telling us that all our reservoirs would dry up so we had to build desalination plants. Then they told us that everywhere on the coast would be flooded, but it did not stop them buying their dream homes on the coast. There is nothing that Australia can do, until the big polluters like the USA, China, India, Russia, do something. When they do, that is time for us to follow their example, not set them an example, which they will ignore anyway. Let them dismantle their coal mines and power stations and prove that wind and sun is all we need. Edited April 23, 2015 by MARYROSE02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Who says that climate change is the greatest threat to the future of the human race? Why not disease? Or overpopulation? Anyway, I just remember the 'climate changers' telling us that all our reservoirs would dry up so we had to build desalination plants. Then they told us that everywhere on the coast would be flooded, but it did not stop them buying their dream homes on the coast. There is nothing that Australia can do, until the big polluters like the USA, China, India, Russia, do something. When they do, that is time for us to follow their example, not set them an example, which they will ignore anyway. Let them dismantle their coal mines and power stations and prove that wind and sun is all we need. Because disease can be controlled and the numbers of people affected will be only a small percentage of the world population and the world population can be controlled if it was made a priority and the church kept it's nose out of private life's, and those situations are recoverable from, how do we recover from the loss whole land masses or the desertification of continents which is already happening in southern california at this moment and is a problem for nth africa and even for australia as rain patterns change, look at w queensland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theroberts Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 What utter BS. I'm a sceptic too, and there are many of us. Why shouldn't 'the other side' get a bit of funding? I read his biography. He is not a charlatan. $4 million! A drop in the ocean compared to what Krudd and Juliar wasted. If he wants funding he should apply for a grant like other scientists have to (I believe the current success rate is around 20% as Abbott et al would rather give school chaplains hundreds of millions of dollars than fund science). Then his proposals can be subject to peer review and if scientifically sound he can proceed from there. Whats BS is the fact that Abbott has decided he would rather short cut that process by giving Lomborg our money directly because his views happen to fit in with the LNPs own antiquated world view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 That's a big call as it is a long list lol Yep and the list is getting longer ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 If he wants funding he should apply for a grant like other scientists have to (I believe the current success rate is around 20% as Abbott et al would rather give school chaplains hundreds of millions of dollars than fund science). Then his proposals can be subject to peer review and if scientifically sound he can proceed from there. Whats BS is the fact that Abbott has decided he would rather short cut that process by giving Lomborg our money directly because his views happen to fit in with the LNPs own antiquated world view. I agree. I put these climate denialists up there with the anti vax brigade. Abbott is deliberately giving the climate denialists oxygen by providing this grant. Its a reflection of his belief that 'climate change is crap'. When's the next federal election? I'm gonna be able to vote this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Anyway, I just remember the 'climate changers' telling us that all our reservoirs would dry up so we had to build desalination plants. Then they told us that everywhere on the coast would be flooded, but it did not stop them buying their dream homes on the coast. What the 'climate changers' are saying is that both drought and flooding events are going to be more extreme - and more frequent. You must have extraordinary access to private real estate details to know who, exactly, is buying coastal property. But, whoever they are, they need to be very wealthy: insurance companies are already putting limitations on insurance cover for coastal properties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Direct Action (the replacement for the carbon tax (i do hope you brought something nice with your $550)) is working as planned. the government just gave out $660Million of your taxpayer money to their mates to reduce their carbon footprint 5% by 2020. They have blown 25% of the Direct Action budget to buy 15% of the carbon abatement planned for that budget. Way to go Greg *unt, and you go to the media and call it a success. Idiot! http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbott-blows-his-carbon-budget-in-first-direct-action-auction-26282 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Direct Action (the replacement for the carbon tax (i do hope you brought something nice with your $550)) is working as planned. the government just gave out $660Million of your taxpayer money to their mates to reduce their carbon footprint 5% by 2020. They have blown 25% of the Direct Action budget to buy 15% of the carbon abatement planned for that budget. Way to go Greg *unt, and you go to the media and call it a success. Idiot! http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbott-blows-his-carbon-budget-in-first-direct-action-auction-26282 Oh god, I saw him being interviewed about this on 7:30 last night - everytime the interviewer quoted the figures and the maths to him he just went off on a tangent and refused to answer what she had asked. She gave him far too easy a time imho but you could tell by the end she was completely fed up with him. He didn't do himself ANY favours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockinTas Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I can't stand Abbot but do any politicians EVER answer a straight question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Very interesting piece of writing here: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-23/dunlop-winning-by-losing/6416020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Very interesting piece of writing here: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-23/dunlop-winning-by-losing/6416020 So, Tony Abbott is hated across Australia, but the right wing press has ensured that none of this hatred becomes public knowledge? This from a left wing journalist who hates Tony Abbott. Not as good as the last link you posted Dianne. I won't be subscribing to this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Direct Action (the replacement for the carbon tax (i do hope you brought something nice with your $550)) is working as planned. the government just gave out $660Million of your taxpayer money to their mates to reduce their carbon footprint 5% by 2020. They have blown 25% of the Direct Action budget to buy 15% of the carbon abatement planned for that budget. Way to go Greg *unt, and you go to the media and call it a success. Idiot! http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbott-blows-his-carbon-budget-in-first-direct-action-auction-26282 My God, on the one hand we are told there is a right wing press campaign to suppress the 'real' news about Tony Abbott, and then we are supposed to believe rubbish like this from Reneweconomy which is just another mouthpiece for 'Climate Change is real and cannot be challenged under any circumstances.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 What the 'climate changers' are saying is that both drought and flooding events are going to be more extreme - and more frequent. You must have extraordinary access to private real estate details to know who, exactly, is buying coastal property. But, whoever they are, they need to be very wealthy: insurance companies are already putting limitations on insurance cover for coastal properties. It does not matter which 'event' occurs, whether it is extreme heat, or extreme cold, tsunami or drought, they are ALL caused by climate change, despite the fact that many of these 'events' have always occurred throughout our history. So if Mt Vesuvius erupts again, or the River Thames freezes over again, it will be due to climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted April 24, 2015 Author Share Posted April 24, 2015 @ Dave, how do you stand on the whole vaccine debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.