The Politics Thread.

[BenDoolan]

Less than 0.1% reduction in carbon emissions since the tax was introduced. FMD

[Sismis]

Less than 0.1% reduction in carbon emissions since the tax was introduced. FMD

In it's first year. With no noticable financial effect. Let's get rid of it.....

[BenDoolan]

Less than 0.1% reduction in carbon emissions since the tax was introduced. FMD

In it's first year. With no noticable financial effect. Let's get rid of it.....

Yeah, lets persist with it because certain dickheads who only use 0.1% of their brains reckon it's a good thing

[j-mac31]

Like it or hate it the people voted to dump the Carbon Tax, they voted to let the Liberals lead.

I don't disagree on the second part, but I'm not sure about the first. Past (non-election) polls suggest that plenty of people in fact want some form of carbon tax/ETS.

Anyway, we don't vote on one issue at the elections and if there was one overarching issue at the last one it was the pure fuckedness of Labour.

[j-mac31]

Once again, thanks to State Labour for paying massive amounts for shithouse projects.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state ... 2yyfb.html

At least for them by the next election everything they've done will pale into insignificance compared to the ridiculous East-West tunnel.

[Sismis]

Less than 0.1% reduction in carbon emissions since the tax was introduced. FMD

In it's first year. With no noticable financial effect. Let's get rid of it.....

Yeah, lets persist with it because certain dickheads who only use 0.1% of their brains reckon it's a good thing

Once again great reasoning from the great Ben Doolan. "I don't agree with it based on one stat I read somewhere, therefore if you do, you are a dickhead who doesn't think."

[BenDoolan]

Less than 0.1% reduction in carbon emissions since the tax was introduced. FMD

In it's first year. With no noticable financial effect. Let's get rid of it.....

Yeah, lets persist with it because certain dickheads who only use 0.1% of their brains reckon it's a good thing

Once again great reasoning from the great Ben Doolan. "I don't agree with it based on one stat I read somewhere, therefore if you do, you are a dickhead who doesn't think."

Once again great argument to support it. "It's only the first year" therefore I assume that you believe that next year will yield 25%, and the year after 75%, and 100% the next.

Keep trying convince us that the world depends on this shit....

[Sismis]

Less than 0.1% reduction in carbon emissions since the tax was introduced. FMD

In it's first year. With no noticable financial effect. Let's get rid of it.....

Yeah, lets persist with it because certain dickheads who only use 0.1% of their brains reckon it's a good thing

Once again great reasoning from the great Ben Doolan. "I don't agree with it based on one stat I read somewhere, therefore if you do, you are a dickhead who doesn't think."

Once again great argument to support it. "It's only the first year" therefore I assume that you believe that next year will yield 25%, and the year after 75%, and 100% the next.

Keep trying convince us that the world depends on this shit....

It's only in it's first year AND it had no noticeable effect on prices. Exactly what timeframe would you expect wholesale changes to industry practice to occur?

I don't have to convince the world. The majority of Australia and rest of the world are already convinced.

[j-mac31]

Did anyone see what Abbott said to Aung San Suu Kyi the other week? Something like "I was in opposition for four years myself, so I know what it's like." Yeah, two peas in a pod.

[BenDoolan]

It's only in it's first year AND it had no noticeable effect on prices. Exactly what timeframe would you expect wholesale changes to industry practice to occur?

I'd expect a bit more than 0.1%. But that's me.

I don't have to convince the world. The majority of Australia and rest of the world are already convinced.

Yes, they are so convinced that they're doing SFA about it.

Anyway, we may need to burn more carbon just to heat up the place a little. We've just been through the coldest November in decades. Probably heading for the coldest December on record. Even had snow the other day.

I think I might start believing the scientists who suggest we're heading for another ice age....

[MH_Bomber]

BenDoolan for someone that is usually a reasonable person on most issues I astounded you could write;

Anyway, we may need to burn more carbon just to heat up the place a little. We've just been through the coldest November in decades. Probably heading for the coldest December on record. Even had snow the other day.

CLIMATE CHANGE leads to more extreme weather overall whether that be extreme heat and days of 47 as in 2007 in Melb, hurricanes in Europe over the weekend, more frequent and bad hurricanes in the US, more frequent storms as in Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, melting polar ice caps and yes weird cold weather in our summer involving snow. Trying to equate the effects of climate change with 'oh its not hot all the time means its not happening' is naive in the extreme. The term global warming refers to the general greenhouse effect on the earth's weather systems caused by the amount of C02 we are pumping into the atmosphere. However that doesn't mean all the effects of that wholesale warming will cause the entire place to be uniformly hotter. The extreme weather events and the frequency of them is how climate changes is showing itself. The earth IS overall hotter that it would otherwise have been and unless we curtail greenhouse gas emissions we could be looking at a rise of 4 degrees Celsius. A rise of that nature would completely change the world as we know it.

Also what is your source on the 0.1% claim ?

[BenDoolan]

BenDoolan for someone that is usually a reasonable person on most issues I astounded you could write;

Anyway, we may need to burn more carbon just to heat up the place a little. We've just been through the coldest November in decades. Probably heading for the coldest December on record. Even had snow the other day.

CLIMATE CHANGE leads to more extreme weather overall whether that be extreme heat and days of 47 as in 2007 in Melb, hurricanes in Europe over the weekend, more frequent and bad hurricanes in the US, more frequent storms as in Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, melting polar ice caps and yes weird cold weather in our summer involving snow. Trying to equate the effects of climate change with 'oh its not hot all the time means its not happening' is naive in the extreme. The term global warming refers to the general greenhouse effect on the earth's weather systems caused by the amount of C02 we are pumping into the atmosphere. However that doesn't mean all the effects of that wholesale warming will cause the entire place to be uniformly hotter. The extreme weather events and the frequency of them is how climate changes is showing itself. The earth IS overall hotter that it would otherwise have been and unless we curtail greenhouse gas emissions we could be looking at a rise of 4 degrees Celsius. A rise of that nature would completely change the world as we know it.

Also what is your source on the 0.1% claim ?

Melting polar ice caps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

Oh, so I can't use our current cold Nov / Dec to argue against global warming, but you can use "47 degrees in Melbourne in 2007" to prove your point on global warming?

Hahahahaha

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html

[Flip]

The .01% came from Murdoch.

In the Renewable Industry it is more like 10%.

Gee.....hard one that as to believe.

[BenDoolan]

The .01% came from Murdoch.

In the Renewable Industry it is more like 10%.

Gee.....hard one that as to believe.

Is the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory run by Murdoch these days?

[MH_Bomber]

CLIMATE CHANGE leads to more extreme weather overall whether that be extreme heat and days of 47 as in 2007 in Melb, hurricanes in Europe over the weekend, more frequent and bad hurricanes in the US, more frequent storms as in Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, melting polar ice caps and yes weird cold weather in our summer involving snow.

What part of this do you not understand ? I reel off a series of extreme weather events and mention that these are happening more frequently because of man made C02 emissions stuffing up the natural ebbs and flows and you still seek to misrepresent me.

Furthermore BD read this and your Daily Mail skeptic is debunked ;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphic ... 12_med.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/neveren ... sense.html

[BenDoolan]

CLIMATE CHANGE leads to more extreme weather overall whether that be extreme heat and days of 47 as in 2007 in Melb, hurricanes in Europe over the weekend, more frequent and bad hurricanes in the US, more frequent storms as in Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, melting polar ice caps and yes weird cold weather in our summer involving snow.

What part of this do you not understand ? I reel off a series of extreme weather events and mention that these are happening more frequently because of man made C02 emissions stuffing up the natural ebbs and flows and you still seek to misrepresent me.

I don't understand any of it. Can you provide a link where scientists attribute man made carbon emissions to any of those weather events you've mentioned?

The hysterics about this astounds me.

Next you'll be saying that Moses parted the Red Sea by simply releasing carbon emissions into the air...

[MH_Bomber]

The skeptic's ego astounds me. You don't understand it and yet you are prepared to poo poo thousands of scientists that have studied this exact subject matter for decades that have had their work peer reviewed.You would rather take the word of some of the ilk of Piers Akerman or Andrew Bolt over these people.

The only lobby group that gains from creating doubt over the science of climate change are the big polluters like petro chemical multi nationals and coal miner concerns. Hang on, I know, you'll trot out skeptic parrot phrase number 10. Scientists like CSIRO climate scientists are doing this big scare campaign to justify their outrageous income -Yeah right. ] (*,)

Entire think tanks like the IPA have been set up to back the big polluters. Please direct you skeptical inclinations towards mobs like this and people that spout quotes from mobs like this.

[BenDoolan]

The skeptic's ego astounds me. You don't understand it and yet you are prepared to poo poo thousands of scientists that have studied this exact subject matter for decades that have had their work peer reviewed.You would rather take the word of some of the ilk of Piers Akerman or Andrew Bolt over these people.

The only lobby group that gains from creating doubt over the science of climate change are the big polluters like petro chemical multi nationals and coal miner concerns. Hang on, I know, you'll trot out skeptic parrot phrase number 10. Scientists like CSIRO climate scientists are doing this big scare campaign to justify their outrageous income -Yeah right. ] (*,)

Entire think tanks like the IPA have been set up to back the big polluters. Please direct you skeptical inclinations towards mobs like this and people that spout quotes from mobs like this.

=D>

Gotta love the hysterical doomsayers. Armegeddon is a comin' all thanks to the nasty man made carbon emission. LOL!

I can make the sea rise, heat up the earth, cool it down again, grow the ice caps, create hurricanes, tsunamis, bizarre storm cells, and any other weather phenomenon just by emitting carbon.

Of course non of these events occurred before man made carbon. Such a big influence it is....

Convince me MH. But don't quote the script from The Day After Tomorrow.

[Flip]

The Aunty Hi-Jack Show starring Bronwyn Shutshop

9 December 2013, 9:30am  18

MediaSatire



(Image by Bruce Keogh / keoghcartoons.com.au)


Dear Rupert,

I am pleased to report that I hijacked Aunty’s motorbike and, cleverly disguised, managed to get into the ABC boardroom and plant a bugging device kindly given to me by a dear friend at ASIO. Our common enemy is now under surveillance. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

I am also planning to intercept the phones of all ABC board members and as many leftie journos as I possibly can. My expertise in this area is nothing like yours appears to be from what I have read, so I wonder if you could give me a few tips. Please do not use electronic means to reply - I would suggest carrier pigeon - much safer.

As you know, the ABC conspired with The Guardian – that leftie rabble that has given you so much grief – to publish revelations, leaked by Edward Snowden (the rat), that Australia had tapped the phones of the Indonesian president, members of his inner circle and the president’s wife, in 2009.

Anyway, dear Tony has gone in to bat for us and openly criticised “the public broadcaster for showing poor judgement in publishing leaked documents about Australia's intelligence gathering operations.” Good on him, but I question his intelligence, using the term ‘public broadcaster’. That infers that it is pro-public and has the right to inform on matters of public importance. As if the public is important! Acting in the public interest is its catch cry, and as we both know, that is a leftie-driven ideological nonsense that has no place in creating the kind of Australia you and I both want.

The ABC has just gone too far this time, and needs a dose of its own medicine – 'rip its bloody arms off'. We could give them a choice - shut up shop or behave on our terms. By the way, do you have any suggestions on how I could deal with Fairfax, Crikey and Independent Australia?

Cory Bernardi has been magnificent. He went on Radio National and accused the ABC of "cannibalising" the commercial media and calling for reform, bemoaning the fact that the ABC gets one billion dollars of taxpayer money each year, giving an unfair advantage over the commercial media. He said the ABC does not need four television channels and it’s a "taxpayer-funded behemoth". My sentiments exactly. There is no place for unfairness in the media!

I lost my train of thought there. Had a coughing fit.

Oh yes ... our biggest problem is that the ABC attracts people who actually think about things like openness, honesty and integrity in politics and the media. Very dangerous people. May our divine God of right-ness strike them down.

Our God-given right bestowed on we in the Coalition is that we were born to rule, even if it takes ungodly tactics — just as you were born to be the most influential and manipulative right-wing media force in the world. We are kindred spirits — bent on psychological subversion of the masses.

Forgive me. I was rambling. As if you don't know that! But personally, I think we are winning.

Thanks to you ‒ God bless you ‒ and my beloved colleagues ‒ God bless them ‒ and the commercial media ‒ God bless them too ‒ we are creating an Australia of social robots, hypnotised by endless mind-numbing manipulation, indoctrination and commercial propaganda, known to the mob as advertising.

All the more reason for the ABC to be forced rely on advertising or perish. After all, my government holds the purse strings.

Dear Tony is the grand master of hypnotism. He can talk endlessly, saying nothing, but sounding so believable with his wonderful rhetoric, deception and diversion tactics. He is a genius. His master stroke has been to seduce the Labor Party into trying to out-Abbott-Abbott and they now talk in Abbottisms. The true believers have given up. They are now philosophically barren and the light on the hill has been extinguished. God bless Tony.

If you feel like a good laugh, take a look at the ABC’s editorial policies.

They include words like independence, integrity, responsibility, accuracy and balance. Those poor misguided fools need some real guidance — straight to the exit and onwards to oblivion.

But there is an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum. It's called the Senate, which will undoubtedly want to preserve the ABC in its present form, at least until July 1, 2014.

Here is where you come in. Could you use your media influence to run a full-on dirt campaign against the ABC (with my assistance of course) to sway public opinion? ... just like you did to bring down the Labor government this year. Your reputed phone hacking expertise could be really handy to discredit any Senators who dare to support 'their ABC'.

But the first step is easy. We will get rid of the ABC managing director, Mark Scott, who is obviously a dangerous left-wing intellectual.

Coincidentally, someone asked me the other day if there could be such a thing as a right-wing intellectual. I replied with a fart noise — oral of course!

Where was I? Oh yes, what that Scott said:


This is a debate that's been triggered by the broadcasting and the publishing of these stories. I think it's clearly a debate the public is interested in.

When an important story was presented to us, were we going to walk away from it because it was controversial? The worth of the partnership was displayed by nearly 20 major media organisations around the world who have published this NSA material in conjunction with The Guardian and others.

The ABC verified the spying cables and information independently of The Guardian. We're an independent media organisation and sometimes we will publish stories that politicians won't be happy about.

We thought it was absolutely a significant new story.

We're an independent media organisation, that's the role we need to play.

Famous last words, eh!

I guess The Guardian would have published the story anyway, and we would have been knee deep in this unholy diplomatic mess with Indonesia anyway. Mark Scott said he understood there was "great regret and remorse that this information has been released".

Who is he to talk about regret and remorse? Imagine how I feel. I am deeply regretful and remorseful that Snowden has spilt the beans on Australian intelligence. Indonesia is furious and won't even discuss our bluff and bluster, domestically-driven dog-whistle policy on turning the boats back. They are so touchy!

You are probably surprised that I am capable of regret and remorse. I know you are above that sort of thing.

Yours in collusion,

Bronwyn Shutshop

[Sismis]

The skeptic's ego astounds me. You don't understand it and yet you are prepared to poo poo thousands of scientists that have studied this exact subject matter for decades that have had their work peer reviewed.You would rather take the word of some of the ilk of Piers Akerman or Andrew Bolt over these people.

The only lobby group that gains from creating doubt over the science of climate change are the big polluters like petro chemical multi nationals and coal miner concerns. Hang on, I know, you'll trot out skeptic parrot phrase number 10. Scientists like CSIRO climate scientists are doing this big scare campaign to justify their outrageous income -Yeah right. ] (*,)

Entire think tanks like the IPA have been set up to back the big polluters. Please direct you skeptical inclinations towards mobs like this and people that spout quotes from mobs like this.

=D>

Gotta love the hysterical doomsayers. Armegeddon is a comin' all thanks to the nasty man made carbon emission. LOL!

I can make the sea rise, heat up the earth, cool it down again, grow the ice caps, create hurricanes, tsunamis, bizarre storm cells, and any other weather phenomenon just by emitting carbon.

Of course non of these events occurred before man made carbon. Such a big influence it is....

Convince me MH. But don't quote the script from The Day After Tomorrow.

Convince you? You don't believe in "The Science". You seem incapable (unwilling) of grasping the most basic concepts when they contradict what you "know". In fact on most occasions you are unwilling to even look at contradictory evidence.

I've seen more open minded creationists.