- Thread starter
- Banned
- #26
But, you'll vote for a leader who uses the church as a guide to policy ?
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round PF Winner: Still Me
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Abbott: "Warmer when Jesus was a boy"
- Thread starter Doctor Jolly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
But, you'll vote for a leader who uses the church as a guide to policy ?
How warm was it when jesus was a sperm ?
Oh wait....
Lucky Tony wasnt mary's father - might not have bought the "Virgin" story.
You have to wonder how your Tony Abbots of the world would react if the jesus story happened now. At least we know he wouldn't have ordered forced abortions or infanticide like Herod
" I suspect Jesus wouldnt have put his hand up to be leader of the liberal party"
Oh wait....
Lucky Tony wasnt mary's father - might not have bought the "Virgin" story.
You have to wonder how your Tony Abbots of the world would react if the jesus story happened now. At least we know he wouldn't have ordered forced abortions or infanticide like Herod
" I suspect Jesus wouldnt have put his hand up to be leader of the liberal party"
Abbot also mentioned Julius Caesar as well.
This is classic Doctor Jolly using pro-labour spin to have a go at someone making a claim that is supported by many scientists. Also, having a go at Christians while quoting an Atheist site to further support your ranting does not help your case. In fact, it highlights your prejudices more than anything else.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observat...oman-warm-period-warmer-than-present-day.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/...omanmedieval-warming-darklittle-ice-ages.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full
You have been science served!
This is classic Doctor Jolly using pro-labour spin to have a go at someone making a claim that is supported by many scientists. Also, having a go at Christians while quoting an Atheist site to further support your ranting does not help your case. In fact, it highlights your prejudices more than anything else.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observat...oman-warm-period-warmer-than-present-day.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/...omanmedieval-warming-darklittle-ice-ages.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full
You have been science served!
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
Im not pro-labour. I'm pro doing-something-about-global-warming.
Anyway, you really need to do more research. You links are as embarrasing (to you) as the guy who posted the made up graph earlier in this thread which sources the bible for factual data.
Most of those link back to the Co2 Science articies. A group funded by Exxon among others.
See. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
Also, if you really want to know what happened in the medieval warm period, even wikipedia is more balanced than your lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Seriously, do some homework.
Homework done.
First, wikipedia is strongly biased towards the ipcc global warming propaganda.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...ver-wikipedia-climate-information/#more-14314
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx
Secondly, exxon donated only about $100k to that site in its entire history. How much funding did pro-global warming propaganda groups receive? Time for you to do some research instead of getting your info from team krudd.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #31
I'm not saying wikipedia is gospel, I'm just saying its far more centred than the articles you are putting up which are blatant lies, or use the bible as a reference guide.
But Hawkmania, surely there must be seeds of doubt in your mind if you rely on this information to form your opinion
I'd love to know who you think is funding the global warming movement. I cant think of any substantial vested interests that stand to make money out of it.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf
DJ .. I'm all for helping the environment, but can you tell me, what impact will Australia having an ETS have on or what the impact of having an ETS had we progressed before Copenhagen as the Prime Minister demanded.
- Global Warming
- The position of India, China and the US towards an ETS
- Our economy and the cost of living
The science is not settled in my view. I'm one that likes to be sure before we commit to an irreversable system who's benefits won't actually impact the global environment if the others don't come on-board.
DJ .. I'm all for helping the environment, but can you tell me, what impact will Australia having an ETS have on or what the impact of having an ETS had we progressed before Copenhagen as the Prime Minister demanded.
- Global Warming
- The position of India, China and the US towards an ETS
- Our economy and the cost of living
The science is not settled in my view. I'm one that likes to be sure before we commit to an irreversable system who's benefits won't actually impact the global environment if the others don't come on-board.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #33
The science is settled in so far as man, burning fossil fuels, is causing the world to warm up. The unsettled part is if we do nothing to stop it whether we just wipe out half the planet of life, or the whole joint is stuffed.
At Copenhagen, and other such global discussions, its too easy for other countries to point out that Australia hasnt done a thing, and has the highest per capita GH emissions, and burns some of the most poluting fossil fuels in brown coal. We dont have a leg to stand on.
ETS type carbon trading has been implemented in many western countries with little impact to their cost of living. Same here. In fact the abundance of alternatives Australia has access to, means the transition away from coal will be one of the more easier. For a start, putting a price on coal will almost immediately reduce the brown coal we burn, giving us a instant GHG reduction.
Every country must chose its own form of carbon abatement, in their own time. The sooner the better. The ETS is the only alternative on the table, and for the forseable future as the next coalition government will never do it, which means we are at least 10 years away on the cycles of government.
Of all Rudd's stupid policies, that was possibly the most stupid. To commit Australia to huge costs without agreement with the major CO2 producers could only be described as reckless in the extreme. Turnbull was no better. We can thank Abbott for saving us from this foolishness.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #35
The costs were grossly overstated by Abbott and co.
Show us where please ?
The science is not settled. Far from it. From a political point of view it is settled, but from a scientific point of view, it is not. So to put your thoughts into my straight forward questions.
- Global Warming. Us implemeting an ETS would have 0 impact on Global Warming.
- The position of India, China and the US towards an ETS. Us implementing an ETS would have 0 impact on the decisions of China, US and India.
- Our economy and the cost of living. We already saw the energy cost rises in NSW factoring in an ETS.
Put a price on coal and someone has to pay which will be the end user. Us. re: energy cost rises in NSW. If you want to achieve a lower price for renewables by raising the cost of coal, then someone has to pay for that ... the coal companies won't, they'll just raise the price. The energy companies won't, they'll just raise the price. You will.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #38
You want me to show links to where the opposition exagerated the cost, or to where the actual costs are shown.
Actual costs:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ets-changes-a-minor-cost-to-budget-20091124-jfpd.html
Opposition costs:
http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Issu...T-TO-KNOW-YOUR-ETS-TAKE-IT-OUT-TO-DINNER.aspx
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #39
Actually the opposite. The scientific point of view is settled. By any reputable scientist. The "scientists" who differ from this view are not qualified, bible bashers, right wing nut jobs, or in the pocket of big oil.
We've seen it all before with tobacco.
The politics on the other hand is all over the place. Abbott used the ETS to have a crack at being PM.
And the government compensates the end user using the money raised from selling permits.
Tabloid: PRICE RISES.
Reality: Most families in vs out costs unchanged.
But with higher prices, gives the family scope to save money.
Anyway, this is off topic. We first need Abbott fans to admit he lied to the kids
The "scientists" who differ from this view are not qualified, bible bashers, right wing nut jobs, or in the pocket of big oil.
Yeah ... nut jobs ... Interesting when someone uses the excuse that someone who disagrees with their opinion or theory is a nut job ... that says to me the only nut jobs are the ones in the mirror.
Like I said, I'm neither a believer or non-believer. I need more evidence. But I will stand by my comments that Australia being a leader on an ETS will,
a) have no bearing on climate change
b) have no bearing on India, China or the US
c) will not benefit our economy or hip-pockets (unless you're a banker)
As for Tony Abbott, did he lie .. can't say. There are theories to suggest either way, but fk me, if you want to start a new thread for everytime Kevin Rudd lies I would be more than happy to oblige.
A touch of sublety doesnt go astray when you attempt to troll.
Absolutely.
The Liberal politicians who argue against the reality of global warming also claimed that tobacco is not addictive and that smoking in from of babies is absolutely harmless.
These people would rather see children suffer, than admit to scientific facts. Why?
Simply because their sponsors don't like the facts.
Unbelievably there are people on this board that have naively and very stupidly swallowed the line of these utterly unprincipled and despicable politicians.
Unsurprisingly these are the very same people who have, time and again, demonstrated they are incapable of independent thought and mindlessly regurgitate Liberal party propaganda ad nauseam.
Which facts would they be?
With respect to Roman times it is well documented that the Romans grew grapes in Britain all the way up to Hadrians wall. Its also known that the imperial governor in London was chastised over the extent of locally produced grapes and the lack of imports from Rome.
Those sorts of facts?
Oh ffs, can you stop talking in sweeping generalisations.
You want to see children suffer, go to Africa. No global warming needed to see that. I do my part (sponsoring a child) ... do you ?
I am not convinced about AGW yet, but I hate smoking. Wow, generalisation failed. I also voted for Rudd ... is your mind exploding now ?
Sorry, the science is in.
If you want to argue that cigarettes are a healthy product, or that the world was created in 6 days 7,000 years ago, or that global warming isn't happening and is part of a communist conspiracy headed by the Queen of England and the Pope, then good luck to you. It's a free country.
However, the science simply isn't on your side. Huff and puff all you like.
If you want to argue that cigarettes are a healthy product, or that the world was created in 6 days 7,000 years ago, or that global warming isn't happening and is part of a communist conspiracy headed by the Queen of England and the Pope, then good luck to you. It's a free country.
However, the science simply isn't on your side. Huff and puff all you like.
what i want to know from abbott is... was it warmer in a young earth creationist kind of way, or 14.9 billion years old kind of way? does god directly control the temperatures or did He just drop us off here and come what may? if such a temperature shift between now and jesus took place, why did god make it so? these are the real issues, surely. this is all a bit dubya, from memory. adhere to the idea of teaching intelligent design, and then claim your climate research will be science-based. can tony care to point out some climate-change related bible verses?
^ ^
Gold
Gold
Another epic failure of a thread by the fan boys. Belongs in QT.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observat...oman-warm-period-warmer-than-present-day.html
Between 230 BC and 40 AD there was a period of exceptional warmth in Iceland that was coincident with the Roman Warm Period in Europe that ran from 200 BC to 400 AD. This Icelandic shell data series suggests that the RWP had higher temperatures that those recorded in modern times.
By 410 AD there had been a return to cooler temperatures presaging the onset of a cold and wetter era called the Dark Ages Cold Period between 400 AD and 600 AD.
The subsequent warming trend in Iceland took place from 600 AD to 760 AD about a century before prolonged warming began in Europe than in the subsequent centuries led to the Medieval Warm Period that was about as warm as the Roman one.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observat...oman-warm-period-warmer-than-present-day.html
Between 230 BC and 40 AD there was a period of exceptional warmth in Iceland that was coincident with the Roman Warm Period in Europe that ran from 200 BC to 400 AD. This Icelandic shell data series suggests that the RWP had higher temperatures that those recorded in modern times.
By 410 AD there had been a return to cooler temperatures presaging the onset of a cold and wetter era called the Dark Ages Cold Period between 400 AD and 600 AD.
The subsequent warming trend in Iceland took place from 600 AD to 760 AD about a century before prolonged warming began in Europe than in the subsequent centuries led to the Medieval Warm Period that was about as warm as the Roman one.
The science has a ways to go for me, but feel free to continue with generalisations and insults. Not sure what your BS about cigs or creationism is.
If the science is in, why is Rudd squibbing his ETS to 2013 ... has Rudd told Mother Nature to wait a few years until the Govt. can afford it ?
Or maybe Rudd realised that us implementing an ETS won't
a) save us from AGW
b) will cost us $$$
c) will not influence India, China or the US who, if AGW is real, hold our future in their hands.
and that it is more responsible for a Govt. and country of our size to see what the world is doing before we commit ourselves down an irreversable path, gee, just what those Loonie Libs suggested.
Re: conspiracies, You might want to check the thread regarding conspiracies .... you know, the posts where anyone who doesn't agree is a loonie bought off by Exxon.
PS. If you are just going to reply with the usual ranting guff instead of addressing specific points in my posts, could you please kindly stfu.
PPS. http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201005/r565200_3447121.asx --- Listen to Rudd try to explain how the ETS is still forefront to the Labor Govt. even though it's been sidelined for 3 years. Hilarious stuff.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #50
Listen, you've obviously been too busy reading the bible which youve been led to believe has some starling weather statistics for the last 4000 odd years, that youve missed pages 2 and 3 of this thread.
Noah could tell us a thing or two about rising sea levels, eh?
Similar threads
