OT What's Dennis doing now?
John_H
Feral
> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>
Have a gander at this John, it might put a bit more hot light
on the subject. ;-)
> http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
--
Take Care. ~~
Feral Al ( @..@)
(\- :-P -/)
((.>__oo__<.))
^^^ % ^^^
Doug Jewell
> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>
What Krudd is proposing with Copenhagen is nothing short of
treason. He is prepared to sell out the nation for his own ego.
--
What is the difference between a duck?
Diesel Damo
> >http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Nice! Now if they'd also say they're against any form of internet
censorship (apart from parent-installed home systems) I'd vote for
them in a heartbeat.
Clocky
"Feral" <plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
news:hdndid$p3h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> John_H wrote:
>> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>>
>
> Have a gander at this John, it might put a bit more hot light on the
> subject. ;-)
>
>> http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
>
It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another to be completely closeminded.
Clocky
"Diesel Damo" <Diese...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:77d506a3-28ea-4ef2...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Maybe they will make "Fuck Off We're Full" stickers compulsory for the
trifecta of idiocy ;-)
Feral
And it's another thing to have (and show) accurate data and be
committed.
Feral
I for one do not think that our vast desert continent can take
too many more spectators.
John_H
>John_H wrote:
>> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>
>Have a gander at this John, it might put a bit more hot light
>on the subject. ;-)
>
>> http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Hmmm. Their president bears the name of a well known South Australian
pastoralist family who not doubt have plenty of axes to grind.
Personnally I'd sooner be mislead by Keith Windschuttle!
Dennis has chosen the correct forum (Quadrant) IMHO... if that's the
point you're making. :)
--
John H
Diesel Damo
> Maybe they will make "Fuck Off We're Full" stickers compulsory
> for the trifecta of idiocy ;-)
Are you saying that being against internet censorship is idiocy?
hippo
>
> John_H wrote:
> > http://fat.ly/9n016
> >
> What Krudd is proposing with Copenhagen is nothing short of
> treason. He is prepared to sell out the nation for his own ego.
>
.. and you're surprised why after the last two years?
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
John_H
>John_H wrote:
>> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>>
>What Krudd is proposing with Copenhagen is nothing short of
>treason. He is prepared to sell out the nation for his own ego.
With the really sad part being that M Turnbull would do much the
same! :(
--
John H
Clocky
> Clocky wrote:
>> "Feral"<plo...@home.ru> wrote in message
>> news:hdndid$p3h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> John_H wrote:
>>>> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have a gander at this John, it might put a bit more hot light on the
>>> subject. ;-)
>>>
>>>> http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
>>>
>>
>> It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another to be completely
>> closeminded.
>
> And it's another thing to have (and show) accurate data and be
> committed.
That rules out the skeptics then.
Bernd Felsche
Well, Joe Hockey said that he wanted MT to have KRudd's job.
I'll take that literally; and to be effective immediately; just to
clarify the sides of parliamentary debate.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
Noddy
"Clocky" <nic...@migo.com> wrote in message
news:030fba19$0$1335$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> That rules out the skeptics then.
And the pro GW lobby as well :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Clocky
Yes, I don't think targeted internet censorship is neccessarily a bad thing
but I'm opposed to the current plan because it just won't work.
Clocky
> "Clocky" <nic...@migo.com> wrote in message
> news:030fba19$0$1335$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> That rules out the skeptics then.
>
> And the pro GW lobby as well :)
Scientific evidence doesn't support that theory at present.
Kev
> I for one do not think that our vast desert continent can take too many
> more spectators.
If that is the case then you would support a plan to stop wasting
$millions every day looking for a few hundred people in old boats and
start spending it on rounding up the 60 odd thousand people who have
over stayed their visas?
Kev
Feral
Yes, yes, yes.
But I'd OK spending a little bit of it to deter the "few
hundred" before they became a "few thousand" or more.
John_H
>John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>Doug Jewell wrote:
>>>John_H wrote:
>>>> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>
>>>What Krudd is proposing with Copenhagen is nothing short of
>>>treason. He is prepared to sell out the nation for his own ego.
>
>>With the really sad part being that M Turnbull would do much the
>>same! :(
>
>Well, Joe Hockey said that he wanted MT to have KRudd's job.
>
>I'll take that literally; and to be effective immediately; just to
>clarify the sides of parliamentary debate.
And let's not forget... the ETS was one of the Coalition policies John
Howard took to the 2007 election. IIRC Howard is also on record as
accusing Rudd of stealing it.
--
John H
Noddy
> Scientific evidence doesn't support that theory at present.
The scientific evidence, such as it is, doesn't support *anything* one way
or the other.
The planet is changing, and it's been doing so for 4 billion years, yet
suddenly because we've recently taken an interest and started recording the
figures we've managed to scare the shit out of ourselves and jump to all
kinds of useless knee-jerk reactions.
None of which, if implemented, will make a poofteenth's worth of difference
to the planet.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Doug Jewell
> "Clocky" <nic...@migo.com> wrote in message
> news:030ff327$0$1326$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> Scientific evidence doesn't support that theory at present.
>
> The scientific evidence, such as it is, doesn't support *anything* one way
> or the other.
>
> The planet is changing, and it's been doing so for 4 billion years, yet
> suddenly because we've recently taken an interest and started recording the
> figures we've managed to scare the shit out of ourselves and jump to all
> kinds of useless knee-jerk reactions.
seasons closer to what they were like 25-30 years ago.
>
> None of which, if implemented, will make a poofteenth's worth of difference
> to the planet.
affects climate, if ALL human CO2 production was stopped
immediately, it would cause a 1 degree drop in temperature
over 30 years. So we ruin our economy and lifestyle for 1
lousy degree. whoop-de-fuckin-doo.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
Clocky
"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4b00eec5$0$37089$c30e...@exi-reader.telstra.net...
>
> "Clocky" <nic...@migo.com> wrote in message
> news:030ff327$0$1326$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> Scientific evidence doesn't support that theory at present.
>
> The scientific evidence, such as it is, doesn't support *anything* one way
> or the other.
According to you.
Noddy
"Doug Jewell" <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:6cGdnRsJD7nkhZzW...@westnet.com.au...
> Absolutely. Based on the worst case scenario of how much CO2 affects
> climate, if ALL human CO2 production was stopped immediately, it would
> cause a 1 degree drop in temperature over 30 years. So we ruin our
> economy and lifestyle for 1 lousy degree. whoop-de-fuckin-doo.
Couldn't agree more.
The solution, as I see it, is that we either give up modern life as we know
it and go back to the stone age where we're unlikely to notice any
difference at all, or we continue as we are where we're unlikely to notice
any difference at all.
Hands up all those who want to live in a cave and eat raw meat for the sake
of no benefit whatsoever?
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Clocky" <not...@happen.com> wrote in message
news:008aada5$0$26854$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> According to you.
The scientists themselves can't make up their minds about the subject. If it
was as cut and dried irrefutable as some people make it out to be there'd be
no argument.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
hippo
Well not Friends of the Earth at any rate... half of them are Vegans :)
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
F Murtz
are not real scientists or they are in someones pocket
Doug Jewell
Although, there are times when I feel like grabbing a few
essentials, and wandering off into the bush and live like an
abo. Must be the poofteenth bit of abo blood I have in me.
But at the end of the day, although I could survive in the
bush, I wouldn't exactly call it living. The comforts of
modern society are bloody good.
While I don't buy into this global warming bullshit one bit,
I can't help thinking that _IF_ it is true, the way to deal
with it, would be to keep the cash rolling along, and leave
it up to people's ingenuity to find a way to overcome the
problem - which they would do. People would soon breed crops
better suited to the climate, they would build levees to
protect low lying cities etc. But if we sap the lifeblood
out of the economy in the form of a carbon tax (which we
know won't really achieve any significant reduction in CO2),
then if the climate does take a turn for the worse we won't
have the financial resources to deal with it.
And now back to reality, the science is far from settled. 35
years ago it was global cooling that was going to kill us
all, now it is global warming. And yet we've seen a cooling
pattern the last little while. Personally I think if the
climate is going to get us, it is cooling that will do it,
not warming. People, plants and animals will for the most
part handle an extra couple of degrees of warmth. But a
couple of degrees less would be enough to cause mass
extinctions, a huge decline in world food output, and a huge
number of human deaths. History has shown that humans have
thrived during warm spells, but just survived during cold
spells. If (and it's a big IF), human CO2 production is
causing a bit of warming to occur, then lets embrace the
warmth - it may just be what is keeping the next ice age at bay.
Clocky
"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b01408a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Noddy wrote:
>> "Clocky"<not...@happen.com> wrote in message
>> news:008aada5$0$26854$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> According to you.
>>
>> The scientists themselves can't make up their minds about the subject. If
>> it
>> was as cut and dried irrefutable as some people make it out to be there'd
>> be
>> no argument.
There are people out there deliberately mudding the waters in an attempt to
create doubt, but none of those reasons are based on any science.
I'll keep an open mind, after all reducing pollution is a good idea for
reasons other then climate change.
Doug Jewell
now utilise various systems to reduce the pollution output.
CO2 isn't pollution by the way, it is a gas necessary for
life, which has naturally occurred in concentrations far
higher than it is now. Pretty much every car made since the
mid 70's has a degree of pollution control - the more recent
the vehicle, the better it's pollution control.
When I talk pollution, I mean things like particulates,
sulphur & nitrogen compounds, and some of the other nasties
that can cause health problems to humans, animals and
plants. One of the concerns I have with all the hubbub over
CO2 is that the real pollutants seem to be being ignored.
Noddy
> There are people out there deliberately mudding the waters in an attempt
> to create doubt, but none of those reasons are based on any science.
I agree, and on both sides of the argument :)
> I'll keep an open mind, after all reducing pollution is a good idea for
> reasons other then climate change.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that climate change is
happening. That is the *only* part of the entire debate that has any element
of truth and you don't need to be Einstein to see that. It's been happening
for as long as this planet has existed and it will continue to occur until
the planet dies. The point of contention is whether human beings are the
cause, and if they're able to have any effect on it. *This* is the element
of the Climate Change debate that is full of theory, speculation and general
downright bullshit that can't be proven one way or the other.
In my opinion the answer in both cases is "no", and I'm certainly not on my
own in that belief. However that won't stop governments all over the world
from cashing in on the fears of some and using the whole CC paranoia as yet
another way to raise revenue.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Jeßus
m...@home.com said...
<snip>
:
:There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that climate change is
:happening.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9682/globalwarmingswimwear1dd.jpg
Noddy
"Je�us" <no...@all.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.256c76f3f...@news.x-privat.org...
Lol :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Bernd Felsche
>>>> According to you.
>>> The scientists themselves can't make up their minds about the
>>> subject. If it was as cut and dried irrefutable as some people
>>> make it out to be there'd be no argument.
>There are people out there deliberately mudding the waters in an
>attempt to create doubt, but none of those reasons are based on any
>science.
>I'll keep an open mind, after all reducing pollution is a good idea
>for reasons other then climate change.
Talk about muddying the water!
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's an essential trace gas that is in fact
TOO LOW in concentration to be optimum for agriculture.
There hasn't been a runaway "greenhouse" effect in the real world.
Not in a hundred million years. Not when CO2 levels were 50 times
higher than what they are today. Not when temperatures were 3 to 4
degrees C warmer.
The catastrophe that is likely, is one caused by "carbon trading"
and in their derivatives. A collapse of such markets results in
wealth being diverted to a few; the traders and those who've
speculated while manipulating a market in intangibles.
And collapse it will. It's collapsed twice in the EU already with a
tonne of CO2 trading for less than 0.03 Euros; instead of the
bEUrocratic 30 Euros.
But before it collapses, local manufacturing will be pushed to the
ecological cess-pit "developing" countries, resulting in more actual
pollution. And Australia, the so-called "clever country" won't even
be able to reap the benefits of intellectual property; as the
Copenhagen Agreement foreshadows; cancelling Patents and preventing
new ones if the UN determines that the technology should be
available to the LDCs.
Neil Fisher
<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you>, after considering some belly-button
fluf, wrote:
>John_H wrote:
>> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/dennis-jensen
>>
>What Krudd is proposing with Copenhagen is nothing short of
>treason. He is prepared to sell out the nation for his own ego.
Indeed - if you haven't seen it already, I'd suggest you all have a
look at Monckton's appraisal of the treaty draft (it's on youtube a
few times), or better yet download a copy of it (the treaty draft) and
read it yourself. Global Goverment with no elected representation and
CO2 "debt" requiring payments to other countries for the emissions of
our forefathers are just two of a vast litany of anti-capitalist,
anti-democratic "features" of this treaty. My grandfather, who was at
Gallipoli, would turn in his grave that we are even contemplating such
a thing.
The real question is this: have you contacted your MP and expressed
your opinion on the matter? If you haven't, you should. And yes, I
have. I told him in no uncertain terms that if he votes to ratify such
a treaty he will never get a vote from me ever again under any
circumstances, and that I will tell each and every one of his
constituants that I come across that he has betrayed not only them,
but all of Australia. He probably thinks I'm a looney, but if enough
people do it...
Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
Diesel Damo
The problem is that it will be open to future abuse once it's in
place. Thin edge of the wedge, as it's called. Feasabilities aside, if
you think it will only be used to shield kids from "internet nasties"
then you're putting a ridiculous amount of trust in politicians for
the rest of your life. The fact that the current plan will do nothing
to protect kids only underlines the fact that even the current
politicians have a different agenda in mind.
I'm surprised this needed explaining at all.
Clocky
"Diesel Damo" <Diese...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1bd92ad2-4a51-4c11...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 12:38 am, "Clocky" <nice...@migo.com> wrote:
> Diesel Damo wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 1:52 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>
> >> Maybe they will make "Fuck Off We're Full" stickers compulsory
> >> for the trifecta of idiocy ;-)
>
> > Are you saying that being against internet censorship is idiocy?
>
> Yes, I don't think targeted internet censorship is neccessarily a bad
> thing
> but I'm opposed to the current plan because it just won't work.
The problem is that it will be open to future abuse once it's in
place.
The internet is being used for abuse right now on so many levels and you
don't have a problem with that?
Thin edge of the wedge, as it's called. Feasabilities aside, if
you think it will only be used to shield kids from "internet nasties"
then you're putting a ridiculous amount of trust in politicians for
the rest of your life. The fact that the current plan will do nothing
to protect kids only underlines the fact that even the current
politicians have a different agenda in mind.
I'm surprised this needed explaining at all.
It doesn't, as I said I don't support the current plan but I won't rule out
supporting targetted censorship if it becomes possible.