Quote:

As the media watchdog prepares to investigate talkback host Alan Jones over his climate change coverage, Bob Beale says Jones's numbers just don't add up. We knew Sydney radio host Alan Jones was influential, but who would have guessed he could pull off a miracle? Not by turning water into wine, but he has managed to transform something into nothing. That something is carbon dioxide. You know? It's the gas in the bubbles in your beer. Jones wants us to believe that what is true for a glass of grog applies equally to our entire planet - carbon dioxide is just a harmless bit of fizz that enlivens the brew then, poof! It's gone and of no further consequence. No wonder he has agreed to be the founding patron of Australia's newest and arguably most extreme climate-science denier organisation - the paradoxically titled Galileo Movement. This group's leaders aren't merely sceptical about mainstream climate science - they outright deny that the world is warming (the thermometers are in the wrong place). They scoff at the idea that human activity can cause warming (carbon dioxide is just plant food); and they even reject that global warming could be harmful (relax, do nothing - it's natural). Instead, they fervently believe that it's all part of a secret ideological conspiracy by corrupt scientists using fake data to collude with greenies, socialists, libertarians and the United Nations to falsely alarm the gullible and enrich themselves by stealing our money and sovereignty. Fair dinkum. As for carbon trading, well, if you can't credit the idea that a teensy-weensy bit of carbon dioxide can have a really, really big impact on climate, it seems preposterous to spend good money on cutting that small amount of human emissions. They're entitled to their opinions but it's disappointing that Jones is using his position to bamboozle his listeners and bash science. He's adopted his denier group's arcane arithmetic and is frothing with zeros to hammer home his point. Here's how he belittles the massive amounts of carbon dioxide that humans pumped into the air last century and the extra 30 billion tonnes we're all now adding each year. First, he rightly notes that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is roughly 0.04 per cent. Next, he claims that out of all the carbon dioxide emitted annually into the air, 97 per cent comes from natural sources. Therefore that leaves humans responsible for only 3 per cent, and Australians for a mere 1.5 per cent of that. So, let's see: that's 1.5 per cent times 3 per cent times 0.04 per cent - voila! Australians are responsible for an incredibly tiny 0.000018 per cent of global carbon dioxide. And if we cut our own emissions by 5 per cent, as Canberra has pledged, that's a reduction of 0.0000009 per cent. "I mean, what are we talking about?" a belligerent Jones demanded to know from a bemused climate scientist on his program the other day. "These are zero amounts. Can you explain to our listeners how cutting our output by 5 per cent of 1.5 per cent of 3 per cent of 0.04 per cent will affect climate? Zero point zero zero zero zero one eight per cent. "No one out there could seriously say that you could get closer to zero contribution than that?" And that's the miracle right there. Australia's role in global warming is suddenly rendered so infinitesimally small as to be zero, zip, nothing. It's pitiful! Why bother? Case closed. Thanks Alan. The real pity is not just that his much-ado-about-nothing arithmetic is wrong, that his logic is phoney or that he apparently thinks our carbon emissions carry little Aussie flags to distinguish them from all the others. No, the whole premise of his argument is a crock. Admittedly, his reasoning would let us conveniently shrug off doing anything about many other vexatious global problems - and there's a long list. After all, we could argue that we only produce 0.000018 per cent of the world's terrorists, of hungry and poor people, of malaria and cholera cases, and so on. Hey, and why tax Australians to help foreigners combat such distant scourges? But it's just plain dopey to suggest that something in tiny concentrations can't have a significant impact or that small shifts in those concentrations can't matter. Two quick schooners of beer, for example, will give you a blood-alcohol content of about 0.04. Have another beer and you're over 0.05, the limit where the law deems there's a high probability that you're not safe on the road. The global carbon dioxide level is already close to 0.04 per cent and the best available evidence points to a high probability that everyone's safety will be compromised if it reaches 0.05 per cent. Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide. For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Believe it or not, these tiny amounts of special gases in the atmosphere make life possible on our planet: small changes in their concentration could also make life far more dangerous.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wrong-about-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html

Quote:

But it's just plain dopey to suggest that something in tiny concentrations can't have a significant impact or that small shifts in those concentrations can't matter. Two quick schooners of beer, for example, will give you a blood-alcohol content of about 0.04. Have another beer and you're over 0.05, the limit where the law deems there's a high probability that you're not safe on the road. The global carbon dioxide level is already close to 0.04 per cent and the best available evidence points to a high probability that everyone's safety will be compromised if it reaches 0.05 per cent. Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide. For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Believe it or not, these tiny amounts of special gases in the atmosphere make life possible on our planet: small changes in their concentration could also make life far more dangerous. Roughly 99 per cent of the atmosphere is not greenhouse gas - the piddling little 1 per cent somehow traps enough heat to make the surface of earth more than 30 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be. The silly sums are time-wasting distractions that hinder debate on a complex issue. The real concern about carbon dioxide is not of quantity but quality: its potent heat-absorbing capacity is what counts. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not about trying to cool the planet a tiny bit, it's about trying to stop it getting a whole lot warmer and more unstable. Another problem with Jones's arithmetical spin is that it grossly distorts reality.  The alleged 97 per cent of carbon dioxide emitted each year from natural sources is recycled by plants and absorbed by the ocean. There's an equilibrium that makes the net effect on atmospheric concentrations effectively - you guessed it - zero. In fact, it's presently less than zero because the biosphere and oceans are soaking up about half of human emissions. Think of it like a bathtub with a dripping tap and a leaky plug: if the same amount leaks out as drips in, the water level in the bath stays the same. That's why for the past 6000 years the global carbon dioxide level was essentially constant at about 280 parts per million. But this recycling system hasn't been able to respond fast enough to deal with all the extra carbon we've been suddenly adding to the air. What we've done is crank up the drip rate and the bath is filling: that is, carbon dioxide is steadily building up in the atmosphere. Since the start of the industrial revolution the level has risen sharply from 280 parts per million to 390ppm - the highest it has been for a million years. That's not surprising when you consider that last century alone, fossil fuel burning and cement production emitted more than 1.1 trillion tonnes (that's a one followed by 12 zeros) of it. Do the sums correctly and it's clear that human activity is responsible for more than a quarter (about 28 per cent) of the carbon dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere and the rate of increase in its concentration is doubling about every 30 years. Australians are directly responsible for at least 1.5 per cent of all that. Our tally is probably twice as much if we include all the coal and natural gas we sell other countries to burn. Indeed, we're punching well above our weight. For all their droning zeros and harmless flag-waving carbon molecules, Jones and his fellow deniers are headed down the same road as the rest of us, speeding inexorably towards 500 ppm - and by then we'll all be well over the limit.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wrong-about-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html#ixzz1O49knhJep

so the TAX will make a large contribution to lowering the Carbon around the world as well as lowering out footprint.

probably leaving countries Like China... being able to put off using all the coal we are selling them for a few years untill they come up with something cheaper...

hey thats great news..... we can keep on selling this carbon creating stuff. without a guilty concience...yehhhhhhhhhh

I am sure Jones has a huge influence on the public every one knows he is a scientists..lol..having long come to the conclusion common sense has nothing to do with science.

but jokes aside.. I am sure gillard reads the age.. so she will be very happy with this news..keep on selling Juliar...just keep on selling.


our bit of fizz is still making a big difference and thats all that matters.

I dont see where he is wrong.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:48am:

I dont see where he is wrong.

Totally agree Bob's shot the old queen's fantasy right in the arse.

I dont see where Alan Jones is wrong.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:54am:

I dont see where Alan Jones is wrong.

Of course you don't, you would need a functioning brain for that to occur.

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 8:54am: I dont see where Alan Jones is wrong. Of course you don't, you would need a functioning brain for that to occur.

I would have to be a functional sheep a mushroom perhaps. The dynamic 97% is the factor, not the statistical insignificant 3%, let alone the even more insignificant cuts that the extreme environmentalists have got you mushrooming about.

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/images/Galileo-logo.png




Quote:

The Galileo Movement is the initiative of two retirees - Case Smit and John Smeed - strongly supported by their wives Corrie and Suzanne. Case Smit: Case was founder and owner of Environmental Health Services (Aust) Pty Ltd, an organisation that monitored and advised on the effects of their environment on people's health. Science degree, BSc (chemistry & metallurgy), Certified Industrial Hygienist, Chartered (Environmental) Professional; He's a grandad. John Smeed: John is a retired, national engineering excellence award winning professional engineer - www.johnsmeed.com.au. He founded and built a successful Sydney based Australia-wide operational, design-construct air conditioning company with 140 staff including 14 professional engineers. He maintains control of an environmentally excellent Australian combustion technology company and still undertakes occasional international engineering consulting briefs for unusually challenging air-conditioning projects http://www.galileomovement.com.au

At a superficial level, the small percentage argument being put forward by the Galileo Movement, and being promoted and spread by Alan Jones, will impress those who already wish to deny the validity of the scientific community's agreed opinion that CO2 emissions are creating a dangerous shift in our Global Climate.

The mixing of motives, and outcomes, relating the statistical importance of Australia's contribution to the growing CO2 emissions Globally, can be discounted as negligible, if looked at in isolation, and not considered as being of importance outside of it's political, and ethical image, to other nations.

The main reason for Australia to be seen to be acting responsibly in transitioning to a low Carbon Economy, is not only because it is the correct, and responsible course to take, it is critical in not providing an excuse for other Nations to excuse themselves from taking action.

As the highest per capita Carbon emitting country on Earth, and also a relatively wealthy, and developed economy, to have Australia abrogate it's responsibility to reduce it's share of Carbon Emissions would provide just excuses from other Nations to follow suit, and refuse to accept responsibility for their share of Carbon emissions too.

Even though we are 18th on the list of Carbon polluting Nations on the planet, the fact that we are number one, on the per capita emissions list, leaves us open to fair criticism, if we fail to address that shameful statistic, by claiming that we are statistically negligible.
If we take that road, then what we are really showing the world is that we are unwilling to act as part of the Global Community, and the real negligence is failing to accept that fact.

Global Warming is an issue that requires we do not hide behind selfish national interests, and that we do engage with other nations, and that means we must take responsibility for our own emissions, and not hide behind statistical chicanery, but be willing to take that responsibility, and turn it into the sort of action which shows the world that we are willing and able, to do the right thing.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:28am:

Quote: But it's just plain dopey to suggest that something in tiny concentrations can't have a significant impact or that small shifts in those concentrations can't matter. Two quick schooners of beer, for example, will give you a blood-alcohol content of about 0.04. Have another beer and you're over 0.05, the limit where the law deems there's a high probability that you're not safe on the road. The global carbon dioxide level is already close to 0.04 per cent and the best available evidence points to a high probability that everyone's safety will be compromised if it reaches 0.05 per cent. Or consider that without the sunscreen effect of ozone in the atmosphere we would all die of extreme sunburn, yet ozone molecules are about 1000 times less common than those of carbon dioxide. For every 10 million molecules of air, a mere four are ozone, yet thankfully they repel about 97 per cent of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Believe it or not, these tiny amounts of special gases in the atmosphere make life possible on our planet: small changes in their concentration could also make life far more dangerous. Roughly 99 per cent of the atmosphere is not greenhouse gas - the piddling little 1 per cent somehow traps enough heat to make the surface of earth more than 30 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be. The silly sums are time-wasting distractions that hinder debate on a complex issue. The real concern about carbon dioxide is not of quantity but quality: its potent heat-absorbing capacity is what counts. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not about trying to cool the planet a tiny bit, it's about trying to stop it getting a whole lot warmer and more unstable. Another problem with Jones's arithmetical spin is that it grossly distorts reality.  The alleged 97 per cent of carbon dioxide emitted each year from natural sources is recycled by plants and absorbed by the ocean. There's an equilibrium that makes the net effect on atmospheric concentrations effectively - you guessed it - zero. In fact, it's presently less than zero because the biosphere and oceans are soaking up about half of human emissions. Think of it like a bathtub with a dripping tap and a leaky plug: if the same amount leaks out as drips in, the water level in the bath stays the same. That's why for the past 6000 years the global carbon dioxide level was essentially constant at about 280 parts per million. But this recycling system hasn't been able to respond fast enough to deal with all the extra carbon we've been suddenly adding to the air. What we've done is crank up the drip rate and the bath is filling: that is, carbon dioxide is steadily building up in the atmosphere. Since the start of the industrial revolution the level has risen sharply from 280 parts per million to 390ppm - the highest it has been for a million years. That's not surprising when you consider that last century alone, fossil fuel burning and cement production emitted more than 1.1 trillion tonnes (that's a one followed by 12 zeros) of it. Do the sums correctly and it's clear that human activity is responsible for more than a quarter (about 28 per cent) of the carbon dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere and the rate of increase in its concentration is doubling about every 30 years. Australians are directly responsible for at least 1.5 per cent of all that. Our tally is probably twice as much if we include all the coal and natural gas we sell other countries to burn. Indeed, we're punching well above our weight. For all their droning zeros and harmless flag-waving carbon molecules, Jones and his fellow deniers are headed down the same road as the rest of us, speeding inexorably towards 500 ppm - and by then we'll all be well over the limit. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wrong-about-climate-change-mr-jones-20110601-1ffhd.html#ixzz1O49knhJep

I do not see where Jones's figures have been shown (as distinct to be declared) wrong. Please point it out for us

There are a load of analogies about bath tubs and beer but no maths. It is utter nonsense to say that "it's clear that human activity is responsible for more than a quarter (about 28 per cent) of the carbon dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere ". This is just complete crap. ABsolutely stupid and insane.



.

Those 'silly sums' just get in the way of a good tale don't they.

I vote we increase the drinking limit to 0.07.  After all, what's an extra 0.02 to our blood stream? It's a statistical error.

The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them.
The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:55am:

I vote we increase the drinking limit to 0.07.  After all, what's an extra 0.02 to our blood stream? It's a statistical error.

You come up with some pretty dumb examples. Where is the 97% of alcohol coming from if the person isnt drinking that much.

watch this if you dare !!!!!

http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.com/glb_wrm_glb_gov.htm

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:55am: I vote we increase the drinking limit to 0.07.  After all, what's an extra 0.02 to our blood stream? It's a statistical error. You come up with some pretty dumb examples. Where is the 97% of alcohol coming from if the person isnt drinking that much.

;D ;D ;D Once again the point is beyond you.   What a surprise.  

Ill spell it out for you elavine.

The best analogy is to look at a dam. But this dam we are still not sure how much it can hold. Historically, we have had 10 times or more water than we thought was its peak, with no flooding overflow, but we think it can only hold another 50%

We have 1000 river inflows, but we have only calculated 10 of the inflows to give us an assumption of what the total inflow is (undersea valcanoes in particular).

One particular river is a problem because its inflow is 3% of the total

Bearing in mind, you dont actually know the inflows of 990 rivers, yet you are concern about 1 that is 3% of the total.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:43pm:

Ill spell it out for you elavine. The best analogy is to look at a dam. But this dam we are still not sure how much it can hold. Historically, we have had 10 times or more water than we thought was its peak, with no flooding overflow. We have 1000 river inflows, but we have only calculated 10 of the inflows to give us an assumption of what the total inflow is. One particular river is a problem because its inflow is 3% of the total Bearing in mind, you dont actually know the inflows of 990 rivers, yet you are concern about 1 that is 3% of the total.

Actually dams are built with an understanding of what their maximum storage capacity is, before an overflow.  And that 3% can very much cause the overflow.   But nice try :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:45pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 12:43pm: Ill spell it out for you elavine. The best analogy is to look at a dam. But this dam we are still not sure how much it can hold. Historically, we have had 10 times or more water than we thought was its peak, with no flooding overflow. We have 1000 river inflows, but we have only calculated 10 of the inflows to give us an assumption of what the total inflow is. One particular river is a problem because its inflow is 3% of the total Bearing in mind, you dont actually know the inflows of 990 rivers, yet you are concern about 1 that is 3% of the total. Actually dams are built with an understanding of what their maximum storage capacity is.   But nice try :)

der dumb as a door knob

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:46pm:

Actually dams are built with an understanding of what their maximum storage capacity is.   But nice try :)

der dumb as a door knob[/quote]


You gave a stupid analogy, I explained why it was stupid :)  

Maxium storage capacity can be overflowed by the slightest of inflows - even 3%.  And if we can prevent it, then shouldn't we?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:47pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 12:46pm: Actually dams are built with an understanding of what their maximum storage capacity is.   But nice try :) der dumb as a door knob

Look for the word "but this dam"  :D

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:47pm:

Look for the word "but this dam"  :D

Silly, that's more than one word ;)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:51pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 12:47pm: Look for the word "but this dam"  :D Silly, that's more than one word ;)

Silly me, too complicated for you. Ill wait for someone with a bit more smarts. Thanks for trying though.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:56pm:

Silly me, too complicated for you. Ill wait for someone with a bit more smarts. Thanks for trying though.

But I ask you once again how we can possibly build a dam that we won't know the capacity of? Poor engineering?

The fact is we know capacities, and we determine them - which is what the scientists did.  And they have said even the 0.00004 or 0.0006 or whatever it is you spur constantly is breaching on that capacity, and we need to do something about it, where we can. If that happens to be the 3%, then do it. Like with alcohol in the blood stream, every tiny bit can have an affect.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 12:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 12:56pm: Silly me, too complicated for you. Ill wait for someone with a bit more smarts. Thanks for trying though. But I ask you once again how we can possibly build a dam that we won't know the capacity of? Poor engineering? The fact is we know capacities, and we determine them - which is what the scientists did.  And they have said even the 0.00004 or 0.0006 or whatever it is you spur constantly is breaching on that capacity, and we need to do something about it, where we can. If that happens to be the 3%, then do it. Like with alcohol in the blood stream, every tiny bit can have an affect.

The scientist cant tell you why there was 10 x more CO2 in the air in history, yet the climate was relatively the same. BTW, the dam is an analogy, not a construction.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

The scientist cant tell you why there was 10 x more CO2 in the air in history, yet the climate was relatively the same. BTW, the dam is an analogy, not a construction.

And it was a poor analogy that didn't serve its purpose.  And with the same token, Allan Jones can't predict inaction based on his view of percentages, and I'd rather trust those that can.

I just finished trying to wade through the OP,  a more emotive, unsubstantiated, pack of distortion and lies, isn`t often encountered.

Why do people always make up things to try to discredit Alan? HJe is fair dinkum, honest and a good man. I listen to him every morning.

Not only is the 3% human output a statistically insignificant number to the 97% of total CO2, CO2 is only 9 - 26% of the total green house effect.

So 3% of total CO2 of the 9 - 26% overall green house effect, becomes even more insignificant.

matty wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 1:46pm:

Why do people always make up things to try to discredit Alan? HJe is fair dinkum, honest and a good man. I listen to him every morning.

Why doesn't that surprise me. Gloria is great entertainment, particularly in men's toilet cubicles. :-* :-* :-*

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:06pm:

matty wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 1:46pm: Why do people always make up things to try to discredit Alan? HJe is fair dinkum, honest and a good man. I listen to him every morning. Why doesn't that surprise me. Gloria is great entertainment, particularly in men's toilet cubicles. :-* :-* :-*

Since that is where you spend the majority of your time.

mavisdavis wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:11pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:06pm: matty wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 1:46pm: Why do people always make up things to try to discredit Alan? HJe is fair dinkum, honest and a good man. I listen to him every morning. Why doesn't that surprise me. Gloria is great entertainment, particularly in men's toilet cubicles. :-* :-* :-* Since that is where you spend the majority of your time.

OOH how cutting, you could have done better than that if you had half a brain,AF2R. ::)

The insignificance of our 3% CO2 of which CO2 is only 9 - 26% of the green house effect, is starting to look more of a feel good environmentally story.

There is good reason to think this AGW is BS.

Quote:

There is good reason to think this AGW is BS

Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief.

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:17pm:

Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief.

It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:18pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey.

If you had any to share you would, the fact you don't just shows you up for the fool you are.

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:18pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey. If you had any to share you would, the fact you don't just shows you up for the fool you are.

Umm ok whatevevvvvvvvvvvvvrrrrrr

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:22pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:18pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey. If you had any to share you would, the fact you don't just shows you up for the fool you are. Umm ok whatevevvvvvvvvvvvvrrrrrr

Thanks for proving my point. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:23pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:22pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:18pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey. If you had any to share you would, the fact you don't just shows you up for the fool you are. Umm ok whatevevvvvvvvvvvvvrrrrrr Thanks for proving my point. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Your pleasure.

Seen as skip missed it


The insignificance of our 3% CO2 of which CO2 is only 9 - 26% of the green house effect, is starting to look more of a feel good environmentally story.

There is good reason to think this AGW is BS.

mavisdavis wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 1:38pm:

I just finished trying to wade through the OP,  a more emotive, unsubstantiated, pack of distortion and lies, isn`t often encountered.

I guess that is what Jones trades on Mavis, the assumption that return listeners are dumb enough to take his word on anything.

Like all good denialists, he refuses to accept the findings of the actual experts in the field , declaring them all as tainted due to an avaricious desire for extra funding, yet seems willing to base his arguments on selectively cherry picked data from them, which he believes he can distort to his own advantage.

The sad fact may be that while at the most senior level, both sides of politics have accepted, albeit grudgingly by some, that the science behind the Global Warming debate is unassailable, some groups from the far right, still seek to make political gains, by fostering confusion and promoting misinformation, about Climate Change, and Jones is just one of the many mouth pieces they appear to use, to spread their misinformation.

The forces behind this campaign of misinformation have massive resources at their command, and fear nothing more than the strict regulation of their industries, which they fear will impact on their ability to continue to garner unchecked profits from their reckless ability to continue to grow their Carbon Emissions, unabated.

If people were really concerned about a vested interest steering this issue, they would be better served by looking at these large energy providers, and consumers, rather than trying to paint concerned scientists as evil conspirators, manipulating and falsifying data for the chance of gaining greater research grants, which is the cornerstone of the denialists argument, and an argument which is so obviously contrived as to make all that follows inevitably dubious.

Consider the possibility that for several decades, thousands upon thousands of independent, scientists, from diverse political, social, and geographic roots, all combine to work toward the same conclusion, and all agree on the critical elements of that conclusion, submitting their scientific work for peer review and scrutiny at the highest level, are all secretly colluding to perpetrate a scam upon humanity for the chance of gaining extra funding, and not one of these thousands has ever become disgruntled enough to expose the scam they are supposedly involved in????
It really is one of the silliest conspiracy theories that one could imagine, yet that silly conspiracy theory is still promoted as the cornerstone upon which denialists build their claimed scepticism upon.

The truth is that as each year passes, any doubts about the legitimacy of the science behind the whole study of Climate Change, becomes more diminished, and every new study adds more weight to their arguments, to the point where no legitimate scientists seriously question the core findings of the IPCC.

There will certainly be small disagreements over certain aspects from time to time, but that is to be expected when all studies are held up for rigorous examination, and this is a good thing, because that way any errors can be corrected sooner, rather than later.

So as a layman, with no scientific credentials, I am presented with the choice of accepting the findings of the most experienced and respected scientists in their field, or to choose to reject their advice, and seek justification for doing so by taking to heart the ranting of some politically motivated extremists.

It is a NO CONTEST for me, I would not go to a faith healer for open heart surgery, I would certainly not put money into the pokies, for my superannuation investments, and I would not go to radio commentators for the best scientific information about Climate change.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:21am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 10:17am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 8:54am: I dont see where Alan Jones is wrong. Of course you don't, you would need a functioning brain for that to occur. I would have to be a functional sheep a mushroom perhaps. The dynamic 97% is the factor, not the statistical insignificant 3%, let alone the even more insignificant cuts that the extreme environmentalists have got you mushrooming about.

omGawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwds, there was a whole episode of INSIGHT the other night on this question! The bloke asking it pretended and pretended and pretended that he didn't understand the answer... infact pretended that the question wasn't even being addressed until all the sceptics were so thoroughly embarrassed!

IT WAS FUNNY... I WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE SAW THAT EPISODE!??!

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:16pm:

The insignificance of our 3% CO2 of which CO2 is only 9 - 26% of the green house effect, is starting to look more of a feel good environmentally story. There is good reason to think this AGW is BS.

There was a shole episode of INSIGHT directed at this very question...

LOl, it was hilarious how often the bloke who asked the question reckoned the interviewee was avoiding the question.... man, I WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE SAW THIS LUDCROSITY... IT WAS A MASSIVE HIGHLIGHT IN MY DRINIKING LIFE TO SAY THE LEAST!

 :D :D :D :D ;D ;) ;) :o 8-) 8-) 8-)

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:18pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey.

...i bet you didn't see the INSIGHT program the other day did you... the one where they addressed that very question and the bloke taht asked it kept trying to pretend the interviewee was avoiding the question...!!!

FUNY DRINKING STUFF I TELL YA  :D :D :D ;) ;D

skippy. wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:18pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey. If you had any to share you would, the fact you don't just shows you up for the fool you are.

He doesn't dare because he saw the INSIGHT program the other day and knows he would get shot down by just about anyone who dared watch it!  :o :o :o ;D ;) ;)

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:32pm:

Seen as skip missed it The insignificance of our 3% CO2 of which CO2 is only 9 - 26% of the green house effect, is starting to look more of a feel good environmentally story. There is good reason to think this AGW is BS.

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!  :o :o :D ;D

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!  :o :o :D ;D

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!  :o :o :D ;D

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!

That INSIGHT program is really a thorn in your side isn't it mate!!!!  :o :o :D ;D

8-) 8-) :-[ :-[ :'( :'( :-X :-* :-? :-? :-? :-? ;)

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:58am:

The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive.

Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:39pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:18pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey. ...i bet you didn't see the INSIGHT program the other day did you... the one where they addressed that very question and the bloke taht asked it kept trying to pretend the interviewee was avoiding the question...!!! FUNY DRINKING STUFF I TELL YA  :D :D :D ;) ;D

I bet you I did. They were both idiots in the end.

The scientist gave stupid information. Volcanoes are not known entirely. Under water especially. His explanation was way off, almost ludicrous. The CO2 spewing from the earth this way is hardly definitive.

The other guy was just too heated for what he thought the answer should have been like.

What is the margin of error for all greenhouse gases to the total greenhouse effect. I bet it is way more than our insignificant 3% of CO2 of which total CO2 is only 9 - 26% of the total greenhouse effect.

I think you will find that the margin of error for all greenhouse gases is many many times the size of our insignificant contribution.

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:53pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay.

tHIS IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM SO DILUTION WILL INFACT OCCUR WHERE AS YOU ARE TRYING TO PRETEND NO SUCH THING IS EVEN POSSIBLE!

YOU AREN'T THAT CLEVER AT TRYING TO SELL SHITE!

COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE COMPLEX!!

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:01pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:39pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:18pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:17pm: Quote: There is good reason to think this AGW is BS Pity you never share any of them to back up your loony belief. It would be beyond you anyway. Lucky I didnt share any and show you up hey. ...i bet you didn't see the INSIGHT program the other day did you... the one where they addressed that very question and the bloke taht asked it kept trying to pretend the interviewee was avoiding the question...!!! FUNY DRINKING STUFF I TELL YA  :D :D :D ;) ;D I bet you I did. They were both idiots in the end. The scientist gave stupid information. Volcanoes are not known entirely. Under water especially. His explanation was way off, almost ludicrous. The CO2 spewing from the earth this way is hardly definitive. The other guy was just too heated for what he thought the answer should have been like. What is the margin of error for all greenhouse gases to the total greenhouse effect. I bet it is way more than our insignificant 3% of CO2 of which total CO2 is only 9 - 26% of the total greenhouse effect. I think you will find that the margin of error for all greenhouse gases is many many times the size of our insignificant contribution.

You're tripping balls dood... I LIKE THE WAY QUESTION TIME ENDED TODAY!  :D ;D ;) 8-) :o

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:53pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay.

Interesting point.  If we had as much concentration of piss in the bay as we do of human caused carbon emission, would it harm the ecosystem? I just think it might...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:33pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. Interesting point.  If we had as much concentration of piss in the bay as we do of human caused carbon emission, would it harm the ecosystem? I just think it might...

Hardly. The fish would piss and shite more than that.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:33pm: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. Interesting point.  If we had as much concentration of piss in the bay as we do of human caused carbon emission, would it harm the ecosystem? I just think it might... Hardly. The fish would piss and shite more than that.

Aren't we talking about EXTRA INPUT?  :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:03pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:33pm: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. Interesting point.  If we had as much concentration of piss in the bay as we do of human caused carbon emission, would it harm the ecosystem? I just think it might... Hardly. The fish would piss and shite more than that. Aren't we talking about EXTRA INPUT?  :D

I thought we were talkin' EXTRA OUTPUT. Guess the science ain't settled, then.
:P

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:03pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:33pm: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. Interesting point.  If we had as much concentration of piss in the bay as we do of human caused carbon emission, would it harm the ecosystem? I just think it might... Hardly. The fish would piss and shite more than that. Aren't we talking about EXTRA INPUT?  :D

I pretty sure if you told the volcanoes (that we do not divinitively know their output) that if they could just output a certain amount, im sure their probably not going to listen. So extra to what?

Alan "Queenie" Jones lying? The bloke that stole the fascist phrase Jewliar?
Alan 'Queenie' Jones wouldnt recognise the truth if it shoved him in a gas chamber and turned on the shower nozzle.

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:06pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 5:03pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:33pm: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. Interesting point.  If we had as much concentration of piss in the bay as we do of human caused carbon emission, would it harm the ecosystem? I just think it might... Hardly. The fish would piss and shite more than that. Aren't we talking about EXTRA INPUT?  :D I thought we were talkin' EXTRA OUTPUT. Guess the science ain't settled, then. :P

We're talking about pissing into port phillip bay remember.......  ::)

..you must do nuts in at speed parties dood! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:07pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 5:03pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:33pm: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. Interesting point.  If we had as much concentration of piss in the bay as we do of human caused carbon emission, would it harm the ecosystem? I just think it might... Hardly. The fish would piss and shite more than that. Aren't we talking about EXTRA INPUT?  :D I pretty sure if you told the volcanoes (that we do not divinitively know their output) that if they could just output a certain amount, im sure their probably not going to listen. So extra to what?

All of a sudden no one wants to examine SORENS PORT PHILLIP BAY THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: I WONDER WHY!  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ;D :D ;) :o :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :-* :-X :'( 8-)

Deathrides has just received a timeout for font and smiley abuse, inane repetition, and frankly, just being annoying.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:34pm:

mavisdavis wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 1:38pm: I just finished trying to wade through the OP,  a more emotive, unsubstantiated, pack of distortion and lies, isn`t often encountered. I guess that is what Jones trades on Mavis, the assumption that return listeners are dumb enough to take his word on anything. Like all good denialists, he refuses to accept the findings of the actual experts in the field , declaring them all as tainted due to an avaricious desire for extra funding, yet seems willing to base his arguments on selectively cherry picked data from them, which he believes he can distort to his own advantage. The sad fact may be that while at the most senior level, both sides of politics have accepted, albeit grudgingly by some, that the science behind the Global Warming debate is unassailable, some groups from the far right, still seek to make political gains, by fostering confusion and promoting misinformation, about Climate Change, and Jones is just one of the many mouth pieces they appear to use, to spread their misinformation. The forces behind this campaign of misinformation have massive resources at their command, and fear nothing more than the strict regulation of their industries, which they fear will impact on their ability to continue to garner unchecked profits from their reckless ability to continue to grow their Carbon Emissions, unabated. If people were really concerned about a vested interest steering this issue, they would be better served by looking at these large energy providers, and consumers, rather than trying to paint concerned scientists as evil conspirators, manipulating and falsifying data for the chance of gaining greater research grants, which is the cornerstone of the denialists argument, and an argument which is so obviously contrived as to make all that follows inevitably dubious. Consider the possibility that for several decades, thousands upon thousands of independent, scientists, from diverse political, social, and geographic roots, all combine to work toward the same conclusion, and all agree on the critical elements of that conclusion, submitting their scientific work for peer review and scrutiny at the highest level, are all secretly colluding to perpetrate a scam upon humanity for the chance of gaining extra funding, and not one of these thousands has ever become disgruntled enough to expose the scam they are supposedly involved in???? It really is one of the silliest conspiracy theories that one could imagine, yet that silly conspiracy theory is still promoted as the cornerstone upon which denialists build their claimed scepticism upon. The truth is that as each year passes, any doubts about the legitimacy of the science behind the whole study of Climate Change, becomes more diminished, and every new study adds more weight to their arguments, to the point where no legitimate scientists seriously question the core findings of the IPCC. There will certainly be small disagreements over certain aspects from time to time, but that is to be expected when all studies are held up for rigorous examination, and this is a good thing, because that way any errors can be corrected sooner, rather than later. So as a layman, with no scientific credentials, I am presented with the choice of accepting the findings of the most experienced and respected scientists in their field, or to choose to reject their advice, and seek justification for doing so by taking to heart the ranting of some politically motivated extremists. It is a NO CONTEST for me, I would not go to a faith healer for open heart surgery, I would certainly not put money into the pokies, for my superannuation investments, and I would not go to radio commentators for the best scientific information about Climate change.

But nowhere in all this marvellous disquisition is any argument offered against Jones's numbers, is there? His numbers are correct, yes?

Soren wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:20am:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:34pm: mavisdavis wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 1:38pm: I just finished trying to wade through the OP,  a more emotive, unsubstantiated, pack of distortion and lies, isn`t often encountered. I guess that is what Jones trades on Mavis, the assumption that return listeners are dumb enough to take his word on anything. Like all good denialists, he refuses to accept the findings of the actual experts in the field , declaring them all as tainted due to an avaricious desire for extra funding, yet seems willing to base his arguments on selectively cherry picked data from them, which he believes he can distort to his own advantage. The sad fact may be that while at the most senior level, both sides of politics have accepted, albeit grudgingly by some, that the science behind the Global Warming debate is unassailable, some groups from the far right, still seek to make political gains, by fostering confusion and promoting misinformation, about Climate Change, and Jones is just one of the many mouth pieces they appear to use, to spread their misinformation. The forces behind this campaign of misinformation have massive resources at their command, and fear nothing more than the strict regulation of their industries, which they fear will impact on their ability to continue to garner unchecked profits from their reckless ability to continue to grow their Carbon Emissions, unabated. If people were really concerned about a vested interest steering this issue, they would be better served by looking at these large energy providers, and consumers, rather than trying to paint concerned scientists as evil conspirators, manipulating and falsifying data for the chance of gaining greater research grants, which is the cornerstone of the denialists argument, and an argument which is so obviously contrived as to make all that follows inevitably dubious. Consider the possibility that for several decades, thousands upon thousands of independent, scientists, from diverse political, social, and geographic roots, all combine to work toward the same conclusion, and all agree on the critical elements of that conclusion, submitting their scientific work for peer review and scrutiny at the highest level, are all secretly colluding to perpetrate a scam upon humanity for the chance of gaining extra funding, and not one of these thousands has ever become disgruntled enough to expose the scam they are supposedly involved in???? It really is one of the silliest conspiracy theories that one could imagine, yet that silly conspiracy theory is still promoted as the cornerstone upon which denialists build their claimed scepticism upon. The truth is that as each year passes, any doubts about the legitimacy of the science behind the whole study of Climate Change, becomes more diminished, and every new study adds more weight to their arguments, to the point where no legitimate scientists seriously question the core findings of the IPCC. There will certainly be small disagreements over certain aspects from time to time, but that is to be expected when all studies are held up for rigorous examination, and this is a good thing, because that way any errors can be corrected sooner, rather than later. So as a layman, with no scientific credentials, I am presented with the choice of accepting the findings of the most experienced and respected scientists in their field, or to choose to reject their advice, and seek justification for doing so by taking to heart the ranting of some politically motivated extremists. It is a NO CONTEST for me, I would not go to a faith healer for open heart surgery, I would certainly not put money into the pokies, for my superannuation investments, and I would not go to radio commentators for the best scientific information about Climate change. But nowhere in all this marvellous disquisition is any argument offered against Jones's numbers, is there? His numbers are correct, yes?

Yes, those pesky numbers are an inconvenient truth for some.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:52pm:

All of a sudden no one wants to examine SORENS PORT PHILLIP BAY THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: I WONDER WHY!  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ;D :D ;) :o :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :-* :-X :'( 8-)

bugger off, looney!! (may I call you looney?)

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 5:52pm: All of a sudden no one wants to examine SORENS PORT PHILLIP BAY THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: I WONDER WHY!  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ;D :D ;) :o :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :-* :-X :'( 8-) bugger off, looney!! (may I call you looney?)

Yeh Yeh!!!  :D

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:53pm:

Deathrides has just received a timeout for font and smiley abuse, inane repetition, and frankly, just being annoying.

Naming!

ooh, some kind of special politics perhaps?  ;) ;)

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:34pm:

mavisdavis wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 1:38pm: I just finished trying to wade through the OP,  a more emotive, unsubstantiated, pack of distortion and lies, isn`t often encountered. I guess that is what Jones trades on Mavis, the assumption that return listeners are dumb enough to take his word on anything. Like all good denialists, he refuses to accept the findings of the actual experts in the field , declaring them all as tainted due to an avaricious desire for extra funding, yet seems willing to base his arguments on selectively cherry picked data from them, which he believes he can distort to his own advantage. The sad fact may be that while at the most senior level, both sides of politics have accepted, albeit grudgingly by some, that the science behind the Global Warming debate is unassailable, some groups from the far right, still seek to make political gains, by fostering confusion and promoting misinformation, about Climate Change, and Jones is just one of the many mouth pieces they appear to use, to spread their misinformation. The forces behind this campaign of misinformation have massive resources at their command, and fear nothing more than the strict regulation of their industries, which they fear will impact on their ability to continue to garner unchecked profits from their reckless ability to continue to grow their Carbon Emissions, unabated. If people were really concerned about a vested interest steering this issue, they would be better served by looking at these large energy providers, and consumers, rather than trying to paint concerned scientists as evil conspirators, manipulating and falsifying data for the chance of gaining greater research grants, which is the cornerstone of the denialists argument, and an argument which is so obviously contrived as to make all that follows inevitably dubious. Consider the possibility that for several decades, thousands upon thousands of independent, scientists, from diverse political, social, and geographic roots, all combine to work toward the same conclusion, and all agree on the critical elements of that conclusion, submitting their scientific work for peer review and scrutiny at the highest level, are all secretly colluding to perpetrate a scam upon humanity for the chance of gaining extra funding, and not one of these thousands has ever become disgruntled enough to expose the scam they are supposedly involved in???? It really is one of the silliest conspiracy theories that one could imagine, yet that silly conspiracy theory is still promoted as the cornerstone upon which denialists build their claimed scepticism upon. The truth is that as each year passes, any doubts about the legitimacy of the science behind the whole study of Climate Change, becomes more diminished, and every new study adds more weight to their arguments, to the point where no legitimate scientists seriously question the core findings of the IPCC. There will certainly be small disagreements over certain aspects from time to time, but that is to be expected when all studies are held up for rigorous examination, and this is a good thing, because that way any errors can be corrected sooner, rather than later. So as a layman, with no scientific credentials, I am presented with the choice of accepting the findings of the most experienced and respected scientists in their field, or to choose to reject their advice, and seek justification for doing so by taking to heart the ranting of some politically motivated extremists. It is a NO CONTEST for me, I would not go to a faith healer for open heart surgery, I would certainly not put money into the pokies, for my superannuation investments, and I would not go to radio commentators for the best scientific information about Climate change.

Bravo. Well said.

I must say I always laugh when I hear the conspiracy theories or the line that scientists are willing to fake results for a research grant.

I often wonder if people realise winning a grant is not like winning a lottery. Grants are actually quite modest, and not really worth risking your reputation for.

Once again. Brilliant.

Soren wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:20am:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:34pm: mavisdavis wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 1:38pm: I just finished trying to wade through the OP,  a more emotive, unsubstantiated, pack of distortion and lies, isn`t often encountered. I guess that is what Jones trades on Mavis, the assumption that return listeners are dumb enough to take his word on anything. Like all good denialists, he refuses to accept the findings of the actual experts in the field , declaring them all as tainted due to an avaricious desire for extra funding, yet seems willing to base his arguments on selectively cherry picked data from them, which he believes he can distort to his own advantage. The sad fact may be that while at the most senior level, both sides of politics have accepted, albeit grudgingly by some, that the science behind the Global Warming debate is unassailable, some groups from the far right, still seek to make political gains, by fostering confusion and promoting misinformation, about Climate Change, and Jones is just one of the many mouth pieces they appear to use, to spread their misinformation. The forces behind this campaign of misinformation have massive resources at their command, and fear nothing more than the strict regulation of their industries, which they fear will impact on their ability to continue to garner unchecked profits from their reckless ability to continue to grow their Carbon Emissions, unabated. If people were really concerned about a vested interest steering this issue, they would be better served by looking at these large energy providers, and consumers, rather than trying to paint concerned scientists as evil conspirators, manipulating and falsifying data for the chance of gaining greater research grants, which is the cornerstone of the denialists argument, and an argument which is so obviously contrived as to make all that follows inevitably dubious. Consider the possibility that for several decades, thousands upon thousands of independent, scientists, from diverse political, social, and geographic roots, all combine to work toward the same conclusion, and all agree on the critical elements of that conclusion, submitting their scientific work for peer review and scrutiny at the highest level, are all secretly colluding to perpetrate a scam upon humanity for the chance of gaining extra funding, and not one of these thousands has ever become disgruntled enough to expose the scam they are supposedly involved in???? It really is one of the silliest conspiracy theories that one could imagine, yet that silly conspiracy theory is still promoted as the cornerstone upon which denialists build their claimed scepticism upon. The truth is that as each year passes, any doubts about the legitimacy of the science behind the whole study of Climate Change, becomes more diminished, and every new study adds more weight to their arguments, to the point where no legitimate scientists seriously question the core findings of the IPCC. There will certainly be small disagreements over certain aspects from time to time, but that is to be expected when all studies are held up for rigorous examination, and this is a good thing, because that way any errors can be corrected sooner, rather than later. So as a layman, with no scientific credentials, I am presented with the choice of accepting the findings of the most experienced and respected scientists in their field, or to choose to reject their advice, and seek justification for doing so by taking to heart the ranting of some politically motivated extremists. It is a NO CONTEST for me, I would not go to a faith healer for open heart surgery, I would certainly not put money into the pokies, for my superannuation investments, and I would not go to radio commentators for the best scientific information about Climate change. But nowhere in all this marvellous disquisition is any argument offered against Jones's numbers, is there? His numbers are correct, yes?

One shiny star for the missing the the point completely.

I don't think anyone could have missed it more decisively than you have today.

Well done, my pseudo-intellectual message board jockey.

Honestly, your missing-the-point work today has been breathtaking.

If I had access to fireworks, I would be firing them off right now; so rare an occasion it is that someone misses the point like you have.

Take a bow sir.  

And yet... the numbers are not disputed.

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:05pm:

One shiny star for the missing the the point completely. I don't think anyone could have missed it more decisively than you have today. Well done, my pseudo-intellectual message board jockey. Honestly, your missing-the-point work today has been breathtaking. If I had access to fireworks, I would be firing them off right now; so rare an occasion it is that someone misses the point like you have. Take a bow sir.

There's a guy posting also as Luke Fowler who said this not long ago:

Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 6:30pm:

Dismissing people who don't agree with your views on climate change as delusional and brainwashed seems like a fairly childish way to try and "win" an argument.

Are you two related?

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:15pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm: One shiny star for the missing the the point completely. I don't think anyone could have missed it more decisively than you have today. Well done, my pseudo-intellectual message board jockey. Honestly, your missing-the-point work today has been breathtaking. If I had access to fireworks, I would be firing them off right now; so rare an occasion it is that someone misses the point like you have. Take a bow sir.   There's a guy posting also as Luke Fowler who said this not long ago: Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:30pm: Dismissing people who don't agree with your views on climate change as delusional and brainwashed seems like a fairly childish way to try and "win" an argument. Are you two related?

You can still disagree with a point of view and understand it at the same time. Funny you missed the point about me telling you you had missed the point.

Is that a double-whammy? Well done.  

Good to see you are following me around though.

Also, I applaud you for removing the Kierkegaard picture.

You having that as your avatar was just embarrassing for every one.

Let's face it, you aren't exactly a mental giant, and copying a picture off wikipedia isn't going to change this.

Here's the part where you start questioning my sexuality like you did last time you were made to look like a dunce.

Carry on.

Also, maybe you can think really, really hard about the article and maybe come back with what you think the author's point actually was.

Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.

Have fun.  

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:53pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay.

If I put one drop of arsenic in a bucket of water would you drink it???


;)

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:15pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm: One shiny star for the missing the the point completely. I don't think anyone could have missed it more decisively than you have today. Well done, my pseudo-intellectual message board jockey. Honestly, your missing-the-point work today has been breathtaking. If I had access to fireworks, I would be firing them off right now; so rare an occasion it is that someone misses the point like you have. Take a bow sir.   There's a guy posting also as Luke Fowler who said this not long ago: Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:30pm: Dismissing people who don't agree with your views on climate change as delusional and brainwashed seems like a fairly childish way to try and "win" an argument. Are you two related?

clever soren... I love it with the lefties... they can never give a clear answer to a question.. who will forget woody??..I have been fobbed off by the best...or at least those who think they are the best..

I am the first to admit the science.. escapes me..  it really does..but I dont think that should exclude me form having my say....

I mean if when these people line up to say YES to a CARBON TAX... maybe they should fill in a questionaire on how much they understand
the science of this.. and how this tax will work?

the scientist have the upper hand... especially those on here...[remarkable] yet they dont seem to be able to answer the most basic of questions..

like how soon will this TAX work.. on our footprint??. will it be within days?? we only have 10 years dont forget rather gloomy.and by the time this govt dilly dallies another 3 years will be gone.. I thought it was URGENT

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. If I put one drop of arsenic in a bucket of water would you drink it??? ;)

Clever boy. Stop eating vegetables - they are made of CO2 and sunlight and dirt from the earth.

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. If I put one drop of arsenic in a bucket of water would you drink it??? ;)

You can use it as satire but if you want to use it as a real example of AGW then you would use 'if I put a drop of arsenic in a bucket of 25% arsenic and 75% water, would you drink it'

Somehow Jones's pesky mathematical computations are not in dispute.

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:15pm: Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm: One shiny star for the missing the the point completely. I don't think anyone could have missed it more decisively than you have today. Well done, my pseudo-intellectual message board jockey. Honestly, your missing-the-point work today has been breathtaking. If I had access to fireworks, I would be firing them off right now; so rare an occasion it is that someone misses the point like you have. Take a bow sir.   There's a guy posting also as Luke Fowler who said this not long ago: Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 6:30pm: Dismissing people who don't agree with your views on climate change as delusional and brainwashed seems like a fairly childish way to try and "win" an argument. Are you two related? You can still disagree with a point of view and understand it at the same time. Funny you missed the point about me telling you you had missed the point. Is that a double-whammy? Well done.   Good to see you are following me around though. Also, I applaud you for removing the Kierkegaard picture. You having that as your avatar was just embarrassing for every one. Let's face it, you aren't exactly a mental giant, and copying a picture off wikipedia isn't going to change this. Here's the part where you start questioning my sexuality like you did last time you were made to look like a dunce. Carry on.

You couldn't make a coherent point to save your life. All you can do is switch the subject to my avatar and your sexuality.

Jones's central point was the insignificance of the numbers. The article in response to it was just a load of emoting about everything except Jones's point: the insignificance of the numbers.

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. If I put one drop of arsenic in a bucket of water would you drink it??? ;)

One drop of arsenic...from a standard eye dropper into a normal household bucket (18 or 20 litres)????

Sure I would...you'd receive a larger dose from eating normal supermarket (non organic) fruits and veges...

Probably more from a pack of cigarettes..(or have they cut arsenic from tobacco production nowadays??)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:01am: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. If I put one drop of arsenic in a bucket of water would you drink it??? ;) One drop of arsenic...from a standard eye dropper into a normal household bucket (18 or 20 litres)???? Sure I would...you'd receive a larger dose from eating normal supermarket (non organic) fruits and veges... Probably more from a pack of cigarettes..(or have they cut arsenic from tobacco production nowadays??)

So small numbers mean insignificance.
Does that mean we as a country are insignificant seeing our 22 million population is barely a large city in a lot of countries world wide?

You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread?
Why the bugger do they bother?
Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in?

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:35pm:

Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.

That's just what the more perceptive fraternity around here has been pointing out, drongo, before your farcical entry from stage left. The point Jones was making was not disputed.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in?

Hold your breath then. Every little bit counts.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:19pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:01am: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. If I put one drop of arsenic in a bucket of water would you drink it??? ;) One drop of arsenic...from a standard eye dropper into a normal household bucket (18 or 20 litres)???? Sure I would...you'd receive a larger dose from eating normal supermarket (non organic) fruits and veges... Probably more from a pack of cigarettes..(or have they cut arsenic from tobacco production nowadays??) So small numbers mean insignificance. Does that mean we as a country are insignificant seeing our 22 million population is barely a large city in a lot of countries world wide?

By that logic, it makes one wonder why Big Tobacco invests so much in political lobbying in Australia - and why they give a smack about the recent moves towards plain-cum-disgusting packaging of cancer sticks...

Surely, they could pull out of the Australian market altogether and make barely a dent in their profits!?

Soren wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Hold your breath then. Every little bit counts.

Swedish Comedy
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Boring!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in?

The difference is bread doesn't rise without that yeast smithy.
Without the yeast, the bread would fall as flat as the governments air tax arguement.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:19pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:01am: Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:53pm: mozzaok wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:58am: The "FAULT" with the statistics that Jones is promoting, does not rest with the numbers, but with the FALSE conclusion, that because they are small numbers, they prove that there are no negative consequences attached to them. The best liars always base their deception on facts, but that does not mean their intent was ever anything but to deceive. Oh, I see. Small amounts, big consequences. SO if you go and piss into Port Philip Bay every day, eventually it will warm up. It must be so, after all, nobody is taking the p!ss out of the bay. If I put one drop of arsenic in a bucket of water would you drink it??? ;) One drop of arsenic...from a standard eye dropper into a normal household bucket (18 or 20 litres)???? Sure I would...you'd receive a larger dose from eating normal supermarket (non organic) fruits and veges... Probably more from a pack of cigarettes..(or have they cut arsenic from tobacco production nowadays??) So small numbers mean insignificance. Does that mean we as a country are insignificant seeing our 22 million population is barely a large city in a lot of countries world wide?

BINGO...

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:32pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? The difference is bread doesn't rise without that yeast smithy. Without the yeast, the bread would fall as flat as the governments air tax arguement.

Thank you for stating the obvious, now what happens if we put 3.5 grams of yeast into that loaf?
its only 0.5 of a gram surely that won't make any difference to the quality of the bread.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in?

Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:35pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:32pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? The difference is bread doesn't rise without that yeast smithy. Without the yeast, the bread would fall as flat as the governments air tax arguement. Thank you for stating the obvious, now what happens if we put 3.5 grams of yeast into that loaf? its only 0.5 of a gram surely that won't make any difference to the quality of the bread.

Another problem with this example is that you are assuming that CO2 has the driving force of yeast and that CO2 is the actual driver in the first place.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example.

Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison.
Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole.

Need I remind you that...

Apparently, some right whingers are all excited about the headlines today, to the effect that 2/3 to 3/4 of 500 Australians out of a population of around 22,000,000 do not support a Carbon Tax and/or want an election on the issue...

Go figure, eh!?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:42pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole.

You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases.

Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread.

Equitist wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:45pm:

Need I remind you that... Apparently, some right whingers are all excited about the headlines today, to the effect that 2/3 to 3/4 of 500 Australians out of a population of around 22,000,000 do not support a Carbon Tax and/or want an election on the issue... Go figure, eh!?

I thought you lot were all for polls. Maybe not policy on polls, but polls none the less.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread.

No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not
the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread.

Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about?
Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held.
500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727%

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:47pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread. No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread. Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about? Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held. 500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727%

No way. Thats is just stupid. Yeast is THE forcing mechanism that makes the bread rise. Therefore the 3 grams represents 100% of greenhouse gases. The loaf itself represents the earth.

can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:35pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:32pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? The difference is bread doesn't rise without that yeast smithy. Without the yeast, the bread would fall as flat as the governments air tax arguement. Thank you for stating the obvious, now what happens if we put 3.5 grams of yeast into that loaf? its only 0.5 of a gram surely that won't make any difference to the quality of the bread.

Well it would make a difference smithy, and you would know about the difference when it comes out of the oven and you go to slice up the bread.
You would not need to guess the outcome as it's right in front of you.
You could of course extrapolate the outcome before opening the oven door, however reality seldom ever lives up to expectations. :)

cods wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing.

You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them

cods wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing.

OHHHH please no...
Religious zealots + political power always = despotism....

Fanatics with power always cause pogroms..

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them

LOL...I think that Cods way paying me a compliment!?

But, just so that we know what to say up-front...does that mean that the politically-safe response to the sexuality question is: "not fussed"!?

::)

cods wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing.

What a great idea Cods, bugger Nem & Astro I'll be fine by myself.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:47pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread. No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread. Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about? Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held. 500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727%

I take it my calculations are correct given your calculatation of 3% of 3 grams. It is not 0.5 grams, it is 0.09 grams. Your calculation is 17%. 0.09 grams represents no decerning difference in the way the loaf comes out even before we calculate it properly as I had said earlier with the total yeast being the representation of total greenhouse effect.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. What a great idea Cods, bugger Nem & Astro I'll be fine by myself.

Your avatar is going to your head.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. What a great idea Cods, bugger Nem & Astro I'll be fine by myself.

LOL...so you'll be going it alone on the sexuality thingy then...!?

;)

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them

I have a massive penis which I like to scare women between the ages of 18 to 60 with.
I also like Pina Colada's & getting caught in the rain  :D

Just fixing your typo, Smithy...


Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them I have a massive penis which I like to scare women between the ages of 18 to 60 with. I also like Pina Colada's & getting caught in the raincoat  :D

::)

Now, now, children - I'm not sure that Jones would be happy about what has been done to his own special thread...

Heck, some of us could have yellow or brown or black skin - worse, we could be mongrels or inbreds!?

That said, Jones should feel free to tell us what colour his special raincoat is...

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them I have a massive penis which I like to scare women between the ages of 18 to 60 with. I also like Pina Colada's & getting caught in the rain  :D

Thank you for sharing smithy.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:13pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:47pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread. No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread. Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about? Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held. 500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727% I take it my calculations are correct given your calculatation of 3% of 3 grams. It is not 0.5 grams, it is 0.09 grams. Your calculation is 17%

You seriously thought 0.5grm was whatever percentage was accurate.
All the figures (except for the 500 into 22mill) were EXAMPLES ONLY to show a small amount can & quite often does make a huge difference.
So A fvcken plus on the math but 0 for common sense

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:20pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:47pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread. No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread. Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about? Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held. 500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727% I take it my calculations are correct given your calculatation of 3% of 3 grams. It is not 0.5 grams, it is 0.09 grams. Your calculation is 17% You seriously thought 0.5grm was whatever percentage was accurate. All the figures (except for the 500 into 22mill) were EXAMPLES ONLY to show a small amount can & quite often does make a huge difference. So A fvcken plus on the math but 0 for common sense

So you have used 2 useless examples now. Do you have 1 real example or are you all talk.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them I have a massive penis which I like to scare women between the ages of 18 to 60 with. I also like Pina Colada's & getting caught in the rain  :D

And do you like making love in the dunes by the Cape???

ps, I love that song...

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:22pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:20pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:47pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread. No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread. Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about? Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held. 500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727% I take it my calculations are correct given your calculatation of 3% of 3 grams. It is not 0.5 grams, it is 0.09 grams. Your calculation is 17% You seriously thought 0.5grm was whatever percentage was accurate. All the figures (except for the 500 into 22mill) were EXAMPLES ONLY to show a small amount can & quite often does make a huge difference. So A fvcken plus on the math but 0 for common sense So you have used 2 useless examples now. Do you have 1 real example or are you all talk.

Unlike many here I realise when smashing my head against a brick wall.
And yes it feels good after you stop for awhile I don't get any jollies from it.
You don't believe in CC or that if by some miracle your wrong we should do anything to mitigate it's effect, business as usual in fact can we dig & pollute any faster?
Each to their own, next election you might still be able to vote for Mr NO & you'll get everything you want.

http://quizmasters.biz/Pub%20Genius/Mr_Men/Characters/Special/Mr%20No_01.png

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:22pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:20pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:13pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:47pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread. No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread. Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about? Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held. 500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727% I take it my calculations are correct given your calculatation of 3% of 3 grams. It is not 0.5 grams, it is 0.09 grams. Your calculation is 17% You seriously thought 0.5grm was whatever percentage was accurate. All the figures (except for the 500 into 22mill) were EXAMPLES ONLY to show a small amount can & quite often does make a huge difference. So A fvcken plus on the math but 0 for common sense So you have used 2 useless examples now. Do you have 1 real example or are you all talk. Unlike many here I realise when smashing my head against a brick wall. And yes it feels good after you stop for awhile I don't get any jollies from it. You don't believe in CC or that if by some miracle your wrong we should do anything to mitigate it's effect, business as usual in fact can we dig & pollute any faster? Each to their own, next election you might still be able to vote for Mr NO & you'll get everything you want. http://quizmasters.biz/Pub%20Genius/Mr_Men/Characters/Special/Mr%20No_01.png

All I was doing was letting you know your examples were incorrect. Have you conceded that your examples were way off the mark. I didnt hear it.

As for the hitting your head against a wall. I would go see someone about that. You know, you could be hitting your head on a wall because your examples are so wrong and unconvincing. Just a thought.

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them

not really only if they want to be PM...although I still prefer true blue honesty.. I know its wishful thinking.. but I prefer it, you dont so you can suck it up..

sad for me that this country has gone down the road that its okay to lie and cheat just dont get caught.or do it in the house.. because then you are in trouble..

if you lie to the masses nothing those slobs can do about it so its okay

cods wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:34pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them not really only if they want to be PM...although I still prefer true blue honesty.. I know its wishful thinking.. but I prefer it, you dont so you can suck it up.. sad for me that this country has gone down the road that its okay to lie and cheat just dont get caught.or do it in the house.. because then you are in trouble.. if you lie to the masses nothing those slobs can do about it so its okay

So if they wanted to just be deputy PM you'd still think it would be none of your business?

Just PM.

Equitist wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them LOL...I think that Cods way paying me a compliment!? But, just so that we know what to say up-front...does that mean that the politically-safe response to the sexuality question is: "not fussed"!? ::)

of course its a compliment nem... you know me.. you willl never see someone elses point of view.. so that means you are right... and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong..


so what wrong with giving you guys the reins and leading us through troubled waters..

I mean your knowledge is astounding.. on every subject..we would be on a winner thats for sure... move over gillard and brown... you have had your day.

as for their sexual preferences... well all i know is... I like to know what we have leading the country... I dont care if he/she is gay... as long as they dont pretend they are anything else...it hasnt done brown any harm that I have seen anyway,...

I think we have enough hypocracy in our parliament thats all..

and some on here think its a a good thing if someone hides their real sexuality or is a womaniser, and dumps their wife as soon as they leave office.. they think its ok... so what I dont argue with that...


they are arguing with my point of view..

Abbott is a catholic..he has never denied that.. yet rudd is a catholic and chose to go to another church.. dont think hes been seen there since he got stabbed.but I know if that was Abbott you would all have made mincemeat out of him..lol.

cods wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:44pm:

Equitist wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:10pm: darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them LOL...I think that Cods way paying me a compliment!? But, just so that we know what to say up-front...does that mean that the politically-safe response to the sexuality question is: "not fussed"!? ::) of course its a compliment nem... you know me.. you willl never see someone elses point of view.. so that means you are right... and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.. so what wrong with giving you guys the reins and leading us through troubled waters.. I mean your knowledge is astounding.. on every subject..we would be on a winner thats for sure... move over gillard and brown... you have had your day. as for their sexual preferences... well all i know is... I like to know what we have leading the country... I dont care if he/she is gay... as long as they dont pretend they are anything else...it hasnt done brown any harm that I have seen anyway,... I think we have enough hypocracy in our parliament thats all.. and some on here think its a a good thing if someone hides their real sexuality or is a womaniser, and dumps their wife as soon as they leave office.. they think its ok... so what I dont argue with that... they are arguing with my point of view.. Abbott is a catholic..he has never denied that.. yet rudd is a catholic and chose to go to another church.. dont think hes been seen there since he got stabbed.but I know if that was Abbott you would all have made mincemeat out of him..lol.

We already have those types in government now. What makes you think another lot of the same will do any better.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:47pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm: You know there's only 2 to 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread? Why the bugger do they bother? Do I need to go on or has the idiocy of your "it's so small it doesn't matter" argument sunk in? Are you saying there is 2 - 3 grams of yeast that we added compared to 97 grams of naturally occuring yeast. They dont do that. Use a different example. Why afraid a few lightbulbs might be going on with the mentally challenged with that simple comparison. Especially with everyone glued to MasterChef we see how small amounts over or under can totally ruin the whole. You need to use proper example, not fallicy. If you are going to say we add something, then you need to keep in mind that it has to have naturally occuring ?? of 97% component. Then you would have to have an equvalent to the 9 - 26% CO2 is of the total forcing of greenhouse gases. Otherwise your examples are just tripe. If you really wanted to calculate your bread theory, then the 2 - 3 grams of yeast would be the 100% of total greenhouse forcing. Then calculate the 26% (to be generous, which is the CO2 component of total greenhouse), then calculate 3% of that as total AGW. Now tell us if what you have left will ruin the bread. No you like to make it sound so difficult as does Jones but its not the 3 grams of yeast in a loaf of bread represents the carbon dioxide that naturally occurs in our atmosphere the 0.5 grams extra is our man made CO2 & it still stuffs the bread. Do you think 0.00227% should be worried about? Because as Thy has stated that's percentage is enough for you guys to reckon an election should be held. 500 divided by 22,000,000 x 100 = 0.002272727%

You have many many more chemical change examples to choose from.....

...but it won't matter ! If nobodys home then nobodys home!!!  :o :o ;D

The bathtub example of flow rates in and out is what all the scientists use to explain to a lay audience accumulation and if they don't get that they stop bothering!!!

See, if people don't understand that then they look like idiots in front of thousands!!!!  ;) ;) No need to talk about Carbon Dioxide because the fools still pretending to not understand that things accumulate if you add things faster than you take them out!

TRY THIS ONE ON THE LIBERAL VOTERS: "If you look after the pennnies....."  :o :D ;D ;D ;D They might give you a hint that someones home about then by grinning a tad too much!!!!!!!!  8-)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 1:20pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:15pm: darkhall67 wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: cods wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:03pm: can we have an election to elect nem and smithy and astro... all the experts on how our lives should be run and how good they will be at running it.. why.. because they know everything and the peasants know nothing. You'd be wanting to know their sexual preference though wont you before you'll vote for them I have a massive penis which I like to scare women between the ages of 18 to 60 with. I also like Pina Colada's & getting caught in the rain  :D Thank you for sharing smithy.

You and I would really get along IRL, smithy! ;D

Soren wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:35pm: Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.   That's just what the more perceptive fraternity around here has been pointing out, drongo, before your farcical entry from stage left. The point Jones was making was not disputed.

... and you were going so well.

I said nobody was disputing the figures but that is not the point the author was making. You need to practice reading things s l o w l y so you understand them.

The author was stating that it was Jones' assessment of the significance of the figures that was incorrect, not the figures themselves.

The point Jones was trying to make was based on the figures but was definitely in dispute. That being the whole point of the article in question.

Oh well, you got really close. Next time, eh kid?

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 12:32am:

Soren wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:28pm: Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:35pm: Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.   That's just what the more perceptive fraternity around here has been pointing out, drongo, before your farcical entry from stage left. The point Jones was making was not disputed. ... and you were going so well. I said nobody was disputing the figures but that is not the point the author was making. You need to practice reading things s l o w l y so you understand them. The author was stating that it was Jones' assessment of the significance of the figures that was incorrect, not the figures themselves. The point Jones was trying to make was based on the figures but was definitely in dispute. That being the whole point of the article in question. Oh well, you got really close. Next time, eh kid?

The figures ARE insignificant!

And the author of the original article is a moron because the "Climate Science" is an Observational Science at best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE_E1b8zBzM

The Truth About Greenhouse Gases
The dubious science of the climate crusaders.
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3785

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptoBGW3hU-g&feature=related

Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 12:32am:

Soren wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:28pm: Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:35pm: Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.   That's just what the more perceptive fraternity around here has been pointing out, drongo, before your farcical entry from stage left. The point Jones was making was not disputed. ... and you were going so well. I said nobody was disputing the figures but that is not the point the author was making. You need to practice reading things s l o w l y so you understand them. The author was stating that it was Jones' assessment of the significance of the figures that was incorrect, not the figures themselves. The point Jones was trying to make was based on the figures but was definitely in dispute. That being the whole point of the article in question. Oh well, you got really close. Next time, eh kid?

The opening lines of the original post:


astro_surf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:27am:

Quote: As the media watchdog prepares to investigate talkback host Alan Jones over his climate change coverage, Bob Beale says Jones's numbers just don't add up. The author of that article headlined his effort precisely as a dispute of the numbers becasue he thought 'they just don't add up', but couldn't -  so he gave us 750 words about bathtubs and hoped nobody would notice. And sure enough, idiots like you who could not remember by paragraph 2 what you read at the opening bought the waffle, chiefly because you retained the only idea that matters to you: that it was an article somehow against Jones - A GOOD THING. But you are stupid enough to parade your lack of comprehension even of your side of the argument, so stupid in fact that you contradict the author TWICE: [quote]Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.

and

Quote:

I said nobody was disputing the figures but that is not the point the author was making.

As Kierkegaard so memorably said more than a hundred years ago (I paraphrase): "stupid smacking drongos like you, Luke (may I call you Luke?), have no idea about either scientific facts or about a coherent argument".

He was right. You just drone on about whatever 'gotcha' moment arrested your gnat-like attention spans. Go on, have another social studies degree. Have two.


WIth people like you waffling for AGW, no wonder it's a buggered notion. (Either/or, Book 2, p. 121.)

(well, that shut them up.... ;D)

Soren wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

(well, that shut them up.... ;D)

not quite sure why the left are scared sh1tless by Jones...

hes just a bloke and old one at that.

cods wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 10:39pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 9:49pm: (well, that shut them up.... ;D) not quite sure why the left are scared sh1tless by Jones... hes just a bloke and old one at that.

Cause Jones dishes out the facts and the red necked lefty GALPS hate facts!

They prefer the mumbo jumbo from the Red Green Show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_b2xIEfj2Y
Hey it is made for them the reds (ALP) and the Greens!