Quote:

We’ve heard this garbage before, but we’re used to hearing it from right wing crazy people here in America.  But when a prominent politician and possible PM hopeful in Australia echoes Freedomworks‘ anti-Science stance on global climate change, it is cause for alarm.   Tony Abbott pictured here, has gone on the record saying:   ‘‘I don’t think we can say that the science is settled here’’ He went on to question whether ‘‘emissions are quite the problem that some people say they are’’, and argued, ‘‘whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.”   This is contrary to the findings of roughly 97% of climate scientists who study the effects of man-made pollutants on our global ecosphere. There are code words the conservatives in the U.S. often use to indicate they are anti-science and pro-big business, with little regard for the environment and health of their people and wildlife.  Mr. Abbott takes a page out of the GOP playbook and uses the catchphrase, “the climate change-science is far from settled” here: In order to appear as equally sexist, misogynistic and bigoted as his American Teaparty counterparts, Tony Abbott has a rich history of chauvinistic bullying in his C.V.  His attempt at mirroring candidates like “legitimate rape” failed Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin are evident in this quote:  ”When it comes from Julia (Gillard, the unmarried, current PM) , ‘No’ doesn’t mean ‘No’,” his choice of that charged term was completely intentional, and part of a nasty, subterranean agenda. He often refers to the current PM, Ms. Gillard, as unqualified on matters of family as she has no children.  He appeals to the farthest right wing elements of his country and to think a man of Abbott’s transparent motives has a such great odds at winning in September is quite disturbing to many Australians.

http://vegasjessie.com/2013/02/17/beware-the-teaparty-down-under-abbott-is-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

Interesting analysis of Abbott from a blogger in the US. Yes, folks, Abbott's dog whistling is that obvious.

He's a veritable pied piper.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AbbottDitchWitch.jpg

This is the problem in australia. The labour party is so far right that the libs extreme right is tea partyish to be right of labour. Its scary that idiots would vote for them. In fact australia is full of sheep. We need new choices and should be rioting to get them.

SOB

You link the most stupid blogs.

What Abbott is supposedly quoted as saying, is true in the real world.

True
‘‘I don’t think we can say that the science is settled here’’

True
He went on to question whether ‘‘emissions are quite the problem that some people say they are’’, and argued, ‘‘whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.”   

True
Ms. Gillard, as unqualified on matters of family as she has no children


False and a Lie
This is contrary to the findings of roughly 97% of climate scientists

Any article or post that espouses that old 97% fraud is an immediate FAIL.

It's an opinion, progs. Just because you disagree with the sentiments is neither here nor there.

What is interesting is that a self proclaimed anthropogenic global warming denier as yourself feels that Tony's position is aligned with yours. We can not afford a leader who is blind to the dangers of carbon emissions. We can't afford a leader who dog whistles the anti science brigade.

Looks like someone has been taking notes from Mr Swan. Tea party, your kidding right.. most people in Australia would not even understand the reference. Next you will be referencing Swans lipstick on pit bulls.

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:22am:

It's an opinion, progs. Just because you disagree with the sentiments is neither here nor there. What is interesting is that a self proclaimed anthropogenic global warming denier as yourself feels that Tony's position is aligned with yours. We can not afford a leader who is blind to the dangers of carbon emissions. We can't afford a leader who dog whistles the anti science brigade.

Sure thing corporate whitey

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:22am:

It's an opinion, progs. Just because you disagree with the sentiments is neither here nor there. What is interesting is that a self proclaimed anthropogenic global warming denier as yourself feels that Tony's position is aligned with yours. We can not afford a leader who is blind to the dangers of carbon emissions. We can't afford a leader who dog whistles the anti science brigade.

we cannot afford a leader that is so blind as to accept the ACC hypothesis without question. and the prospect of 20 years of no warming certinly does indicate that the ACC hypothesis is at the very best, wildly overstated. IN any other discipline you would just accept that the hypothesis is false.

Sad to see the yanks understand Tony better than most Australians .... I can only hope, that if he wins the election,  the damage he does to the country is reversible

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:19am:

Sad to see the yanks understand Tony better than most Australians .... I can only hope, that if he wins the election,  the damage he does to the country is reversible

What is sad to see is Labor only getting 17% in Tasmania

Maqqa wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:24am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:19am: Sad to see the yanks understand Tony better than most Australians .... I can only hope, that if he wins the election,  the damage he does to the country is reversible What is sad to see is Labor only getting 17% in Tasmania

Tasmania ....  where's that?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 4:44am:

This is the problem in australia. The labour party is so far right that the libs extreme right is tea partyish to be right of labour. Its scary that idiots would vote for them. In fact australia is full of sheep. We need new choices and should be rioting to get them. SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:50am:

Why do you trolls always try to assign partisan politics to me? SOB

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:34am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:44am: This is the problem in australia. The labour party is so far right that the libs extreme right is tea partyish to be right of labour. Its scary that idiots would vote for them. In fact australia is full of sheep. We need new choices and should be rioting to get them. SOB Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 5:50am: Why do you trolls always try to assign partisan politics to me? SOB

Hahahaha because i dont like any of them?

SOB

Maqqa wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:24am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:19am: Sad to see the yanks understand Tony better than most Australians .... I can only hope, that if he wins the election,  the damage he does to the country is reversible What is sad to see is Labor only getting 17% in Tasmania

What the heck has that got to do with the thread?

SOB

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 4:13am:

Quote: He often refers to the current PM, Ms. Gillard, as unqualified on matters of family as she has no children.

Just out of curiosity - how exactly is Gillard qualified to speak on matters of family in the sense of being a parent and having kids and so forth? Or at least, how is she equally qualified, compared to someone who is actually a parent?
Would you take family/parenting advice from any other industrial lawyer/union official?

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:13am: Quote: He often refers to the current PM, Ms. Gillard, as unqualified on matters of family as she has no children. Just out of curiosity - how exactly is Gillard qualified to speak on matters of family in the sense of being a parent and having kids and so forth? Or at least, how is she equally qualified, compared to someone who is actually a parent? Would you take family/parenting advice from any other industrial lawyer/union official?

Gillard gets her parenting advise from people smugglers.

Im sure abbot has spent time looking after the kids while his wife is off @ work hey.

SOB

;D ;D


Soooooooo desperate.

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:13am: Quote: He often refers to the current PM, Ms. Gillard, as unqualified on matters of family as she has no children. Just out of curiosity - how exactly is Gillard qualified to speak on matters of family in the sense of being a parent and having kids and so forth? Or at least, how is she equally qualified, compared to someone who is actually a parent? Would you take family/parenting advice from any other industrial lawyer/union official?

You are completely missing the point, Soren. The Labor government does not suffer from a lack of Ministers with parenting experience. Good leaders can empathise and take advice, they govern for all, irrespective of shared experiences. Abbott is dog whistling. He's uneccesarily highlighting her lack of children, deliberately appealing to known prejudices within our community.

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:13am: Quote: He often refers to the current PM, Ms. Gillard, as unqualified on matters of family as she has no children. Just out of curiosity - how exactly is Gillard qualified to speak on matters of family in the sense of being a parent and having kids and so forth? Or at least, how is she equally qualified, compared to someone who is actually a parent? Would you take family/parenting advice from any other industrial lawyer/union official?

Sure, Abbott has kids but as a member of parilament for most of that time, how qualified is he to give advice? He spent most of that time away from his kids and left his wife to raise the kids, it was once said that a parliamentarians wife is like a single mother   ... not exactly a role model for a father now is he. If anything, I'd say his opinion is skewed by his experiences. Because he has kids he thinks he doesn't need to take advice and is less inclined to listen to others.

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 4:13am:

This is contrary to the findings of roughly 97% of climate scientists who study the effects of man-made pollutants on our global ecosphere.  (Quote from the US Blogger).

Ah, the old "97% of climate scientists" again.

And strangely, when you click on the link provided, it says nothing about the "97%".  That's because he's trying to hide the facts.

So, let's look at those facts shall we:

" ... the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper cites".

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:"

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

"The Doran paper  has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

::)

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 9:00am: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:13am: Quote: He often refers to the current PM, Ms. Gillard, as unqualified on matters of family as she has no children. Just out of curiosity - how exactly is Gillard qualified to speak on matters of family in the sense of being a parent and having kids and so forth? Or at least, how is she equally qualified, compared to someone who is actually a parent? Would you take family/parenting advice from any other industrial lawyer/union official? You are completely missing the point, Soren. The Labor government does not suffer from a lack of Ministers with parenting experience. Good leaders can empathise and take advice, they govern for all, irrespective of shared experiences. Abbott is dog whistling. He's uneccesarily highlighting her lack of children, deliberately appealing to known prejudices within our community.

Without names or gender identifiers, ask anyone with kids whether they think another parent or an unmarried, childless industrial lawyer understands their lives better.


This is a representative democracy. Gillard does not represent parents. Why can't this be uttered? Bob Brown didn't represent families, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence don't represent families.


Anyway - Tea Party. What's the frothing about the Tea Party? Did they threaten to behead anyone who disrespects what they think? All you ninnies get worked up about a bunch of middle aged people with jobs who say what they think. Is it only the Gen Z (what letter are we up to anyway?),  Occupy the Sofa crowd that is allowed to protest and voice their views?

The false prophets of secular humanism, social Darwinism and social engineering don't represent families either...dont forget them....I believe John Howard will be judged harshly for his crimes against Australian families.... :)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

The false prophets of secular humanism, social Darwinism and social engineering don't represent families either...dont forget them....I believe John Howard will be judged harshly for his crimes against Australian families.... :)

Oh bugger!! Not you?!?!

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:22am:

...  the anti science brigade.

Actually, brainwashed followers of the AGW religion are the "anti science brigade".

They don't include rational skepticism in their evaluation of the hypothesis.

Nothing scientific about that.

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 5:52pm: The false prophets of secular humanism, social Darwinism and social engineering don't represent families either...dont forget them....I believe John Howard will be judged harshly for his crimes against Australian families.... :) Oh bugger!! Not you?!?!

You got it wrong doers...there is no ideological mask you can hide your wickedness behind that we will not bring into the light of Gods judgment... :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:22am: ...  the anti science brigade. Actually, brainwashed followers of the AGW religion are the "anti science brigade". They don't include rational skepticism in their evaluation of the hypothesis. Nothing scientific about that.

-->>real estate agents can't look their kids in the eye after saying things like that!  ;D ;D  :o  :-*

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 4:13am: This is contrary to the findings of roughly 97% of climate scientists who study the effects of man-made pollutants on our global ecosphere.  (Quote from the US Blogger). Ah, the old "97% of climate scientists" again. And strangely, when you click on the link provided, it says nothing about the "97%".  That's because he's trying to hide the facts. So, let's look at those facts shall we: " ... the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper cites". "Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:" “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..” “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” "The Doran paper  has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ ::)

What's your point, greggery. Doran surveyed a whole host of earth scientists of which climate scientists were a small subset. Not all replied, but a good chunk of them did. Of the 77 climate scientists that did reply, 75 of them accepted the AGW hypothesis. If you were at all familiar with the peer reviewed scientific literature, you'd know this sort of result is to be expected. Unfortunately,  you're not overly familiar with the scientific literature and you allow the obtuse Watts to do your thinking for you.

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 5:57pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 5:52pm: The false prophets of secular humanism, social Darwinism and social engineering don't represent families either...dont forget them....I believe John Howard will be judged harshly for his crimes against Australian families.... :) Oh bugger!! Not you?!?! You got it wrong doers...there is no ideological mask you can hide your wickedness behind that we will not bring into the light of Gods judgment... :)

...why won't god judge you for asking that Craig Thompson be hung untried from the Sydney Harbor Bridge??  ::) ::)  :P  :-/

Dont let the Tea Party take over the Liberal Party..join up today and back the moderate factions in your state

-->> Whoah,lucky corporate whitey doesn't actually believe in God then!  ;) ;)

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:

What's your point, greggery.

1. Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides.

2. The blogger deliberately misleads his readers by providing a "97% of climate scientists" link which actually says nothing about that particular subject (the link takes you to a completely different poll).

Any use of the "97% of climate scientists" quote is an automatic FAIL.

Just another example of how the AGW disciples are the real "anti science brigade": they rely on faith, deception, and lies, and refuse to engage in rational skepticism.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:02pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:22am: ...  the anti science brigade. Actually, brainwashed followers of the AGW religion are the "anti science brigade". They don't include rational skepticism in their evaluation of the hypothesis. Nothing scientific about that. -->>real estate agents can't look their kids in the eye after saying things like that!  ;D ;D  :o  :-*

You don't like being confronted with the truth, do you?

Good: I enjoy seeing you squirm.

Here's the truth for you one more time:

Actually, brainwashed followers of the AGW religion are the "anti science brigade": they don't include rational skepticism in their evaluation of the hypothesis.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:07pm: What's your point, greggery.  1. Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides. 2. The blogger deliberately misleads his readers by providing a "97% of climate scientists" link which actually says nothing about that particular subject (the link takes you to a completely different poll). Any use of the "97% of climate scientists" quote is an automatic FAIL. Just another example of how the AGW disciples are the real "anti science brigade": they rely on faith, deception, and lies, and refuse to engage in rational skepticism.

Nah, you're just joining issues!

The fact that most people agree with the science doesn't preclude it from being science.

Man, do really sell real estate in Western Australia because I'm quite sure word would get around quite quickly that you weren't worth dealing with.....?!!?

  8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:13pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:07pm: What's your point, greggery.  1. Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides. 2. The blogger deliberately misleads his readers by providing a "97% of climate scientists" link which actually says nothing about that particular subject (the link takes you to a completely different poll). Any use of the "97% of climate scientists" quote is an automatic FAIL. Just another example of how the AGW disciples are the real "anti science brigade": they rely on faith, deception, and lies, and refuse to engage in rational skepticism. Nah, you're just joining issues! The fact that most people agree with the science doesn't preclude it from being science. Man, do really sell real estate in Western Australia because I'm quite sure word would get around quite quickly that you weren't worth dealing with.....?!!?   8-)

The blogger deliberately misleads his readers by providing a "97% of climate scientists" link which actually says nothing about that particular subject (the link takes you to a completely different poll).

Why is he being so dishonest?

This shows us why he's being so dishonest: he doesn't want people to see the truth ...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.png


Trying to use the ridiculous "97% of climate scientists" = automatic FAIL

Interpret the graph and make your point, greggery. All you've proven is that climate scientists were a small subset of the earth scientists surveyed. What's your point. Is it that 2 out of 77 climate scientists aren't convinced yet, so therefore it's highly unlikely. Well, mate, the IPCC think it's virtually certain.

And once again you have nothing of any substance to add, greggery. You lack the balls to substantiate your position. I've yet to see you provide one substantive post outlining why you believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:02pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:22am: ...  the anti science brigade. Actually, brainwashed followers of the AGW religion are the "anti science brigade". They don't include rational skepticism in their evaluation of the hypothesis. Nothing scientific about that. -->>real estate agents can't look their kids in the eye after saying things like that!  ;D ;D  :o  :-* You don't like being confronted with the truth, do you? Good: I enjoy seeing you squirm. Here's the truth for you one more time: Actually, brainwashed followers of the AGW religion are the "anti science brigade": they don't include rational skepticism in their evaluation of the hypothesis.

;D Slow down cyclone: like any west-Aussie growing up in a sea of west-Aussies my mumma always told me to beware of real estate agents bearing self-proclamations of all truths, the whole truths and nuthing but the true truths!  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:03pm: Soren wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 5:57pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 5:52pm: The false prophets of secular humanism, social Darwinism and social engineering don't represent families either...dont forget them....I believe John Howard will be judged harshly for his crimes against Australian families.... :) Oh bugger!! Not you?!?! You got it wrong doers...there is no ideological mask you can hide your wickedness behind that we will not bring into the light of Gods judgment... :) ...why won't god judge you for asking that Craig Thompson be hung untried from the Sydney Harbor Bridge??  ::) ::)  :P  :-/

And can you give us a link to your accusation?  The difference between a repentant sinner and a non repentant sinner is the repentant sinner does not deny his wretchedness before God and fears his judgment and lives accordingly...He develops a keen sense for wrong doing and injustice and confronts it...REPENT...REPENT...Fear God and give him glory.... 8-)

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

And once again you have nothing of any substance to add, greggery. You lack the balls to substantiate your position. I've yet to see you provide one substantive post outlining why you believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures.

Nothing "of any substance"?!  LOL  You're a riot.

I've just exposed another deceptive AGW disciple and shown, once again, how ridiculous the "97%" quote is.

You guys really hate being confronted with the truth, don't you?

SCORE CARD:

Rational skeptics - 1

AGW disciples - nil

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

And once again you have nothing of any substance to add, greggery. You lack the balls to substantiate your position. I've yet to see you provide one substantive post outlining why you believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures.

His job is to make noise by playing his part in the battle for the entire internets address space.

The Status Quo won't be allowed to change until the rich can be sure of what the next business paradigm will be and they've judged their move into it correctly.

He doesn't have to make sense.... he just has to stammer like Abbott and Barnaby and infect everyone with a sense of uncertainty forever pretending the waters jsut need more time to clear before a decision can be made.

Oh, btw, vote in the mineral wealth stealers/foreign investors while you're waiting.....   ::) ::)

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

I've yet to see you provide one substantive post outlining why you believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures.

I challenge you to find one single post from me saying that I "believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures".

If you want to make accusations like that, you're gonna have to back them up.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:25pm: And once again you have nothing of any substance to add, greggery. You lack the balls to substantiate your position. I've yet to see you provide one substantive post outlining why you believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures. Nothing "of any substance"?!  LOL  You're a riot. I've just exposed another deceptive AGW disciple and shown, once again, how ridiculous the "97%" quote is. You guys really hate being confronted with the truth, don't you? SCORE CARD: Rational skeptics - 1 AGW disciples - nil

Again, where is your scientific argument. You don't understand the science yet you want to take solace from a survey of 77 climate scientists that finds 2 of them aren't convinced yet.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:25pm: I've yet to see you provide one substantive post outlining why you believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures. I challenge you to find one single post from me saying that I "believe atmospheric CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperatures". If you want to make accusations like that, you're gonna have to back them up.

Well if you accept that CO2 is a significant driver, why aren't you concerned by this.

http://www.optocleaner.com/CO2-NOAA.jpg

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

What's your point. Is it that 2 out of 77 climate scientists aren't convinced yet, so therefore it's highly unlikely.

I'll repeat it for you, seeing as you're having a hard time understanding:

"Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides."

Use of the "97%" quote is an automatic FAIL.

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

Well if you accept that CO2 is a significant driver, why aren't you concerned by this.

I've never said that I "accept that CO2 is a significant driver".

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

Again, where is your scientific argument. You don't understand the science yet you want to take solace from a survey of 77 climate scientists that finds 2 of them aren't convinced yet.

I can't believe how many times you can keep missing the point:

"Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides."

I don't take solace from any surveys.  AGW is about science,  not polls.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:37pm: Well if you accept that CO2 is a significant driver, why aren't you concerned by this. I've never said that I "accept that CO2 is a significant driver".

You don't understand the science so you don't have an opinion either way.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:34pm: Again, where is your scientific argument. You don't understand the science yet you want to take solace from a survey of 77 climate scientists that finds 2 of them aren't convinced yet. I can't believe how many times you can keep missing the point: "Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides." I don't take solace from any surveys.  AGW is about science,  not polls.

And you don't understand the science. So what point are you trying to make.

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:39pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:37pm: Well if you accept that CO2 is a significant driver, why aren't you concerned by this. I've never said that I "accept that CO2 is a significant driver". You don't understand the science so how could you have a legitimate opinion either way.

That's your misguided opinion.

I can assure you I understand the science much more than you. You've now proved that beyond doubt.

By all means though, keep using the 97% "argument" and I'll keep using rational skepticism: you can have your polls, and I'll stick to science.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:42pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:39pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:37pm: Well if you accept that CO2 is a significant driver, why aren't you concerned by this. I've never said that I "accept that CO2 is a significant driver". You don't understand the science so how could you have a legitimate opinion either way. That's your misguided opinion. I can assure you I understand the science much more than you. You've now proved that beyond doubt. By all means though, keep using the 97% "argument" and I'll keep using rational skepticism: you can have your polls, and I'll stick to science.

Well if you understand the science, make your point.

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

So what point are you trying to make.

Here it is once again:

"Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides."

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Well if you understand the science, make your point.

This is my point:

"Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides."

I'm not sure why you are finding this so hard to understand. 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:08pm:

-->> Whoah,lucky corporate whitey doesn't actually believe in God then!  ;) ;)

Belief in God is not something you have a choice in because of effectual calling and Sovereign Grace...so even if my faith weakens, Grace is always working in me...Free Will is a myth... 8-) :P

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:46pm: So what point are you trying to make. Here it is once again: "Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides."

Well how about you use your knowledge of climate science to explain to me why you don't believe human emissions of carbon dioxide are not dangerously warming our planet.

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:08pm: -->> Whoah,lucky corporate whitey doesn't actually believe in God then!  ;) ;) Belief in God is not something you have a choice in because of effectual calling and Sovereign Grace...so even if my faith weakens, Grace is always working in me...Free Will is a myth... 8-) :P

Your god will judge you for asking that Craig Thompson be hung from the Sydney Harbour Bridge,... if you believe in him that is!  :D :D

I just can't believe only 3% of scientists follow real scientific principles, that's appalling, I think 97% of scientists need to be sacked.  :)

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:48pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:46pm: So what point are you trying to make. Here it is once again: "Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides." Well how about you use your knowledge of climate science to explain to me why you don't believe human emissions of carbon dioxide are not dangerously warming our planet.

That's not the point(s) I'm making in this thread.

Go back to my original post please.

These are my points:

1. Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides.

2. The blogger deliberately misleads his readers by providing a "97% of climate scientists" link which actually says nothing about that particular subject (the link takes you to a completely different poll).

This thread is a complete failure.  Sorry.

Next time use a blogger who doesn't try to deceive people.

Exactly, greggery. It's a position we both know you can't sustain.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:53pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:50pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:08pm: -->> Whoah,lucky corporate whitey doesn't actually believe in God then!  ;) ;) Belief in God is not something you have a choice in because of effectual calling and Sovereign Grace...so even if my faith weakens, Grace is always working in me...Free Will is a myth... 8-) :P Your god will judge you for asking that Craig Thompson be hung from the Sydney Harbour Bridge,... if you believe in him that is!  :D :D

God has said I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...it is not our choice whom he has mercy on....it is by Grace we are saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the GIFT of God so that no one can boast.... ;)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:53pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:50pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:08pm: -->> Whoah,lucky corporate whitey doesn't actually believe in God then!  ;) ;) Belief in God is not something you have a choice in because of effectual calling and Sovereign Grace...so even if my faith weakens, Grace is always working in me...Free Will is a myth... 8-) :P Your god will judge you for asking that Craig Thompson be hung from the Sydney Harbour Bridge,... if you believe in him that is!  :D :D God has said I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...it is not our choice whom he has mercy on....it is by Grace we are saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the GIFT of God so that no one can boast.... ;)

I don't think I like your god!  ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:15pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:53pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:50pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:08pm: -->> Whoah,lucky corporate whitey doesn't actually believe in God then!  ;) ;) Belief in God is not something you have a choice in because of effectual calling and Sovereign Grace...so even if my faith weakens, Grace is always working in me...Free Will is a myth... 8-) :P Your god will judge you for asking that Craig Thompson be hung from the Sydney Harbour Bridge,... if you believe in him that is!  :D :D God has said I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...it is not our choice whom he has mercy on....it is by Grace we are saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the GIFT of God so that no one can boast.... ;) I don't think I like your god!  ::)

Yes, because you are a wrong doer and a son of perdition...your own resistance to Gods moral authority condemns you and those who do evil deserve judgment for it...especially if they are in leadership.... :)

God is very clear on the Day of Judgment and the terrible and deserved fate that awaits the wicked.... :(

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:48pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 6:46pm: So what point are you trying to make. Here it is once again: "Scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides." Well how about you use your knowledge of climate science to explain to me why you don't believe human emissions of carbon dioxide are not dangerously warming our planet.

Does anyone have that rather recent and snazzy graph of CO2 output vs temp.........Perhaps some empirical evidence of CO2 causing actual warming in in open atmosphere...that would be good science too, a lot of people are still waiting to see this  ;D

Back to your church of warming motr, you are in denial of real scienific methodology over data manipulation, dud modelling ignoring clouds, precipitation patterns, solar magnetic effects, I mean, its not like these things could make any difference is it?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

I don't think I like your god!  ::)

That's a pity coz he loves you!! (no accounting for tastes, what?)

Cutting abandoned and widowed mothers off the single mothers pension makes such leaders who do such a thing worthy of destruction by God in hell...you cannot deny that the merciless deserve no mercy from God...... :P

MOTR wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Exactly, greggery. It's a position we both know you can't sustain.

LOL   It's a position we both know that you've made up.

You keep trying to put words in my mouth.  Why is that?

I've never said that I "believe human emissions of carbon dioxide are not dangerously warming our planet."

Why do you insist on making things up?

Just stick to the truth.  Science and the truth.

And keep away from US bloggers who try to deceive people.

Gods fierce wrath, anger and judgment is turned to the wicked and his love and mercy is turned to the repentant...His sheep know his voice and a stranger they will not follow.... :) :)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

Gods fierce wrath, anger and judgment is turned to the wicked and his love and mercy is turned to the repentant...His sheep know his voice and a stranger they will not follow.... :) :)

I think you and your God might have been sniffing a bit too much CO2.

No doubt you feel wise having no mortal terror of whom you blaspheme....Most evil doers kid themselves there are no consequences or that God is some kind of a wimp... 8-)

I believe that there are 10s of thousands of evil doers today in business and Government walking the broad road to their destruction in hell.  I believe they will regret that they did not factor in their accountability to God before they caused harm or did evil... :(

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: I don't think I like your god!  ::) That's a pity coz he loves you!! (no accounting for tastes, what?)

So a couple weeks ago ppl were trying to tell me you werent a religious nut. why was that?

SOB

I thought this thread was about the teaparty and abbott - why all the climate change stuff?

SOB

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:05pm: Exactly, greggery. It's a position we both know you can't sustain. LOL   It's a position we both know that you've made up. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.  Why is that? I've never said that I "believe human emissions of carbon dioxide are not dangerously warming our planet." Why do you insist on making things up? Just stick to the truth.  Science and the truth. And keep away from US bloggers who try to deceive people.

Well how about you explicitly state your position, greggery. Rather than goofing around trying to semantically construct a position that can never be absolutely wrong, how about you forget that chip on your shoulder and start having a real debate. If you don't think humans pumping massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere is major risk, explain the science behind your reasoning.

Tea Party types are the most entitlement minded types with regards to what they expect from this life, how they treat others and what they expect from God...it will by dreadful for them on judgment day, absolutely dreadful...they are to be pitied above all.... :(

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 4:50am:

Soren wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:25pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: I don't think I like your god!  ::) That's a pity coz he loves you!! (no accounting for tastes, what?) So a couple weeks ago ppl were trying to tell me you werent a religious nut. why was that? SOB

It's because on every thread ppl tell me you are a peerless idiot. why is that, SOB?

Soren wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 6:37am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 4:50am: Soren wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:25pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: I don't think I like your god!  ::) That's a pity coz he loves you!! (no accounting for tastes, what?) So a couple weeks ago ppl were trying to tell me you werent a religious nut. why was that? SOB It's because on every thread ppl tell me you are a peerless idiot. why is that, SOB?

Still trolling i see

Go away troll

SOB

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:19am:

Sad to see the yanks understand Tony better than most Australians .... I can only hope, that if he wins the election,  the damage he does to the country is reversible

The 'damage' has already been done.  The only way is up.

Pell will be pope, Tony will be PM and all the progs and deviants will have to renounce Satan before they are allowed to use Twitter again! There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth!

Mmmmwoaahhhhaaahhhaaa!!!

Swagman wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 10:02am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20th, 2013 at 8:19am: Sad to see the yanks understand Tony better than most Australians .... I can only hope, that if he wins the election,  the damage he does to the country is reversible The 'damage' has already been done.  The only way is up.

so it won't matter who wins the election?