Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change.

Should a case be built so to charge him if he continues the neglect?

lol the desperation just got a bit more smelly from the agw'rs.

i think the greens should all be in jail.. for all those that drowned trying to come here from Java after they and the krudd thought it was such a good idea to kill the pacific solution...and open the floodgate to the people smugglers.. well done greens..jail time coming up...those people including babies dont have to worry about YOUR CLIMATE anymore do they >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

There are no such provisions for politicians behaving recklessly.

cods wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:02am:

i think the greens should all be in jail.. for all those that drowned trying to come here from Java after they and the krudd thought it was such a good idea to kill the pacific solution...and open the floodgate to the people smugglers.. well done greens..jail time coming up...those people including babies dont have to worry about YOUR CLIMATE anymore do they >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

You realise Mr Rudd is a Labor Politician, not a Greens.

meanwhile back on topic ...

____ wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 6:14am:

Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change. Should a case be built so to charge him if he continues the neglect?

Abbott may well end up in court however that's where the conundrum starts. Our courts like hard facts and evidence (unless of course if they are dealing with asylum shoppers) so when the evidence does not support global warming in the last 16 or so years the case will end at that point.

It will be interesting to watch the courts' lists. Are the very religious AGW mob so committed that they will commence legal action against Abbott? We watch and wait. Here's your chance GreenHornet; why not start a fund raiser to launch legal action.

MOTR wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

There are no such provisions for politicians behaving recklessly.

Politicians rarely get what they deserve, outside revolution. That said, all it takes is one person with a gun. The last time I used a .308, my aim proved true.  ;)

Seriously, if the worst comes to pass, things are unlikely to turn really nasty until long after we're all dead. Those who could and should have acted will escape their just deserts.

____ wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 6:14am:

Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change.

There's as much chance of that as Godzilla thawing out in his northern pacific island cave and romper stomping Tokyo all due to dangerous climate change.

salad in wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:36am:

____ wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 6:14am: Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change. Should a case be built so to charge him if he continues the neglect? Abbott may well end up in court however that's where the conundrum starts. Our courts like hard facts and evidence (unless of course if they are dealing with asylum shoppers) so when the evidence does not support global warming in the last 16 or so years the case will end at that point. It will be interesting to watch the courts' lists. Are the very religious AGW mob so committed that they will commence legal action against Abbott? We watch and wait. Here's your chance GreenHornet; why not start a fund raiser to launch legal action.

What evidence are you talking about and why cherry picking a minute time frame of 16 years.

____ wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 6:14am:

Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change. Should a case be built so to charge him if he continues the neglect?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/fc14fed6-ad43-4c28-9dfb-297a6f9b8f08.jpg

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:01am:

____ wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 6:14am: Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change. Should a case be built so to charge him if he continues the neglect? http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/fc14fed6-ad43-4c28-9dfb-297a6f9b8f08.jpg

The 1950's are new again?

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:01am:

____ wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 6:14am: Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change. Should a case be built so to charge him if he continues the neglect? http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/fc14fed6-ad43-4c28-9dfb-297a6f9b8f08.jpg

Don't mug shots usually come with numbers?

Anyway:
http://eekology.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tony-abbott-e1349772013565.jpg
http://eekology.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tony-abbott_0.jpg
http://eekology.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tony-abbott_sq-3175c7140f2d703267209a549a8c3b5d1fa13221-s6-c30.jpg
Like most de-facto deniers, Abbott demands certainty. As any competent manager will know, risks are managed on probabilities.

Abbott is the worst "leader" this country has ever seen.  He'll go down in history for all the wrong reasons.

His comments above, however, are not unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is the amount of scaremongering coming from the misinformed AGW disciples.  Their religion is in its dying days.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Abbott is the worst "leader" this country has ever seen.

I keep seeing this unsubstantiated comment?  His achievements to date actually make him one of the most successful leaders regardless of your politics.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

His comments above, however, are not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the amount of scaremongering coming from the misinformed AGW disciples.  Their religion is in its dying days.

True in part only, the eco-socialist religion is still alive and whinging. :(

"Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.

The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years."

The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA).
Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out—and we do have that long overdue debate on climate.
Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, evenunder adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.
The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; inputdata contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).

In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in—predictive garbage out.
(Canada Free Press)

Quote:

In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being

If the sceptics want to play russian roulette with our lives, lets see the hard facts.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Abbott is the worst "leader" this country has ever seen.  He'll go down in history for all the wrong reasons. His comments above, however, are not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the amount of scaremongering coming from the misinformed AGW disciples.  Their religion is in its dying days.

fair dinkum.. you are as thick as pig sh1t...

he's only been the countries leader for a week or 2... so how on earth could you make a statement like that and not be humiliated by yourself... ??   ::)

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

"Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years." The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA). Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out—and we do have that long overdue debate on climate. Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, evenunder adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats. The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; inputdata contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina). In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in—predictive garbage out. (Canada Free Press)

but the Heartland Institute is not a scientific body... just ask all the hysterics.  Despite being composed of scientists of all disciplines.

This is how they maintain their 'consensus'.  By eliminating any opinions they don't like.

True Blue... wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:36am: Abbott is the worst "leader" this country has ever seen.  He'll go down in history for all the wrong reasons. His comments above, however, are not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the amount of scaremongering coming from the misinformed AGW disciples.  Their religion is in its dying days. fair dinkum.. you are as thick as pig sh1t... he's only been the countries leader for a week or 2... so how on earth could you make a statement like that and not be humiliated by yourself... ??   ::)

Abbott is no stranger. We know he is an economic illiterate. He is a science sceptic. He is a misogynist. He is a warmonger. He put his personal interests before the country by trying to crash the economy.
He is a dangerous person and should be treated so. 

Worst leader ever.

and the pig sh1t gets thicker and thicker...  ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 10:52am: "Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years." The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA). Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out—and we do have that long overdue debate on climate. Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, evenunder adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats. The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; inputdata contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina). In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in—predictive garbage out. (Canada Free Press) but the Heartland Institute is not a scientific body... just ask all the hysterics.  Despite being composed of scientists of all disciplines. This is how they maintain their 'consensus'.  By eliminating any opinions they don't like.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms

Those cheering the heartland institute, do you support their position that passive smoking doesn't have negative effects on humans?

Once again long, have you paid your election bet yet?

The real question is when will the pro-ACC scientists and politicians be jailed for global fraud and massive embezzlement?

The real question ?

Shame that some proponents of death by dangerous climate change are so vocal about right to life. Such hypocrisy.

Long, are you not paying the $5 bet to charity because you haven't found enough empty bottles on the streets of Noarlunga yet.
If so, just say you need more time.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Abbott is the worst "leader" this country has ever seen.  He'll go down in history for all the wrong reasons.

Are you the one who said he was unelectable? Your prognostications aren't worth very much. Time to classify yourself as irrelevant.

salad in wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 24th, 2013 at 9:36am: Abbott is the worst "leader" this country has ever seen.  He'll go down in history for all the wrong reasons. Are you the one who said he was unelectable? Your prognostications aren't worth very much. Time to classify yourself as irrelevant.

Did the waves of luvvie boat people swimming to NZ ever happen?