Anyone see Sir Clive bully Tony Jones and walk all over Ross Garnau?

The producer must have come close to pulling the plug. Clive was a hair’s breadth away from full psycho.

Makes a change from chirpy interviews by the pool in Hawaiian shirts, eh?

What’s the bet Clive will deck a journalist before the year’s out?

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Anyone see Sir Clive bully Tony Jones and walk all over Ross Garnau? The producer must have come close to pulling the plug. Clive was a hair’s breadth away from full psycho. Makes a change from chirpy interviews by the pool in Hawaiian shirts, eh? What’s the bet Clive will deck a journalist before the year’s out?

Try sticking with the facts!

I didn't see it, but saw a few choice quotes. His usual bs about the 97% of non-man made carbon emissions etc

I have no idea why such an intelligent man like Ross Garnaut willingly subjected himself to Pauline Hanson lite.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

I didn't see it, but saw a few choice quotes. His usual bs about the 97% of non-man made carbon emissions etc I have no idea why such an intelligent man like Ross Garnaut willingly subjected himself to Pauline Hanson lite.

You can see it if interested - its on abc iview.

Personally, I dont agree with Clive but Ross was way out of depth, struggling to find answers.

Cliff48 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 1:34pm:

Ross was way out of depth

Somehow I doubt that.


Cliff48 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 1:34pm:

struggling to find answers.

Thats the problem with the climate debate. The deniers have all these simple little catchy memes like Clive's 97% gem mentioned above. Its a problem because to rebutt these lies and half truths, requires going into fairly complicated and far less sexy and catchy language. It inevitably gives the illusion of the person attempting to counter the Clive Palmers that they are "way out of their depth".

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 1:42pm:

Cliff48 wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 1:34pm: Ross was way out of depth Somehow I doubt that. Cliff48 wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 1:34pm: struggling to find answers. Thats the problem with the climate debate. The deniers have all these simple little catchy memes like Clive's 97% gem mentioned above. Its a problem because to rebutt these lies and half truths, requires going into fairly complicated and far less sexy and catchy language. It inevitably gives the illusion of the person attempting to counter the Clive Palmers that they are "way out of their depth".

Did you see the show?

Yes I just saw it, and confirms my suspicions.

The problem is that Ross Garnaut wants to have an adult debate about our responsibility for the impact we have made on the environment (which Palmer can't even deny). Palmer simply responds by demanding why we can't "solve" the problem by screwing up the natural carbon balance even further.

Like I said before - kindergarten memes vs adult discussion.

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Anyone see Sir Clive bully Tony Jones and walk all over Ross Garnau? The producer must have come close to pulling the plug. Clive was a hair’s breadth away from full psycho. Makes a change from chirpy interviews by the pool in Hawaiian shirts, eh? What’s the bet Clive will deck a journalist before the year’s out?

I saw it.  I saw Palmer effectively prevent Jones from interrupting whenever he was giving an answer.  All Jones had to do was shut up and wait.  Clive responded to every question positively, and dodged none.

I learned something I was unaware of, and Garnau did not disagree.  We are responsible for 3% of this climate change and nature owns the other 97% responsibility.  Why are we only addressing the pissy 3%.

Garnau had no answer.

Garnaut was a dribbling bed wetting mess. Tony Jones got told to stfu and rightly so, Garnaut dribbled non stop, barely interrupted, Jones butted into Clive non stop trying to spring his pathetic warmist gotcha nonsense.

Garnaut had an bad case of the hates for Clive and his nickel plant. Funny as f6ck.

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 1:19pm: Anyone see Sir Clive bully Tony Jones and walk all over Ross Garnau? The producer must have come close to pulling the plug. Clive was a hair’s breadth away from full psycho. Makes a change from chirpy interviews by the pool in Hawaiian shirts, eh? What’s the bet Clive will deck a journalist before the year’s out? I saw it.  I saw Palmer effectively prevent Jones from interrupting whenever he was giving an answer.  All Jones had to do was shut up and wait.  Clive responded to every question positively, and dodged none. I learned something I was unaware of, and Garnau did not disagree.  We are responsible for 3% of this climate change and nature owns the other 97% responsibility.  Why are we only addressing the pissy 3%. Garnau had no answer.

Had to Love Clive  shut the f up tony   ;D ;D ;D ;D

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

I learned something I was unaware of, and Garnau did not disagree.  We are responsible for 3% of this climate change and nature owns the other 97% responsibility.  Why are we only addressing the pissy 3%. Garnau had no answer.

::)

It was magnificent.   We need to introduce a fart tax on sheep to cut down the 97% of natural carbon - even though fart tax is actually a tax on industry to reduce the amount of methane.

Clive is a genius.  Let's get rid of nature's carbon emissions. Totally. We'll just kill all the animals out there. That'll do it.

And mind you, Garnaut did answer Clive - 97 of carbon emissions by nature is in equilibrium. It's the 3% that's created the problem. And it's the 3% that we know how to deal with. How the hell does one go about removing carbon from nature?

Seriously, I thought we had reached the highest level of dumb when Tony re-introduced Knights and Dames. But it seems we just keep going for new heights. How are these idiots in charge of this country?

Perhaps if Clive wanted to talk about carbon sequestration, he can give us answers on how we are going to find all the necessary storage to do that. Or we can of course reduce the level of carbon emissions we cause.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 4:33pm:

It was magnificent.   We need to introduce a fart tax on sheep to cut down the 97% of natural carbon - even though fart tax is actually a tax on industry to reduce the amount of methane. Clive is a genius.  Let's get rid of nature's carbon emissions. Totally. We'll just kill all the animals out there. That'll do it.

You naughty boy, Alevine.  That is not what he said at all.  (I know jack crap on this climate change issue ~ but I can follow a discussion.)  He said ~ given humans are responsible for 3%, why are we concentrating our solution focus on that small % instead of the 97% contribution by natural events.....which I imagine involve not just sheep farting.

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 4:33pm: It was magnificent.   We need to introduce a fart tax on sheep to cut down the 97% of natural carbon - even though fart tax is actually a tax on industry to reduce the amount of methane. Clive is a genius.  Let's get rid of nature's carbon emissions. Totally. We'll just kill all the animals out there. That'll do it. You naughty boy, Alevine.  That is not what he said at all.  (I know jack crap on this climate change issue ~ but I can follow a discussion.)  He said ~ given humans are responsible for 3%, why are we concentrating our solution focus on that small % instead of the 97% contribution by natural events.....which I imagine involve not just sheep farting.

because it's the 3% that's tipped the equilibrium.  And he wants to see solutions that deal with removing 3% of nature's carbon emissions to mitigate that, as opposed to having industry pay. Aussie, who pays the fart tax in New Zealand for the sheep?  The sheep don't pay it. It's an industry tax.  Same as the carbon tax.  And it's a tax that isn't even in relation to carbon.

And if Clive wants to mitigate climate change by sequestration then he's going to need to explain to us how much it's going to cost to capture and store 3% of carbon emissions each year.

Or... we as humans can reduce our emissions. Which, I think, is reasonably speaking going to be a hell of a lot cheaper.

I think Clive doesn't quite realise that when we talk about emissions, just because emissions come from a sheep doesn't mean that it's nature. The very fact we have seen an increase in domestic animals is beacuse of industry. Just like deforestation. All of this, is part of the 3% increase.  The carbon tax is simply aimed at the heaviest emitters in Australia.

In any case, that performance by Clive just goes to show that one doesn't need brains to make money.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 4:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 4:39pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 4:33pm: It was magnificent.   We need to introduce a fart tax on sheep to cut down the 97% of natural carbon - even though fart tax is actually a tax on industry to reduce the amount of methane. Clive is a genius.  Let's get rid of nature's carbon emissions. Totally. We'll just kill all the animals out there. That'll do it. You naughty boy, Alevine.  That is not what he said at all.  (I know jack crap on this climate change issue ~ but I can follow a discussion.)  He said ~ given humans are responsible for 3%, why are we concentrating our solution focus on that small % instead of the 97% contribution by natural events.....which I imagine involve not just sheep farting. because it's the 3% that's tipped the equilibrium.  And he wants to see solutions that deal with removing 3% of nature's carbon emissions to mitigate that, as opposed to having industry pay. Aussie, who pays the fart tax in New Zealand for the sheep?  The sheep don't pay it. It's an industry tax.  Same as the carbon tax.  And it's a tax that isn't even in relation to carbon. And if Clive wants to mitigate climate change by sequestration then he's going to need to explain to us how much it's going to cost to capture and store 3% of carbon emissions each year. Or... we as humans can reduce our emissions. Which, I think, is reasonably speaking going to be a hell of a lot cheaper.

That's not fair.   :'(  Now, you are getting all technical on me.  I know SFA on the issue.  I was simply commenting on the Lateline discussion.

Time for the 'Aussie' parachute!

This may be the item....

But it is short, and does not include anything from Ross Garnau.

'Shut up': Clive Palmer challenges climate report findings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh_BNKpt9jg




+++


I have been looking for another YT of Clive Palmer on ABC breakfast, on 2014-Apr-03, interviewed by Virginia Triolli.

Clive Palmer was outstanding !!!, in his responses to the queries by Virginia Triolli.

I have been looking for the upload here...
http://www.youtube.com/user/ABCnews24/videos
OR...
http://www.youtube.com/user/NewsOnABC/videos

But so far the ABC have not presented this video [...of Clive Palmer on ABC breakfast, on 2014-Apr-03, interviewed by Virginia Triolli].

Clive was well put of his depth, but sat there like a toad in a pond, chirping away. Garnaut is getting old, but he was stuck for a response to Clive’s moronic schtick. The entire debate was jilted, awkward, and ripe for Clives bully tactics.

Tony Jones, interviewer and mediator, has every right to throw back fair questions. Clive lost it. Big time.

Forget the climate debate. This interview showed Clive’s negotiating style. When he went on to say that "every individual member" of his party was dead against the carbon tax, we realised what he meant by that.

He owns them. OF COURSE they are against the carbon tax. Clive’s tactics against Tony Jones showed how he works. Clive surrounds himself with yes-men and howls any questions aside.  Clive is a domestic violence perpetrator on a national scale.

Clever? Mercurial? Savvy?

Clive’s just a dumb thug. There is nothing demokratic about Clive. He sees himself as a sort of political Kerry Packer.

The sooner we’re done with him, the better.

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

Clive was well put of his depth, but sat there like a toad in a pond, chirping away. Garnaut is getting old, but he was stuck for a response to Clive’s moronic schtick. The entire debate was jilted, awkward, and ripe for Clives bully tactics. Tony Jones, interviewer and mediator, has every right to throw back fair questions. Clive lost it. Big time. Forget the climate debate. This interview showed Clive’s negotiating style. When he went on to say that "every individual member" of his party was dead against the carbon tax, we realised what he meant by that. He owns them. OF COURSE they are against the carbon tax. Clive’s tactics against Tony Jones showed how he works. Clive surrounds himself with yes-men and howls any questions aside.  Clive is a domestic violence perpetrator on a national scale. Clever? Mercurial? Savvy? Clive’s just a dumb thug. There is nothing demokratic about Clive. He sees himself as a sort of political Kerry Packer. The sooner we’re done with him, the better.

The only way he'll go is if he becomes bankrupt. 

Not sure about all of that post of yours Dame Carnal......but:


Quote:

Tony Jones, interviewer and mediator, has every right to throw back fair questions. Clive lost it. Big time.

I disagree on that.  Clive will always answer.  The problem is with Jones who expects that he must, out of sheer habit, interrupt because he believes all Pollies will not stay on point. 

Clive will.  He has nothing to hide.

why would anyone listen to Clive, a man who has billions invested in digging up our resources and stands to profit immensly by not acting on climate change, on an issue on climate change????

You may as well ask Tony Abbott to comment on the merits of a carbon tax. :D :D :D