Australian Politics Forum - What's the Real truth?

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #75 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 2:56pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:36am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:20am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 10:36pm:

There's no point in attempting to answer 'loaded', nonsensical statements...

So, tell me, what's loaded, about basic business processes?

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year, as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.

Frankly, none of you supposed CONServatives on here, know the first thing about business or the Climate Change issues, I haven't seen a coherent argument put from any of you!

Likewise. I dont know any company stupid enough to take money off of their workers or to pay extra, just to save 0.0001% temperature that will have zero impact on their business.

In fact, good businesses undertake risk mitigation continuously and that would involve the workers and the owners, including the shareholders getting a little less than they may otherwise, in an effort to keep the business from being derailed by some of those ocassional, but serious/systemic threatening events!

However, some threats are beyond the knowledge & capacities of 99.9% of most businesses and that is where governments should step in and provide advice & guidance.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: What's the Real truth? Reply #76 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 3:00pm remember_when64 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:56pm: Just because you start the spam with "I post this here, because it is relevant!" on numerous threads doesn't make it so. And, just because you say, "doesn't make it so", doesn't mean that the posts are not relevant!
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #77 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:55pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:36am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:20am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 10:36pm:

There's no point in attempting to answer 'loaded', nonsensical statements...

So, tell me, what's loaded, about basic business processes?

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year, as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.

Frankly, none of you supposed CONServatives on here, know the first thing about business or the Climate Change issues, I haven't seen a coherent argument put from any of you!

Likewise. I dont know any company stupid enough to take money off of their workers or to pay extra, just to save 0.0001% temperature that will have zero impact on their business.

In fact, good businesses undertake risk mitigation continuously and that would involve the workers and the owners, including the shareholders getting a little less than they may otherwise, in an effort to keep the business from being derailed by some of those ocassional, but serious/systemic threatening events!

However, some threats are beyond the knowledge & capacities of 99.9% of most businesses and that is where governments should step in and provide advice & guidance.

What a load of crap that was. Give us a break.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #78 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:00pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:36am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:20am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 10:36pm:

There's no point in attempting to answer 'loaded', nonsensical statements...

So, tell me, what's loaded, about basic business processes?

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year, as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.

Frankly, none of you supposed CONServatives on here, know the first thing about business or the Climate Change issues, I haven't seen a coherent argument put from any of you!

Likewise. I dont know any company stupid enough to take money off of their workers or to pay extra, just to save 0.0001% temperature that will have zero impact on their business.

In fact, good businesses undertake risk mitigation continuously and that would involve the workers and the owners, including the shareholders getting a little less than they may otherwise, in an effort to keep the business from being derailed by some of those ocassional, but serious/systemic threatening events!

However, some threats are beyond the knowledge & capacities of 99.9% of most businesses and that is where governments should step in and provide advice & guidance.

What a load of crap that was. Give us a break.

Why?

Back to top

IP Logged

creep Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1881	Re: What's the Real truth? Reply #79 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:10pm progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:55pm: What a load of crap that was. Give us a break. You really think that a trolling spam bot will respond! LOL
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #80 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:19pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:00pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:36am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:20am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 10:36pm:

There's no point in attempting to answer 'loaded', nonsensical statements...

So, tell me, what's loaded, about basic business processes?

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year, as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.

Frankly, none of you supposed CONServatives on here, know the first thing about business or the Climate Change issues, I haven't seen a coherent argument put from any of you!

Likewise. I dont know any company stupid enough to take money off of their workers or to pay extra, just to save 0.0001% temperature that will have zero impact on their business.

In fact, good businesses undertake risk mitigation continuously and that would involve the workers and the owners, including the shareholders getting a little less than they may otherwise, in an effort to keep the business from being derailed by some of those ocassional, but serious/systemic threatening events!

However, some threats are beyond the knowledge & capacities of 99.9% of most businesses and that is where governments should step in and provide advice & guidance.

What a load of crap that was. Give us a break.

Why?

Because you SPAM us with this crap and when I answer it, you then move the goal posts to the government. YOU have unwittingly correlated your answer with mine. What you said is crap. How did you do it. By moving the goal posts from business (your big SPAM) to government.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #81 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:50pm

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:10pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:

What a load of crap that was. Give us a break.

You really think that a trolling spam bot will respond! LOL

I have to assume that your comment was directed at me, seeing as to how progressive Laugh out louds comment was directed to me and guess what, I had already responded, before you did this post.

You didn't even look, did you!

Back to top

IP Logged

creep

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1881

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #82 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:00pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:

Because you SPAM us with this crap and when I answer it, you then move the goal posts to the government. YOU have unwittingly correlated your answer with mine. What you said is crap. How did you do it. By moving the goal posts from business (your big SPAM) to government.

Well it is a trolling spam bot, so what else would you expect.
No one reads the spam anyway, why would they.
It's like the spam you get in your e-mails or the junk mail in your letterbox.
It's crap.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #83 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:13pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:00pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:55pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:36am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:20am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 10:36pm:

There's no point in attempting to answer 'loaded', nonsensical statements...

So, tell me, what's loaded, about basic business processes?

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year, as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.

Frankly, none of you supposed CONServatives on here, know the first thing about business or the Climate Change issues, I haven't seen a coherent argument put from any of you!

Likewise. I dont know any company stupid enough to take money off of their workers or to pay extra, just to save 0.0001% temperature that will have zero impact on their business.

In fact, good businesses undertake risk mitigation continuously and that would involve the workers and the owners, including the shareholders getting a little less than they may otherwise, in an effort to keep the business from being derailed by some of those ocassional, but serious/systemic threatening events!

However, some threats are beyond the knowledge & capacities of 99.9% of most businesses and that is where governments should step in and provide advice & guidance.

What a load of crap that was. Give us a break.

Why?

Because you SPAM us with this crap and when I answer it, you then move the goal posts to the government. YOU have unwittingly correlated your answer with mine. What you said is crap. How did you do it. By moving the goal posts from business (your big SPAM) to government.

Why don't you try to stop just saying crap and provide a logical answer, then I wouldn't have to ask why!

As for moving goal posts, do you think there is one silver bullet involved here, if you do, then you are wrong, again.

All that I was doing, was pointing out that the reasons why we should act on Climate Change have similar origins to why business take action to mitigate possible threats.

However, most business do not have access to the sort of information flows that governments do, so there is also an onus on governments to direct the business sector by providing advice & guidance on some of the macro issues, like Climate Change, that most private businesses could not possibly generate & verify themselves.

So again, I ask WHY -
1) Is it crap that we should not follow good businesses practice and undertake risk mitigation, against known threats, which have a capacity for serious/systemic derailment of the Global Economy?

2) Is trying to explain how the pieces of this puzzle, which includes many factors (including the role of government), shifting the goal posts?

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #84 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:17pm

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:

Because you SPAM us with this crap and when I answer it, you then move the goal posts to the government. YOU have unwittingly correlated your answer with mine. What you said is crap. How did you do it. By moving the goal posts from business (your big SPAM) to government.

Well it is a trolling spam bot, so what else would you expect.
No one reads the spam anyway, why would they.
It's like the spam you get in your e-mails or the junk mail in your letterbox.
It's crap.

You did!

Why?

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: What's the Real truth? Reply #85 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:41pm Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:45am: We on the "LEFT" are happy to ... tell you to STFU It's a Leninist debate, innit: the Left can talk, everybody else can STFU. Bewdiful.
Back to top	IP Logged

creep Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1881	Re: What's the Real truth? Reply #86 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:56pm Soren wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:45am: We on the "LEFT" are happy to ... tell you to STFU It's a Leninist debate, innit: the Left can talk, everybody else can STFU. Bewdiful. LOL And now a word from our trolling spam bot.
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: What's the Real truth?
Reply #87 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:33pm

I post this here, because it is relevant!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:04pm:

Please delete wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 12:48pm:

Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

It will not surprise anybody if these supposed death threats were actually conjured up by the scientists themselves.
As afterall they have done this before, with climategate.
As the world gets more and more information and facts, less support is going to the global warmists.
The scaremongerers may now be trying to conjure up support via sympathy!

Especially when you have a professor from the IPCC release information about, and of all the facts on the 'global warming' scam

Great stuff and excellant viewing.
Certainly smashes the global warmists for six and out of the park.
No wonder the global warmists are running around like Chicken Little, completely in denial of the facts.

Apart from your repeated nonsense about this guy coming from the IPCC this is a good video. and the guy is a professor at Berkley so hardly a nobody.

Well done LW, there may yet be hope for you.

That said, I should point out, following a review of both the Creeps video & the following one from Astro, that our friend Mr Muller seems to have a split personality.

In Creeps video, Muller says, he agrees that Global Warming is happening & it is human caused to an extent, he then highlights many areas indicating why the IPCC got things wrong.

Then in Astro's video, which was done about 6 months later than Creeps video, Muller says before a US Congress hearing on March 31st, 2011 that his new organisations initial investigations agreed that the work of NOAA, NASA GISS & the UK, on Global Warming, was correct and that warming had indeed increased by 1.2 degrees between 1900 to now and an increase of 0.7 between 1957 to now.

Muller also specifically disagreed with "Watts up with That", an anti Climate Change website, on the issue on where weather stations are located and whether that has made a difference to the stats.

Is it possible that Bill Gates & David Koch, who are major sponsors of Mullers new organisation, may be pulling Muller in different directions and that may have some bearing on what Muller is saying?

Muller also mentioned various Energy related issues in the Creeps video, which dates back to October, 2010.

Muller lauds Nuclear, which in hindsight now has great problems, following the Japan situation and Germanies abandonment of their Nuclear industry by 2023 (roughly).

Muller also lauds, Coal & Natural Gas, as replacements for Oil, which also clearly has problems, given that Coal is now close to Peaking and probably only has another 40-60 years, whilst the Natural Gas he refers to involves the Fracking Extraction process in the USA, which is now being examined in a lot more detail, as many problems are arising with that process, including issues such as contamination of underground water acquifiers, to even causing local earthquakes.

I would put Muller into the question mark area, at this point!

Back to top

IP Logged

creep Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1881	Re: What's the Real truth? Reply #88 - Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:37pm The trolling spam bot is right on queue LOL If only I could predict the lotto numbers with such pin point accuracy!!!!
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: What's the Real truth? Reply #89 - Jun 5^th, 2011 at 12:03am creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:37pm: The trolling spam bot is right on queue LOL If only I could predict the lotto numbers with such pin point accuracy!!!! It is a pity, you don't post any real facts, instead of just trolling & posting porky pies, then you may get more of a response?
Back to top	IP Logged