Skeptic wrote:
Ah Deniers wrote:
Ah, Denier, lead us to a worse world.

Why is the term "denier" used for those that disagree?

It's a cheap shot

Yeah, "blinkered" might be a more appropriate word.

where immigrants who fail to appreciate the rule of law, or the traditions and accountabilities built into Westminster-style democracy ascend to unfettered power they will ultimately breach every code and create anarchy, bringing down the very system that makes Australia fair and liveable.

???

yes, lets maintain that great Australian tradition of making sweeping racist generalisations.

Skeptic wrote:
Ah Deniers wrote:
Ah, Denier, lead us to a worse world.

Why is the term "denier" used for those that disagree?

It's a cheap shot

You can call me a denier, I'll just call you a zealot.

Climate change is load of buunkum

aussie traditions wrote:
where immigrants who fail to appreciate the rule of law, or the traditions and accountabilities built into Westminster-style democracy ascend to unfettered power they will ultimately breach every code and create anarchy, bringing down the very system that makes Australia fair and liveable.

So if its only immigrants who "fail to appreciate the rule of law" how do you explain our prisons full of 3rd generation Australians?

Mirror Mirror wrote:
Undisciplined chaos wrote:
where immigrants who fail to appreciate the rule of law, or the traditions and accountabilities built into Westminster-style democracy ascend to unfettered power they will ultimately breach every code and create anarchy, bringing down the very system that makes Australia fair and liveable.

So if its only immigrants who "fail to appreciate the rule of law" how do you explain our prisons full of 3rd generation Australians?

Exactly, but it shouldn't need to be said.

I can't believe the evil, ignorant racist attitude expressed by Undisciplined chaos on this site. (Just about) everyone on this site was disgusted by the Suleymans' behaviour on council, but it had nothing to do with their ethnicity. To suggest otherwise is just racist. It also plays into the hands of SUNRAA's and this site's enemies, who try to portray us racist.

if you can't control your racist thoughts, please spare us hearing yours.

I wholeheartedly apologise to SunRRA for my ill judged use of a local example. I also wholeheartedly apologise for the offence that I have clearly caused people.

I note Kevin Andrews had to backtrack the day after my original post for spruiking identical sentiments.

In my personal opinion, the one thing that keeps Australia prosperous and safe is our legal and social system. It provides the rules that enable everyone to access job opportunities and thereby resources, even in the really tough times. During the recession we had to have in the early 1990's I saw young Aussie blokes ready to do harm to migrants they thought were stealing their jobs - and that anger extended to anyone not an 'Aussie'. We are only the rule of law away from anarchy in the bad times. That's why I think this is so important - irrespective of where you were born or how you were educated, that respect for the rule of law in Australia gives everyone hope and most people a sense of security.

I do, however, stand by my opinion that Australia needs to reduce its migrant intake trajectory during calm and largely peaceful times. In the event of major wars or natural disasters we can then increase those numbers to the best of our abilities, with our population more accepting of the need for the increase.

If the scientists are right, and the folly of inaction is manifest, we will have major immigration issues from climate change. How will we handle this? Make all the displaced become Australians, subject to Australian law, or set up sovereign migrant nations within our borders to maintain their separate identities? How will we deal with internal migration issues at the same time?

I hope some bureacrat is preparing policy on this.

Undisciplined chaos wrote:


If the scientists are right,

they aren't

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/seeing_through_hoax_of_the_century/

Seeing through hoax of the century


Janet Albrechtsen Blog | November 04, 2009 | 239 Comments


INCREASINGLY, the road to Copenhagen resembles a suburban street on Halloween with the number of climate change freak shows and stunts reaching a nadir in recent weeks. Nicholas Stern says we should turn vegetarian in order to combat climate change. If you must eat meat, eat kangaroos, says Ross Garnaut, because marsupials emit negligible amounts of methane. And that champagne you drank on Melbourne Cup day? Scientists scolded us with a report that a 750ml bottle of bubbly could produce 100 million bubbles, releasing five litres of carbon dioxide.

Yet far from rallying people to the cause of immediate action on climate change, every new cri de coeur may be turning people away. Could it be that those derided as the great unwashed are beginning to ask more questions than their smart political leaders or the bastions of intellectual curiosity in the media?

Late last month, activists gathered at Sydney Opera House to listen to Sydney mayor Clover Moore announce that “the time for talk is past”.


“Already we know that this building, our Opera House, for decades a symbol of optimism and the human spirit, is under threat from global warming,” she says.

The Opera House under threat? That would be from rising sea levels, right? Just like the small island nation of Maldives where, last month, the president conducted a cabinet meeting underwater to remind the world that his country would be rendered uninhabitable by rising sea levels. Kitted out in full scuba-diving outfits, Mohamed Nasheed and his ministers sat at a table underwater off the coast of the capital of Male.

As planned, the president’s stunt made headlines across the globe. Send us money - and lots of it - is his message. The media love stunts. They are so easy to report.

Sadly, the media is not inquisitive enough to report those who question the circus acts of climate change. A week after the Maldives underwater show, Nils-Axel Morner - a leading world authority on sea levels - wrote an open letter to the president telling him that his stunt was “not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments”.

Morner is a former professor who headed the department of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University and past president (1999-2003) of the International Union for Quaternary Research commission on sea level changes and coastal evolution. INQUA was founded in 1928 by scientists who aimed to improve the understanding of environmental change during the glacial ages through interdisciplinary research. In other words, the Swedish professor has gravitas when it comes to sea levels.

Alas his letter did not make headlines. That is a shame. Morner says there is “no rational basis” for the hysterical claims that the people of Maldives - or the rest of the world - are threatened by rising sea levels. And he sets out some facts.

Fact number 1: During the past 2000 years, sea levels have fluctuated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6m to 1.2m above present sea level. Fact number 2: From 1790 to 1970 sea levels were about 20cm higher than today. Fact number 3: In the 1970s, the sea level fell by about 20cm to its present level. Fact number 4: Sea levels have remained constant for the past 30 years “implying that there are no traces of any alarming ongoing sea level rise”. Fact number 5 (and I am paraphrasing here): The notion presented by the President of the Maldives that his country will be flooded is bunkum.

Yet, last week a federal parliamentary report told Australians to make plans to evacuate if we live on the coast. Warning that the “time to act is now”, the bipartisan report said the 711,000 addresses within 3km of the Australian coast - and less than 6m above sea level - face threats from rising sea levels. The report called for an inquiry by the Productivity Commission to examine the need for bans on homes within these areas.

Viewers of the 7pm News on ABC1 were told by a Richard Branson lookalike - complete with longish wavy grey hair, beard and crisp white shirt - that the township of Byron Bay would be completely flooded by rising sea levels. His expertise? He is a resident of Byron Bay.

Despite the headline grabbing rhetoric about climate change calamity, recent polls reveal that more and more people appear to be challenging the orthodoxy. The most recent Lowy Institute poll found that while 48 per cent of Australian believe that global warming is a serious and pressing problem, the numbers are down 12 points since 2008 and 20 points down since 2006. “This is also the first year that it has not had majority support,” said the Lowy Institute.

A poll by Ipso Reid in Canada in September found that global warming has dropped down the list of people’s concerns. Indeed, a full 41 per cent now say the threat has been overblown. In the US, Associated Press reported on a poll last month that found 57 per cent of people believe there is clear evidence that the world is heating up, down 20 points from three years ago. These are some trend lines worth watching.

Perhaps we are wising up to modern day millenarianism where end-of-the-world cults - those who have the most to gain from their fear mongering - preach calamity. Remember Y2K? The cult back then comprised computer experts. They predicted disaster. Planes would fall from the skies. People would be caught in halting elevators. Chaos would descend on anything that relied on a computer, from financial markets to utilities. Governments duly prepared for disaster with the BBC reporting that global preparations for the millennium bug were estimated to have cost more than $US300 billion. All for nought. Nothing happened. It was, as James Taranto wrote in The Wall Street Journal, the hoax of the century.

Maurice Newman, who was chairman of the federal government’s Y2K committee told The Australian last week that “in pressing the urgency for compliance, the committee members relied heavily on confirmatory bias. Most of this came from so-called experts who had much to gain from creating a sense of alarm. The consequence of widespread inaction was claimed to result in chaos and systemic failure. As there was no alternative authoritative voice, this became perceived wisdom and was certainly believed by the committee. As such the Y2K phenomenon took on a life of its own.”

Deja vu? Preparing for the deluge of rising sea levels, we were treated to footage last week from parliamentary question time starring Julia Gillard and her gumboots. Appropriately she was followed on ABC1 by Bananas in Pyjamas. Could man-made climate change turn out to be the greatest hoax of the present century? Certainly, ordinary people are beginning to ask questions.

climatic wrote:
Undisciplined chaos wrote:


If the scientists are right,

they aren't

The politicians are.

Hoax? Who Knows? wrote:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/seeing_through_hoax_of_the_century/

Seeing through hoax of the century


Janet Albrechtsen Blog | November 04, 2009 | 239 Comments

Blogs? Now there is a source of reputable information!

Read the reports of scientists based in Greenland. You're hopeful scepticism should disintegrate just as fast as some the biggest glaciers in the world. Not to mention fjords that for the first time in history are not freezing over in winter. Then there is the new evidence of icebergs that are melting 25x faster under water than above the surface because sea temperatures are higher than usual.

Here is a video of related stuff: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2705696.htm

"Too hard - my idol little Johnnie was soooo right".... cried Kevvie as he tiptoed away to a hidden corner to hide from public attention.

weak as piss

over promising and under achieving eeeh Kevvie??

veeery unprofessional and amatueristic as measured by the Ruddster political standards index say many independent observers

get Ian Lowe onto it - he will fix up the mess you have got us into



http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/angry-words-as-timetable-for-climate-deal-slips-20091106-i1g1.html

Angry words as timetable for climate deal slips

RICHARD INGHAM
November 6, 2009 - 1:14PM

Green groups and activists for the developing world accused rich nations of tiptoeing away from vows to seal a binding, far-reaching UN treaty on climate change in Copenhagen next month.

Their bitter response came after European Union (EU) negotiators in Barcelona spelt out the likelihood that the much-trumpeted pact would be concluded in 2010, not at the December 7-18 meeting as planned.

The talks, launched under a two-year "road map" in Bali, call for a global accord to curb emissions of heat-trapping carbon gases beyond 2012 and channel funds to poor countries most threatened by drought, floods, storms and rising seas.

But, with little more than a month to go, delegates at the week-long talks in the Catalonian capital admitted to poor progress and the prospect of a delay.

"People are talking more and more about a framework, a framework (in Copenhagen) that then you could specify further in the following months," said Artur Runge-Metzger, the European Commission's chief negotiator, told reporters.

If so, "I think it should be done as early as possible," he said. "Normally, 'as early as possible' in the context of international conventions is something three months, six months, you need to allow that time."

He said states could still start implementing "fast track" measures as soon as January 2010 that would help to mitigate global warming and help poor, vulnerable countries.

"If it's impossible to reach an outcome in Copenhagen, we have to make the effort to adopt a legally binding instrument as soon as possible thereafter," said Alicia Montalbo, chief negotiator for Spain, which is the EU's next president.

She made a veiled criticism of the United States, which is sidestepping demands to show its hand on emissions curbs while a climate bill is wending its way through Congress.

"There's a certain level of frustration (in the EU) in seeing that not all countries share this vision," she said.

Antonio Hill of Oxfam International blasted advanced economies for "backsliding."

"There's no question: they're trying to get a get-out-of-jail card," he told AFP, referring to a tactic used in the board game Monopoly.

It was still possible to get a strong, ambitious deal, Hill said.

"It is a political decision now. Negotiators are perfectly capable of drawing up what needs to be agreed," he said.

Greenpeace climate policy director Martin Kaiser said US "intransigence (is) threatening to kill the prospect of a legally binding Copenhagen treaty."

"What's unfolding today is being driven by America, which in turn is being steered by big fossil-fuel interests," he said. "Now is the time for Europe -- Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown -- to stand up, not give up."

WWF's Kim Carstensen said it had been "known for a long time" that there would not be a fully-fledged treaty in Copenhagen.

Even so, negotiators must flesh out details of proposed emissions curbs by industrialised countries and "clarify the final form of the agreement, what will be the final product and if it will be a legally binding treaty," he said.

Environmentalists are worried that a purely political agreement in Copenhagen will lack clout.

It may not be enough to force the 192 members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) into making sacrifices that will truly tame global warming, they say.

They also fret about the legal form of the putative agreement.

Their worry is that the tough compliance provisions of the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol, whose current pledging round expires at the end of 2012, will be ditched in favour of a voluntary approach to accommodate the United States.

In Washington on Tuesday, the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said Copenhagen could yield a framework deal that could be finalised in Mexico City in December 2010.

But, he said, "I think it is important not to give up before, because if we start... now to speak about Plan B in Copenhagen we'll probably end in Plan F for failure."

http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sph-events/2009/11/02/veilmccaughey-centre-conference-30-nov-09-localised-solutions-building-capacity-and-resilience-with-distributed-production-systems/



VEIL/McCaughey Centre Conference 30-Nov-09:

Localised Solutions: Building capacity and resilience with distributed production systems


8:30am – 6.00pm, Monday, 30 November 2009
Flagstaff Bowls Club, West Melbourne

Are we on the edge of a ‘re-localisation’ revolution?

With large, centralised infrastructure appearing vulnerable to climate change and ‘peak oil’, alternative models are emerging everywhere. Energy, water and food are being delivered via networked, localised production and consumption systems that lower carbon, increase efficiency, build resilience and strengthen local economies.

This ‘distributed’ systems model is over-turning old ideas of services and is re-shaping our image of the future. Communities are active adopters of solar panels, wind generators, rainwater tanks and neighbourhood gardens. Consumers are redefining themselves as part-producers of critical resources. This is an evolution just beginning.

This one-day conference will explore the value, diversity and implications of distributed systems for creating more sustainable and resilient critical services. It is the first of many events to build interest and linkages between those pursing new solutions for energy, water, food, transport and local economic development.

Did anyone else watch the 4Corners program where Nick Minchin said 'if you are asking whether I believe that man is responsible for climate change, then no'?

Now all the deniers who have posted so prolifically to this thread accuse the climate change action movement of 'religious fervour' but the only example of blind faith I saw was a Liberal Senator who proclaimed his unquestioning faith in the unproven, unsupported views of a few scientists who, for reasons of their own, have chosen to support a political position of 'do nothing'.

So I'll thank the denier whose posts have been consistently bullying, belittling and deliberately insulting to consider their own 'faith'. The Climate Change Activists base their views on carefully researched, evidence based, well argued and peer reviewed hypotheses. Seems to me the LibNats are really the ones whose fervour is best described as an act of faith.

Personally, I'll stick with the trained surgeon over the faith healer any day.

Denier faith wrote:
Did anyone else watch the 4Corners program where Nick Minchin said 'if you are asking whether I believe that man is responsible for climate change, then no'?

Now all the deniers who have posted so prolifically to this thread accuse the climate change action movement of 'religious fervour' but the only example of blind faith I saw was a Liberal Senator who proclaimed his unquestioning faith in the unproven, unsupported views of a few scientists who, for reasons of their own, have chosen to support a political position of 'do nothing'.

So I'll thank the denier whose posts have been consistently bullying, belittling and deliberately insulting to consider their own 'faith'. The Climate Change Activists base their views on carefully researched, evidence based, well argued and peer reviewed hypotheses. Seems to me the LibNats are really the ones whose fervour is best described as an act of faith.

Personally, I'll stick with the trained surgeon over the faith healer any day.


How arrogant you are!

Perhaps you should consider that while many scientists agree that climate change is at least somewhat man-made, the average person on the St(in the privacy of their own home) doesn't believe.

Perhaps people are reasonably cynical after lots of other things once considered irrefutable are now exposed as fallacies.

100% agree...
there's reasons why the media push the same garbage... maybe this:
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

Dad 'n' Dave wrote:


How arrogant you are!

Perhaps you should consider that while many scientists agree that climate change is at least somewhat man-made, the average person on the St(in the privacy of their own home) doesn't believe.

Perhaps people are reasonably cynical after lots of other things once considered irrefutable are now exposed as fallacies.

why is it so hard for sceptics to comprehend that pumping so many pollutants for so long, would damage the environment? it is common sense and logic that would suggest this. let alone the science that backs it up.

What depresses me is that governments don't stop at doing nothing, they are actively doing the OPPOSITE of what needs to be done.

Brumby exports dirty brown coal to India for a few extra bucks, so then Kevin's posturing turns him into a laughing stock in Asia, etc etc etc

yes, this way of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place. i guess we should join the sceptics and enjoy the planet while it lasts...

Given that the world governments are too stupid to take bold action to mitigate climate change, all that's left is adaptation.

Penny Wong's release of the coastal communities impacts reports is one realistic assessment that confirms what we have known since the late 1980's. Clearly the Australian government has given up pretending that it can take any action while it is held hostage by a combination of No No LibNuts, big oil, big coal and big Media (just check out what Rupert Murdoch has said on the issue).

In the meantime comedian Rod Quantock gave a delightful lecture on water issues at the ANU and it is a scream (Deniers will call it scaremongering) but in the light of $$$$'s post, Quantock has nominated Invercargill in NZ as the place to survive, even over our own Tasmania.

Being on what he described as the happy side of deceased now, I guess I won't be here to see the big changes... the current heatwaves and the constant lack of water are bad enough.

Seen this?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hackers-expose-climate-brawl/story-e6frg6nf-1225801879912


Hackers expose climate brawl

COMPUTER hackers have broken into Britain's leading climate science research centre, making public thousands of private emails between top climate change scientists and, in the process, laying bare their bitter disagreements about the cause of climate change.