The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A Green religious diatribe > Comments

A Green religious diatribe : Comments

By Alan Anderson, published 20/1/2011

Greens leader Bob Brown has completed his transition from political leader to religious demagogue.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Bob Brown's comments have been sensationalised by some media. Brown actually said the mining super profits tax would help to pay for the clean up and mining should take on its share of the responsibility for the effects of climate change. Whether one believes in AGW is one thing but at least argue from a rational starting point - Bob Brown clearly believes the science of AGW, many others are not convinced. It is hardly the same as a "faith in the absence of evidence" stance because climate change (anthropogenic or not) is real.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6freoof-1225988809313

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6frfku0-1225988806619

It is disingenuous to compare Brown to some religious extremists who have stated the floods were caused by the ALP for comments made about Israel.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 20 January 2011 9:18:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Gaia hypothesis is about as far from religion as possible. It is based on a scientific interpretation of the complex interactions on our planet. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
Posted by MikeyBear, Thursday, 20 January 2011 9:29:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The hissy fits are coming thick and fast, from all those who can't stand the change in politics that is in the works. That includes the right, the denialists, the unions, Labor.

Brown's not-particularly remarkable comments have brought out the frustration and rage of those who can't face up to changes - in Oz politics or in global climate.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Thursday, 20 January 2011 9:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like Bob Brown but I do have some concerns about some elements of his party and followers - in the main the enviro fascists, primary school Marxists and anti-populationists.

It's hard not to agree with the writer about the Greens as they make some astounding claims re global warming, population and its effects on capitalism. Like Elvis, logic leaves the room when they start hyper-ventilating about the end of the earth.

It's important to remember that much of their thinking is predicated on death. The death of the earth, forests, oceans, you and me. They're greatest claim is that we can save the earth by ridding our selves of 'growthist' economies (end of capitalism) and implmenting social engineering of populations. They bend cause and affect to 'show' that this is already predestined - and for some - it's already too late.

They make some astounding claims re systems theory on closed environments, employ chaos theory, zen and pretty much anything else that you'll find in the esoteric section of your local bookshop.

Because they are death centred, their tone and proclamations becomes religious - think of Ezekial, John the Baptist or the Book of Revelations. Their theology is worthy of some sociological examination - but not much.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 20 January 2011 9:41:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Green' and 'environmentalism' is a broad church. I have found no mention of Zen or chaos theory on the Greens Party policy site. Christianity is a broad church too - I would not compare a mainstream Christian to some of the more bizaree and cult varieties out there who come up with the most absurd of claims.

In fact the Greens have done little in the way of assuring anyone about plans for population sustainability in any substantive way.

Bottom line is a super profits tax would help with flood aid.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 20 January 2011 10:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brown is just expressing ever increasing desperation and anxiety and showing the truly hateful creature that is the 'Greens' as a movement.

Now that Global Warming is running out of air for propoganda purposes.. the Greens and Brown are just being carried away in river in flood with truth, and grasping at the nearest tree top trying to hold their boat against the unstoppable current.

Brown is not interested in truth, but 'propaganda' and is simply telling the same old lie over and over, repeating it in different forms, following on from his intellectual mentor "Edward Bernays".

Of course..the truth horse has totally bolted and running around the hills, liberating more and more minds daily. Brown resents this.. he and his watermelon comrades have invested way too much in their socialist program (skilfully disguised as "Human Rights/Environmentalism") to just give up.

Let's hope they don't unleash Sarah Hanson-Young on us.. God forbid. She had such a 'serious' look when she was selling out Australia in her various comments about Children in detention.

The Greens are religious.. Marx is their God and the world is their Church. Now.. they are just happy clappers for a myth..for an untruth, for a lie.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 20 January 2011 10:28:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This essay tells us more about the author than about Bob Brown or what he believes and has said.

I wonder if Alan has ever sat down and had long extended conversations with Bob Brown.

Meanwhile Gaia lives. Human beings are completely entangled within and dependent upon the intricate web of mutually dependent relationships and patterns which operate as the vast SYSTEM called planet.And also upon cosmic systems too, such as solar flares and astrological conjunctions.

Yes the Earth is a SYSTEM which like all systems is "governed" by laws. Laws which always tend (even deliberately) to keep the system in balance.

The entire world is a living being. Planet Earth is a watery, breathing entity alive in the Mystery of Divine Communion. Like all forms and beings upon and within it, the Earth will also change and pass away.

So too for all the forms of life on Earth;the animals and plants, the rivers, oceans and mountains - all exist as Contemplatives by nature, and design. They are natural Contemplatives, without the heavy weight of the conceptual thinking-mind. Humans, in their most inherent simplicity, invested in true feeling, are also naturally disposed toward Divine Communion. But human tend to resist this intrinsic Spiritual impulse.

This is especially so for Westerners who now rule the Earth. And who are disposed by cultural presumption to gain power and control over one and every thing.

Instead of living as Spiritual Contemplatives, we dwell in our left-brained ABSTRACTING mind, and thus forget our True Nature. There are powerful cultural TABOOS against such Contemplation.

This forgetting of the Sacred is a destructive force that is disrupting this world, its intricate patterns of mutually dependent relationships, the lives of ALL beings here, including ourselves. This single lesson, fully learned, will awaken in us the necessary respect and remembrance of the Truth of ourselves, and of all seeming others (there is not a jot of separation to be found any "where").

The human world is the fear world. The non-human world is NOT the fear world.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 20 January 2011 10:52:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brown is just expressing the hope of imposing the ethics of corporate social responsibility where none currently exist. A greater tax on coal is fair and justified given the huge contribution that coal makes to atmospheric carbon emmissions leading to dangerous levels of global warming.

In the atmospheric history of Earth and Venus we see the two extremes. Very little CO2 in Earth's atmosphere 650 million years ago due to extreme carbon sequestration, producing Snowball Earth, glaciers and packed ice at the equator and everywhere else. That ice age was broken by volcanic eruptions of CO2.

In Venus, with the equivalent amount of planetary carbon, but no sequestrated carbon, only atmospheric CO2 creating extreme greenhouse effects with surface temperatures of 600 degrees C. The UN's efforts to curb CO2 emmissions is critical if future generations are not to face recurrent severe climate effects before mother nature's complex feed-back mechanisms pass a fateful tipping point.

In this context, taxing coal to pay for flood reconstruction and nation building around sustainable living is a smart thing to do. We need more leaders like Bob Brown.
Posted by Quick response, Thursday, 20 January 2011 11:00:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan of course recently wrote an essay in the IPA Review in praise of Mad Men and how we supposedly all admire them.

Unfortunately it is precisely the out of balance essentially psychotic mad men who have created the current world-wide collective psychosis.

The only thing that these mad men are ever doing is dramatizing their unresolved childhood mommy-daddy oedipal patterns on to the world stage, and their many victims.

Mad men quite literally enjoy making a "killing". The more killings they make, the more "successful" they are.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 20 January 2011 11:24:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While MikeyBear points out that the Gaia hypothesis - in its original form - is simply a scientific hypothesis, along comes HoHum to show us exactly how the half-witted mysticism of the Green movement has turned that hypothesis into the pseudo-religion of Gaiaism: 'Planet Earth is a watery, breathing entity alive in the Mystery of Divine Communion ... all the forms of life on Earth;the animals and plants, the rivers, oceans and mountains - all exist as Contemplatives by nature, and design.'

'Divine Communion'? 'Design'?

Dude, srsly.
Posted by Clownfish, Thursday, 20 January 2011 11:52:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican ; you have been sucked in by the Anthropogenic Goons , the climate was never static , clearly it was never meant to be , something as big as climate is impossible to manipulate what Brown can do though is manipulate people , he draws on their basic instincts then massages their fears . If Brown and Flannery know as much as you think they do why didn't they warn Oz about the Qnsland disaster all those people could have been saved but they are just sprukers ; for heavens sake Pelican just go back six weeks they were preaching Climate Change to farmers at the MIA conference that the Darling was done and dusted , buggered , kaput , finished as a water course !
Get with the program man your a Pelican man you have landing water on every point of the Compass from every town in Australia !
Posted by Garum Masala, Thursday, 20 January 2011 12:43:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OMG! Its a right wing denial convention:) Now watch as the true haters of mankind shows its ugly face.

The worlds a mess, and its not there fault...lol

Come on! Dont stop now.

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Thursday, 20 January 2011 12:56:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clown fish why not try this essay and website:

http://www.fearnomorezoo.org/literature/contemplative_state.php

Plus a related essay:

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index2.html

Our current techno-cratic "culture" of death with its drive to gain power and control over every one and every thing, will have achieved its ultimate "success" when it has "created" a dead planet.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 20 January 2011 1:55:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is little funnier than sowing a video of Tim Flannery predicting (with suitable frowny expression of impending doom)

*Rain fall levels will definitely decrease in Southern Australia.. yes.. we will be in deep trouble* (paraphrase)

and then....looking outside from anywhere from central Victoria to northern Queensland....

What a joke. (Flannery/Greens/Brown)

But wait.. the Socialist alliance, that ever vigilant vanguard of social democracy simply takes the easy way out and BLAMES 'Global Warming' for all the rain that Flannery said would never happen DUE to Global Warming :) *Hilarious*

Oh.. if you ClimateWarming lemmings did your research you would see just how expansive is the money making money grubbing, manipulating, old boys left network/I'll scratch your global warming back and you can make laws which bring truckkkkkloads of money into my climate fund and then we can tell everyone (who is now broke) that *Utopia* has arrived while we (Leftist elite) back on our lilo's in our backyard swimming pools drinking chardonay from gilt edged glasses.

Right wing hate ? :) no.. shoe on other foot tuan... "Left wing hate" "your dead" says Democrat to Tea Party man in public. He also suggested right wing social commentators should be tortured. Hmmmmm
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 20 January 2011 1:55:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not correct Garum Masala. Not sure how you come to that conclusion GM - I have always said I am an agnostic on AGW as the evidence is so contradictory.

Go back and check all my posts on climate change if you need to. I am not sold on AGW only that climate change is occuring as it has over the millenia.

However, it would be foolish to pretend that human beings have not been responsible for much environmental damage. We stopped using CFCs because it was proven beyond doubt that the hole in the ozone was caused by Chlorofluorcarbons. We have polluted soil and waterways so it is not really a stretch if people are honest, that we might also be responsible for changes in climate albeit even small ones.

Anyway you can search for yourself on my previous comments if you are interested enough.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 20 January 2011 2:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7172&page=0#109902

Here's one from 2008.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 20 January 2011 2:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whoa there ho hum .. do you seriously go looking for sites like those you recommend?

dude .. you need to take a good look at yourself.

sometime in the future, I sure hope we don't have to all live with the fact we saw someone losing it and didn't call in the folks who could help you ..

"Our current techno-cratic "culture" of death with its drive to gain power and control over every one and every thing, will have achieved its ultimate "success" when it has "created" a dead planet."

Those who wish to control every one and everything I would suggest are the hysterics who demand we stop doing this (CO2)and that (Using fossil fuels), and demand we pay more tax, redistribute wealth, and make videos of children people being blown up because they don't comply with group thought .. who demand new education of our young to indoctrinate them in eco BS

you do realize which side of this debate you are on right dude? the side that wants to control everyone and everything .. right, you get that? Don't you .. because if you don't .. then you need help.

get help now ho hum, or at least stop commenting on blogs as you appear to have lost it
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 20 January 2011 2:11:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations to the author. Great article.

Others have also made the point that Environmentalism as it is practiced by the Greens is more a conservative theocratic view than a scientific one.

The guilt and punishment theme is the same, the 'obey me or be punished' God, as it is that humans are responsible for their spoiled Eden and must atone for their sins. The major difference is, of course, that God has changed.

The transcendental God has been replaced by the Earth God, Gaia and is an invention of a modern day pop science writer.

Its all a cover for Bob Brown's agenda to stop all development in Australia while he and his fellow Greens continue to fly around the World using jet fuel at an alarming rate. But that's OK they are the chosen ones.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 20 January 2011 2:57:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The links Pelican gives quote Brown as saying “"It's the single biggest cause - burning coal - for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now." Seems to me he hasn’t been taken out of context at all – he IS blaming burning coal for the floods. While the author overstates his case, and I’m not fond of his polemic style, the author's fundamental argument is correct – there is no causal link between Australia’s coal industry and Queensland’s floods, and to claim otherwise in order to score political points in the current environment is reprehensible
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 20 January 2011 3:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Green "happyclappers"?

Such creatures may exist but

Bob Brown isn't one
Posted by Shintaro, Thursday, 20 January 2011 3:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garum Masala, let's not speculate on Pelican's gender.

I can't remember how the CFC hole in Ozone Layer was proven beyond doubt; but the size of industry associated with it was small enough to modify fundamentally across the board. A rather bigger push will be required to drastically cut fossil fuel use.

I don't think I could mount a sound argument that Qld coal should pay above the odds to help out with the flood relief effort.

Why can't the nation get taxes equitable and right, and keep enough surplus to simply cover the cost of this kinda thing from the national kitty?
Posted by hugoagogo, Thursday, 20 January 2011 3:23:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What this article by a former Liberal adviser does, is add weight to my feeling that the Liberals think they may have found a new magic formula.

Beating up on the asylum seekers in elections is getting a bit thin. While a hard core of voters will still respond to the mantra of 'we will decide to comes here etc' a lot of voters who may previously have been swayed are no longer so impressed by this Liberal line. They are probably better educated and more sympathetic to an asylum seeker's plight. This leaves the Liberals struggling a lot to differentiate themselves from Labor.

The win in Victoria where they preferenced the Greens last, may now be the rope that their strategists are going to pull on hard. Suddenly Greens will become the new intruders to be kept out, demonised and misrepresented for political purposes.

Good for society? Hell no! Divisive and unhealthy. In the tragic Victorian fires last year even while Greens were out fighting fires, supporting their communities and mourning friends and loved ones, a thoroughly nasty article came out pointing the finger at them. Something we can expect more or as the next federal election gets closer.
Posted by JL Deland, Thursday, 20 January 2011 3:30:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To add to the last post is the real interesting question is of course is whether Labor will also do the same. Bet they will.
Posted by JL Deland, Thursday, 20 January 2011 3:32:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gaia.......or me:)

Hesiod's Theogony (116ff) tells how, after the birth of Chaos, arose broad-breasted Gaia, the everlasting foundation of the gods of Olympus. She brought forth Uranus, the starry sky, her equal, to cover her, the hills (Ourea), and the fruitless deep of the Sea, Pontus, "without sweet union of love," out of her own self through parthenogenesis. But afterwards, as Hesiod tells it, she is a great god of nature:

she lay with her son, Uranus, and bore the world-ocean god Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and the Titans Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis, Mnemosyne, and Phoebe of the golden crown, and lovely Tethys. After they were born Cronus the wily, youngest and most (terrible of her children, and he hated his lusty sire..... then Christianity was born. Probably with the last two youngest:)

You lot cant be serous...lol...However since the message from her was and is all true, and considering the worlds currant situation, its fitting that all of this blue-green planet is being put at risk, even after all the evidents that pores out from every honest scientist/environmentalist.
I mean.....lets face it, the old god followers have literally brought HELL to the earth.......

Green Religion.....lol......Its commonsense, but HEY! Iam looking forward to 10 billion on this planet too you know.

I can't see any problems with that now.....can we:)

Everything will be just fine, yeah right.

http://tinyurl.com/4labeem

http://tinyurl.com/4oo844s

I was going to show you some religious damage, but I think you know all ready.
Rollie eyes

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Thursday, 20 January 2011 4:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're right Shintaro, Bob Brown is definitely not a happy anything, he is a total misery.

Sorry Pelican, it is now confirmed that CFCs have been proven innocent.

New research has shown that it was not the c CFCs. Their elimination has had no effect on the Ozone hole. It is in fact growing again.

You've got to watch these academic types Pelican. That publish or perish syndrome leads to so many of them going off half cocked. Then having their entire Carree "cocked" up, if they admit they were wrong.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 20 January 2011 5:08:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/// New research has shown that it was not the c CFCs. Their elimination has had no effect on the Ozone hole. It is in fact growing again ///

Well Hasbeen, if that is right, there goes the credibility of "Merchants of Doubt" (By Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway).

A book that has been spuiked as the definitive answer as to why it is so hard to sell AGW to the public (and cited on this forum recently as proof of the sinister motives of sceptics).

One of the central tenets of the book is that the experts had the ozone story down pat. And the only ones who challenged it were these horrible merchants of doubt funded by big corporates with has evil intent.The same big corporates and mercenary figures who were seeking to undermine the case for AGW.

Incidentally , it made a similar argument about anyone who challenged ANY aspect of "The Silent Spring" (By Rachel Carson).

And interestingly, included Bjørn Lomborg a merchant of doubt.

I hope their publishers off load their stockpile of copies before words get around
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 20 January 2011 7:04:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shintaro....

you write 3 lines :) but it's not a Haiku... a haiku is mean't to leave the reader up in the air and finish the thought themselves correct?

Your post makes too much sense for a haiku.

Bishop Brown... yep.. he is definitely experiencing megalomania.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 20 January 2011 8:21:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it's no accident that the new natural enemy of the "free-marketeers" has become the environmentalists. This is even despite the fact that Greenpeace is significantly funded by certain corporate interests.

They are constantly being labelled as "leftists" and "extremists" when there are actually a lot of conservatives among them who don't want to see unrestrained and unregulated development.

Misrepresenting long-term sustainability and other social interests as being somehow against the public interest is not only unfair, it's also bizarre.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 21 January 2011 12:22:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hardly "Bishop" Brown

Gay environmentalists

Do not qualify
Posted by Shintaro, Friday, 21 January 2011 12:50:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JL Deland, Thursday, 20 January 2011 3:30:41 PM
You need a history refresher course , the Greens and the ALP did a Preferences deal that hinged on the ALP stopping forestry management practices that required burning combustible forest floor rubbish and non indigenous shrubbery that ignited produces heat that ignites the inflammable eucalypt oil contained in the green leaves at the heads of the Eucalypt's ; a diesel engine will run on eucalypt oil (not recommended it's octane level is too high).
So all that tragedy lies squarely on the heads of Bob Brown and the ALP preference brokers . Nothing to do with any other Political Party.
Posted by Garum Masala, Friday, 21 January 2011 9:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 20 January 2011 9:41:59 AM

You seem to be having some trouble coming to terms with Browns Philosophy.
Think of it this way ; Does Brown have a future ? Can a Baby be made out of a dunny bowl? Normal people can claim to be part of the future they are producing the future .
Posted by Garum Masala, Friday, 21 January 2011 9:21:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garum Masala, I cant quite relate your post to what I'm trying to get at in mine. I'm saying that in the coming election the Greens are likely to be given the treatment that the asylum seekers have been given in elections in the past. Demonised and misrepresented in order to do some dog whistle politics. I think the next election might well be one of the dirtiest that I've seen. Whatever preference deals have happened in the past between the major parties and the Greens, may well be in the past as a deliberate tactic of targeting the Greens comes into play.

We had a taste of what may be to come after the Victorian fires with that unfair and inflamatory article. Interestingly enough, the Australian today ran (again) another anti-green article, this time from someone with Labor connections. Maybe I'm not going to be to far off the mark.
Posted by JL Deland, Friday, 21 January 2011 11:34:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, HoHum, I needed a good laugh.

Oh ... you take that mystical guru shtick seriously? Oh dear ...
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 21 January 2011 1:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen I have not seen any evidence that CFCs were not contributing to the hole in the ozone layer but if you can link to a scientific study do so by all means.

Science is not perfect. Science merely works towards an answer or a solution even if it goes off on tangents or is influenced by funding arrangments.

We have to put some measure of trust in science if it is well peer reviewed and the conclusions tested and then tested again. Climate change is probably one of the most complex of scientific debates in the modern day, given the varying scientific opinions.

It is not always simply about science especially when there are powerful interests dependent on those outcomes including in areas like GM, cloning, stem cell research etc (the list is endless).

The tobacco industry succeeded for many years in their claims that their scientific studies proved smoking did not cause illness, specifically lung cancer. So, yes claims of scientific evidence are not always valid especially when industry related and tested.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 21 January 2011 2:15:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To quote the head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods”. He could probably add the long drought and the recent Qld floods that broke it as well.

Alan Anderson is as guilty as Bob Brown of political opportunism here. Why attack Bob Brown for claims that large parts of Australia will very likely suffer more extreme droughts in the future when these are what climate science is saying? Do I really need to say that one extreme flood event does not make a trend? Or that the likelihood of future extreme droughts are not reduced in any way by it? Or that more and more extreme weather events have been a stated probable consequence of global warming?

This isn't the only recent article at OLO trying to pin the 'green religious ideology' label onto pronouncements that have their true source in organisations like NCAR, BoM, CSIRO that study climate. Why is it radical ideology when repeated publicy by those like Sen. Brown when he attempts to see policy reflect scientific knowledge? I am suspecting either group-think at work amongst the opponents of action on emissions or else we are seeing the result of quiet co-operation amongst them; perhaps focus-groups and polling on the power of phrases like 'green religion' to resonate with those who would prefer their illusions about fossil fuels and climate not be upset?

The real ideology on display here - ideology that appears completely detached from science based reality - is that underlying the increasingly fervent attacks on the Greens. The consistent and continuing campaign to blame the loudest voices - like Bob Brown's - for this awkward issue being on the agenda distracts attention from the quasi-religious fervor of opposition to taking climate change seriously. And the complete lack of credible policy that goes with that 'no regulation' ideology.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Friday, 21 January 2011 5:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken

so far as I'm aware, the NCAR, BoM, CSIRO et al have not blamed the Queensland coal industry for the floods. There is a world of difference between saying that carbon emissions are responsible for more frequent severe weather events, and saying the coal industry should be penalised for causing Queensland's floods.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 21 January 2011 5:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken, if you're such a stickler for 'science-based reality', then you should admit that it is impossible to tell if any global warming due to increased CO2 emissions has even been significant, and that climate models are pretty much meaningless.

That's the 'science-based reality'.
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 21 January 2011 5:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Green Religion" has become a favorite theme of right wingers lately. Kind of ironic given the Right is almost entirely made up of economic, political and religious fundamentalists.

I think what it boils down to is that when Right wingers see people with commitment to a cause they mistakenly believe there is a move being made on their control over obsessive, looney politics. They mistake their own craziness for commitment.

Tell anyone you have a spiritual connection to the Earth and you'll get a hysterical and shrill response like the article above. Is a spiritual connection to the Earth any weirder than a spiritual connection to Sky Daddy or free market economic theory? At least conserving the Earth has some practical value for society whereas Sky Daddy is a crutch for emotional cripples. (Elevating the free market to the status of a religion is for people who never grew up and learned to share).
Posted by maaate, Friday, 21 January 2011 5:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken Fados says:

/// To quote the head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section “Certain events would have been EXTREMELY UNLIKEY to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods”. He could probably add the long drought and the recent Qld floods that broke it as well ///

Then Ken, how do you explain the frequency of these EXREMELY UNLIKELY EVENTS in OZ ?

Here is a list of the (major) floods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Australia

And here we have a list of the (major) droughts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_history/Drought_disasters

(I wish I had windfalls as infrequently as that!)

but it gets curiouser and curiouser-- one of your brethren had this to say:
1) “ The more energy into a system, the more heat- the more heat- the more water vapour- the more water vapour- the more snow and rain. Obeying the simple Laws of physics in a dynamic and chaotic Earth System “ and
2) “ As to 1940’s to 70’s – sulphate aerosols (by-product of fossil fuel burning) has a cooling effect”

So I checked out the BOM site –because he spoke warmly of it-- and this was what I found:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi

Note two things from this graph:
1)If you were writing on the Forum in 1940 or 1960 holy (frozen) mackerel! with a series colds like those shown, you might well be calling anyone who didn’t think there was a coming ice age a “denier”!
2)But more important that this, interweave the above list of floods and droughts: these EXTREMELY UNLIKEY EVCENTS often occurred during a coolings! When there should have been (according to your brethrens template)LESS heat and LESS water vapour and LESS energy in the system!

Now, riddle that for me ?
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 21 January 2011 6:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The world's biggest miners and exporters of coal have nothing to do with rising emissions? They should not bear any legal or financial liability for the adverse consequences arising? More importantly they should not have any regulation imposed which restricts the continued expansion of their activities in the face of strong science showing enormous and near certain impacts to our future security and prosperity?

Nothing's known or proved or meaningful from climate science? It's good enough for every leading scientific institution but that's not good enough to have actual policy on emissions?

We've had droughts before and floods before therefore global warming can't make them much worse?

The media made a fuss about a couple of papers concerned about aerosols and cooling in the 70's - more papers at the time pointed to warming from CO2 than cooling and the US National Academy of Sciences said there wasn't enough known yet. More recently it says there's more than enough known to conclude warming is real and serious. They weren't sure in the 70's therefore now that they are sure we shouldn't take them seriously?

Is this truly representative of the opinions of most Australians on this serious issue? Is it even considered an outside possibility by the vocal opponents of climate science here that the science could be correct and they might be mistaken? Will we even get an "oops sorry" when the current warming trend continues and consequences get more severe or will it be blame shifting to those damned scientists who should have told us better? Or just the same repeated 'you can't prove it's not natural'?
Posted by Ken Fabos, Saturday, 22 January 2011 7:02:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR

Are you trying to tell me these 2 points are mutually exclusive?

1) “ The more energy into a system, the more heat- the more heat- the more water vapour- the more water vapour- the more snow and rain. Obeying the simple Laws of physics in a dynamic and chaotic Earth System “ and

2) “ As to 1940’s to 70’s – sulphate aerosols (by-product of fossil fuel burning) has a cooling effect”.

Are you really trying to infer that as CO2 concentrations rise and as sulphate aerosols are 'scrubbed' out, that heat trapping gases won't take over as a major forcing?

Are you really trying to infer that sulphate aerosols don't have a dampening (cooling) effect?

Moreover, you give the impression that you don't understand radiative forcing - this does not bode well for meaningful dialogue. Perhaps you should look that up in your Wiki.

You went to BOM, and even tracked down a graph - why didn't you run the trend line?

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=T
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 22 January 2011 7:36:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Mr Bonmot, but I must insist you stick to the issue at hand.

Trademark put downs like:
---“ you give the impression that you don't understand...this does not bode well for meaningful dialogue. Perhaps you should look that up in your Wiki”
---“You went to BOM, and even tracked down a graph”

Are inadmissible (and may see points deducted!)

Here are the salient points of the case:

Mr Fados told us
---“[T]he US National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section [said] ‘Certain events would have been EXTREMELY UNLIKEY to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods’”

---He then went on “ [ they]could probably add the long drought and the recent Qld floods that broke it as well “

And we know from expert testimony, AGW causes such by adding heat to the mix .
---“ The more energy into a system, the more heat- the more heat- the more water vapour- the more water vapour- the more snow and rain. Obeying the simple Laws of physics in a dynamic and chaotic Earth System “

But the fly in the ointment is that we had similar catastrophes (and, worse 1841 1993 ) occurring during pre-industrial times or periods of cooling (see my original graph).

Now of course you can (and no doubt will) fall back on the old IPCC-out that they are getting, or, will be getting more severe.


But independent research indicates otherwise.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/we-are-already-adapting-to-warming/story-e6frg6zo-1225797967898
“Although it is accepted that bushfire risk will increase with greenhouse gas emissions, there is no evidence in the time series of insured losses in recent decades of any effect of climate change
There is no indication that tropical cyclones, the single largest category accounting for 32 per cent of all losses, are becoming more frequent or more dangerous. A similar conclusion applies to the US for hurricanes, even including Katrina in 2005”

So where does that leave the cry "It's AGW that done it!" otherthan to expose it as a bit of cheap spruiking?
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 22 January 2011 10:11:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR

That link you provided - I agree with Dr Ziggy Switkowski.

Quote:
Of course, the 21st century will be different from the 20th. Forecast 2-5 degree temperature increases ahead will certainly drive natural hazard events to uncomfortable levels beyond those produced by the one degree increase so far.

Still, a focus upon domestic emissions reductions does nothing directly for our climate.

An Australian ETS will not lower bushfire risks, stabilise sea levels, reverse the bleaching of our corals, or alleviate our national water challenges.

Yet there are solid reasons to support the introduction of an ETS (I prefer a tax, but that is another issue) at this time:

We need to start on the 100-year journey of transitioning our economy away from dependence upon fossil fuels, whatever views exist about the gravity of climate change.

We have little choice but to join the growing community of nations and our trading partners deploying greenhouse gas reduction schemes. Taking a leadership position is a call that politicians are elected to make.
End Quote.

Now SPQR, you quote mine (spindoctor) my comments on another thread;

1) “ The more energy into a system, the more heat- the more heat- the more water vapour- the more water vapour- the more snow and rain. Obeying the simple Laws of physics in a dynamic and chaotic Earth System “ and

2) “ As to 1940’s to 70’s – sulphate aerosols (by-product of fossil fuel burning) has a cooling effect”

raising them as an issue in this thread with Ken Fabos (with a 'b') and besides getting all defensive

"I (you) must insist you (me) stick to the issue at hand"

you refuse to address a response to points you raised here in the first place. A tad paranoid methinks, but there you are.

PS
Your post quip "It's AGW that done it!"

Scientists do not attribute 'it' all to AGW, although given your contributions, I understand why you would want people to think that.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 22 January 2011 11:04:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Bonmot,
I do think you are edged away from the issue --let me drag you back to THAT statement:

/// To quote the head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods”. He could probably add the long drought and the recent Qld floods that broke it as well ///

Note well this part, the events named “would have been EXTREMELY UNLIKEY without global warming”.

You tried to soften it with this bit of spin: “Scientists do not attribute 'it' all to AGW” .
But the “scientist” who made that statement is saying ALL of those events were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to have happened without it .

The statements source is not the IPCC –but the IPCC scale gives a likely measure :
“Extremely likely > 95% probability”
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%203%20-%20IPCC%E2%80%99s%20Evaluation%20of%20Evidence%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Uncertainty.pdf

How could they have –scientifically-- arrived at such level of certainty, given:
A) The limited study that could have been undertaken into such recent events.
And given that:
B)Similar events have been occurring for ages, and
C) More pointedly, many of those events occurred at times when there were no symptoms of AGW?

Not only is the statement unscientific, it is also reckless.
Since , it misinforms your Bangladeshis squatting on a delta or flood plain (to steal another of your comments) that anytime they have a disaster they need only blame the developed world and line-up for a hand-out.

And you –with your religious like zeal to defend the statement seemingly because it stems from an “authoritative” scientific body – compound things.
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 22 January 2011 1:21:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Readers of OLO opposing emissions reductions and believing it's mostly inappropriate green ideology should feel comforted knowing that neither Labor nor Coalition have any real intention to limit emissions. The change to low emissions is vague mission statement but new supply from coal and other fossil fuels is real policy. Coal and gas mining and export has full support and efforts to impose limitations on the trade in fossil fuels will be resisted. Mainsteam politics will do the least it can get away with and avoid doing the most it's capable of. There is no plan to phase out coal power locally and to replace it with renewables - except from the Greens. Or replace it with nuclear either - from anyone.

Only the Greens are serious about emissions (but IMO wrongly resist nuclear as part of the solution) and the 'green religion' line is clearly being pushed hard by PR, lobby and political groups as well as partisan media in order to undermine their support. That push is probably part coordinated strategy by allied groups, and part bandwagon. I'd like to think most Australians will see it for dirty politics and distraction from the lack of sincere policy but it's clearly popular.

An online site where various opinions on topical issues are freely expressed and freely criticised is not something that, on the face of it, I could have objection to yet I find my conviction growing that people are not being well informed by OLO. The articles here are primarily those of advocates of one stripe or another and this adversarial, open to all approach does not accurately represent the true relative strengths and weaknesses of the scientific case for human induced global warming. Far from informing, the 'balanced' editorial approach of OLO helps popularise and give a false sense of legitimacy to misrepresentations and misunderstandings about climate science, policy and politics. I'm increasingly convinced the issue is too important to waste my energies here.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Saturday, 22 January 2011 3:30:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Ken Fabos, Saturday, 22 January 2011 3:30:20 PM

Ken I think you should withdraw what is your last post the reason you incorrectly describe as a religious diatribe is actually Democracy working because nobody agrees with your religion you have decided to opt out blaming OLO and their unwavering respect for freedom of speech .

What do you have in mind Ken ?

Perhaps a dizzied up version of the Russian example ?
Posted by Garum Masala, Saturday, 22 January 2011 6:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ken fabos "OLO helps popularise and give a false sense of legitimacy to misrepresentations and misunderstandings about climate science, policy and politics."

I see you are offended that the world continues to ignore the constant chanting of AGW believers.

There was no public debate since most of the media sides with the AGW believers, but the new media playground, the internet, democratically continued to discuss and foment debate and actual science. All the efforts and massive funding of the AGW believers, could not suppress people's skepticism, as much as they tried to.

Mind you, things do change, on ABC Radio yesterday. I heard a report on the usual climate beat up, more this, more that, everything is caused by AGW. The report then went to a French scientist who harped as usual, world ending etc, then he said he wanted skepticism to be made illegal .. I was about to turn to another station, when they gave Prof Bob Carter some time, he countered then demolished the hysteric's complete lack of science and total reliance on authority.

The world is turning when a skeptic and a believer actually get equal time on the ABC!

I am impressed, that the ABC actually had a skeptic on at all.

Most Australians listen to the babble about everything being due to AGW and just shake their heads and turn off.

Polls support the change in attitude to AGW, less people believe it now .. predicting heat and getting cold, predicting more drought and getting flooding, then claiming you predicted everything is just mind numbing stupidity to normal people.

When you see believers trying to have it both ways, your BS alarm goes off bigtime.

people wake up, slowly, but they do.

you are not the first to leave OLO disgusted and frustrated that it allows debate and does not suppress it as you'd like. It's sad to realise your presence on OLO, was to convert heretics, not discuss opinions.

Some of you, scare me. I hope you never get the power to inflict your beliefs on other people.
Posted by rpg, Sunday, 23 January 2011 6:11:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mrs Spqr (if you insist on being childish – otherwise, bonmot will do, thanks)

“THAT” statement was originally published here:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/calculating_the_true_cost_of_global_climate_change__/2357/

I have been unable to verify where Kevin Trenberth gave “THAT” statement – at least I tried
John Carey certainly didn’t provide any details, just inverted commas
No other journalist covered “THAT” statement, as far as I can tell
WUWT would NOT ignore “THAT” statement
No statement from the NCAR/CAS
Anyone else ‘fact-check’?
Nope

Yet you make a big deal of “THAT” statement.

I did find this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B1XF20110112?pageNumber=1

Extract:

“Prominent U.S. climate scientist Kevin Trenberth said the floods and the intense La Nina were a combination of factors (note THAT last bit).

He pointed to high ocean temperatures in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia early last year as well as the rapid onset of La Nina after the last El Nino ended in May.

"The rapid onset of La Nina meant the Asian monsoon was enhanced and the over 1 degree Celsius anomalies in sea surface temperatures led to the flooding in India and China in July and Pakistan in August," he told Reuters in an email.

He said a portion, about 0.5C, of the ocean temperatures around northern Australia, which are more than 1.5C above pre-1970 levels, could be attributed to global warming.

"The extra water vapor fuels the monsoon and thus alters the winds and the monsoon itself and so this likely increases the rainfall further," said Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado (I agree).

"So it is easy to argue that 1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies give 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall," he added.

Am I defending “THAT” statement John Carey attributed to Trenberth Mrs Spqr? Absolutely not! It’s typical tactic of your ilk – spin, distort and misrepresent what other people say.

Now SPQR, what about this?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513#196159

or are you going to ignore something that you in fact raised?

And please precious, don’t retort with the “trademark-put-down” crap ... you do it all the time.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 23 January 2011 6:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,
So, we can conclude from your back-peddling and from you having pointed me to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B1XF20110112?pageNumber=1

Which uses much more moderate phraseology, like:
--"Climate change has LIKELY INTENSIFIED the monsoon rains..."
--"IT WASN’T POSSIBLE TO SAY IF CLIMATE CHANGE WOULD TRIGGER stronger La Nina and El Nino weather patterns that can cause weather chaos across the globe."
---"I THINK PEOPLE WILL END UP CONCLUDING THAT AT LEAST SOME of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change.."

With not the slightest a hint that AGW was the essential trigger, as very much implied in Ken Fados’s quote. That you now concede the statement was misleading ,outlandish even!

And I welcome this forthright, if somewhat camouflaged step-down :
“Am I defending “THAT” statement John Carey attributed to Trenberth”

Now you are beginning to sound like a real scientist and not a Mullah defending a dogma … though I still detect a residue in this little quip :
“It’s typical tactic of your ilk – spin, distort and misrepresent what other people say”
With its inference that all who challenge you are infidels.

As for this :
“Yet you make a big deal of “THAT” statement”
I assure you the deal I made is far less than what would have been made had a leading sceptic figure/body said something as outlandish--- as anyone who has read ‘Merchants of Doubt’ can attest.
(what goes around comes around! )

And, with this:
“Now SPQR, what about this?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513#196159
or are you going to ignore something that you in fact raised?”

You’ll have to be more specific –in keeping with true scientific protocol I (unlike some others) need to be clear about what I am commenting on.
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 23 January 2011 8:33:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
reply to ;Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 22 January 2011 1:21:47 PM

I do and I really believe the majority agree with emission controls .

Nuke energy is the way to go , in France NU power generators are located in the suburbs something like 20 of them ; how thick are we ? Yet we are OK with those Victorian power generators spewing out all kinds of crap on a megga scale .

The so called "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" Professors and Scientists , qualifications I have never heard of before ? Where did they all come from ? Were they waiting for the Hockey stick ? Or were they under occupied burnt out nut cases who saw juicy grant funding opportunities .

BOM used to be a creditable weather info organisation but now to make some sense of over whelming useless information is such a time consuming pain Farmers , Ag sprayers etc. pay big money to private weather forecasters , what happened to BOM , where did all the creditable people go ? Perhaps frustrated by AGW madness they found something more rewarding to occupy their intelligence .

The climate change pundits must be embarrassed after telling the farmers that the river country is finished the Darling river is finished yet 7 weeks later a massive flood , hey Penny ,Tim and Ziggy
whats this stuff , petrol? Previously Penny told a reporter at the release of water from the dams on Cubby Station that the water would be at the Coorong in about a fortnight , poor Penny , Cubby Station water would never get through the Macquarie Mashes .
Go here to get an idea of the massive scope of the catchment area of the Murray Darling Basin would you be prepared to suggest that the Darling was finished as a river look at the Warrago it starts about the same Latitude as Tambo in Queensland . www.native.asn.au/ozrivers.htm
Posted by Garum Masala, Sunday, 23 January 2011 9:20:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken Fabos says

//Only the Greens are serious about emissions//

But Ken, what you either don't realize or arn't telling is the motives of the Watermelons.

Never forget they are very red on the inside. The thin Green exterior is just a ruse to exploit widespread public anxiety in an almost textbook 'propaganda' method (straight from Edward Bernays book "Engineering Public Consent"

THE REAL motive of the Green Watermelons is 'Wealth Redistribution' under the guise of 'saving the environment.'

Please don't argue against this (unless you want a prize for the 'Most Naive' bloke on the forum) it's being openly stated by IPCC experts.

Quote:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
– Ottmar Edenhofer
Unquote

So the verrry HUGE dirty secret is no longer a secret.. it's 'out there'.

-We knew it
-We know it
-We STILL arn't, weren't, and won't be fooled by it.

//Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.//

Though in this case we DO know who they are!
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 23 January 2011 2:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.// (Bernays)

i.e.. when you MEAN "Wealth redistribution and abolition of private property and State takeover of all resources"....

you SAY "Global warming/Climate change"
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 23 January 2011 3:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What some of us know

Is that AGW and poverty

Are the real problems

Scurrilous pundits

Spreading misinformation

Exacerbate them
Posted by Shintaro, Sunday, 23 January 2011 3:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
fair enough to be an agnostic on AGW, since we have no idea possibly of long-term variables. How anyone can hide behind that though (of course I don't mean you) and pretend we're not driving eco-destruction on a massive, even geological scale, is beyond me. But these minimifidians are beyond the pale. It's one thing to equivocate over the nitty gritty of AGW (for sport), but it's impossible to equivocate on human environmental destruction overall. Indeed, given the collateral evidence, it amounts to monumental nit-picking to argue that, given all the "coincidental" evidence, the fully-established warming trend is not anthropogenic. The science is CDF.

Alan,
I suspect that a few decades hence your indignation at the thought that the mining companies make amends for their indirect rapaciousness, or pay a general compensation, will be reversed. Future generations will be indignant (what an understatement!) at the callous disregard of anything but the bottom line that our will generation will live on in infamy for--for condoning it!
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 23 January 2011 5:11:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeersy.... if the left was genuine and sincere in it's belief about us causing AGW..then it would have not the slighest problem with us keeping the income and expenditure from our 'climate management' efforts WITHIN Australia and exclusively so.

RENEWABLE ENERGY.. If we establish a price on Carbon.. ok..fine.. not too much but.... it MUST MUST MUST go ONLY ONLY ONLY to subsidize renewable energy IN IN IN..Australia.. such as Solar Panel/Grid Connect inverters.

The 'moment' some leftoid starts to woffle about 'climate debt'to 3rd world countries...aaah BUSTED! we know what they are on about. "Wealth Redistribution/Socialism the whole kit and kaboodle."

So.. let's test you Squeersy.. this is the *Patriot Test*.. quite appropriate with Aussie day coming up...

DO you.. agree..that ALL funds raised through any kind of carbon tax should be used exclusivly within Australia ?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 23 January 2011 6:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGIR,
No, of course not.
I loathe and despise patriotism (the first refuge of a scoundrel) and patriots. But putting personal aversions to one side, once it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that Western industrialisation is responsible for AGW hitherto, they should make restitution to the victims of their excess.
As for wealth redistribution, that's inevitable and already underway. I'm only sorry you won't live to experience the just humiliation yourself.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 23 January 2011 6:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real problem is

too many mouths. The

result poverty.

The solution birth

control.The UNs

quick fix, AGW.
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 23 January 2011 6:55:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Squeers

/// once it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that Western industrialisation is responsible for AGW hitherto, they should make restitution to the victims of their excess ///

But if you are going to debit the cost , it is only FAIR to credit the benefits.

Will the new world order that is drawing-up the accounts credit the developed world for the trillion$ of aid and assistance it has provided?

From : A New Green History of the World by Clive Ponting

“The mortality pattern of the industrialised world …was not repeated in the developing world…Here the reduction in mortality rates was far greater and quicker …THIS WAS THE RESULT OF IMPORTATION OF ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNIQUES, vaccinations, antibiotics, drugs and chemical spraying of mosquito breeding grounds. This had an immediate impact” [p224]

AND:
“The United States …funded much of the research [for the ‘Green Revolution’] through the Rockefeller Foundation” [ p 244]

AS A RESULT:
“In Africa …The population hardly increased at all between 1750 and 1900 and then rose more than five-fold in the twentieth century” [ p234]

And, we have not even begun to consider education & other technology yet !

@ Garum Masala

/// I do and I really believe the majority agree with emission controls ///

I’m all for the minimisation pollution and the maximisation of alternative energies, but as ALGOREISRICH (very cleverly) points out, you can do these things without bankrolling the developed world. The developed world (in general)shows little real interest in implementing measures which would REDUCE its population to sustainable levels, little real interest in reducing environmental degradation and pollution ( unless it’s funded by someone else) and seemingly only attends functions like Copenhagen and Cancun to petition for additional freebies.
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 January 2011 5:50:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ERROR ERROR ERROR

My post to Garum Masala should read:

/// I do and I really believe the majority agree with emission controls ///

I’m all for the minimisation pollution and the maximisation of alternative energies, but as ALGOREISRICH (very cleverly) points out, you can do these things without bankrolling the UNDERdeveloped world. The UNDERdeveloped world (in general)shows little real interest in implementing measures which would REDUCE its population to sustainable levels, little real interest in reducing environmental degradation and pollution ( unless it’s funded by someone else) and seemingly only attends functions like Copenhagen and Cancun to petition for additional freebies.Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 January 2011 5:50:05 AM
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 January 2011 6:28:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,
I was partly having a bit of fun feeding into AGIR's reactionary prejudices.
I don't believe we will ever be or be in a position to make financial reparations--though can you imagine if the boot was on the other foot? In the litigious world we've made we'de soon be crying "sue!" if it was shown that foreign rapaciousness was responsible for our own environmental and social degradation!
What reparations we will of course have to undertake, should AGW prove to be as dire as predicted, will include welcoming climate change refugees by the millions, in some cases re-establishing entire dispossessed populations from the south-east region.

As for the movement of capital from West to East, that is happening completely independently of economic levers and amounts to a "natural" economic process under capitalism. The "creative destruction" unleashed by capitalism doesn't stop at state borders and, in fact, is indifferent to how wealth is distributed.
The "UNDERdeveloped" countries are and will be bankrolling themselves as we simultaneously fall into poverty and defencelessness.
It's rich, btw, that you can criticise the third-world for overpopulation, environmental degradation etc. And we set the standard of sustainability do we? The average westerner who consumes the equivalent of a hundred from starving countries.
I'm also tired of that hypocritical stuff about capitalism lifting millions out of poverty.
Into conditions of slave-labour and ultimately shallow-consumerism if they're lucky. Though most (like Africa) were left with burgeoning populations and no infrastructure after the wealth-extraction process. Anyway, the good old days of countries transforming themselves into disgusting parodies of our socially-polarised affluence, as caricatured recently in Dubai, are mercifully nearly over.
The amount of money we give away to colonies we formerly exploited and often left baron, btw, is such a miserable token it's more an insult and source of embarrassment than anything to complain about.
We spend more on fireworks!
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 24 January 2011 7:17:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Squeers - I like your term "creative destruction".

SPQR - the "Green Revolution" is not biologically sustainable.
It has degraded the land in India and depleted its water aquifiers. It has poisoned the soil due to the overuse of pesticides - resulted in the loss of biodiversity and indebted many poor Indian farmers resulting in many many thousands of suicides. Those that are still farming, are in the main, in debt and in servitude to giant global corporations.
Although, this so-called revolution has resulted in vastly increased yields, much of the food is stockpiled in order to inflate the price - many thousands of Indians still suffer hunger, stunted growth and death due to an inability to access food.

Now they are thinking of doing the same in Africa. There is nothing particularly altruistic in this action - it is merely a profitable enterprise for the corporate West.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 24 January 2011 8:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR I believe the "sustainable" population theory is a myth ; truth is we need vibrant population to be sustainable Ask any Father or Mother of a big family what that means ie; 1: seeks guidance from Heavenly Bodies.
2;Gets lost at Monash Uni 3;Gets up to go to toilet , spends all day in bed writing Computer letters to OLO etc 4; hyper active female spends my pocket money on op-shop glam of all sorts then Daddy has to get up 2am to take exhausted boyfriend home in time for a sleep because has to be at work 8.30am.5;Works hard Uni doing well, always broke,very competent beggar.
Will any of them do enough work to sustain M&D in retirement? Please excuse me while I wonder.

The other issue is the number of humans capable of inventive genius .
I put it to you those people are pretty thinly spread your philosophy thins the ranks ?

The frightful IQ of our Politicians is interfering with our development we have just been through a drought and flood that everyone considers the worst in living history, its not , the floods we are now experiencing all that water wasted we all should be thinking Dams ,Diversions etc instead everyone's focused on a high speed Porn line across the sparsest continent on earth , some type of madness ? We are now a net importer of food we are eating apples and frightful garlic from China oranges from California yet we have in our Government Union Leaders and Unionists who's pride & dedication & High Principles does not extend to Mexican & Chinese workers whose lot almost equals Slavery. We need more young people who will set a new pace fight for our Country reduce the influence of the pathetic investors squabbling over real estate gambling on demand how pathetic.
Posted by Garum Masala, Monday, 24 January 2011 11:54:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garum Masala

Just wondering ... did you complain about OZ being an importer of oranges when "Globalisation" was being championed by the 'free marketeers' of this world? Happens regularly I believe, at G8.

But, maybe you are too young.

If you are of sufficient age and IQ (not necessarily mutually exclusive) you might also understand some governments of late have not had the foresight to build the infrastructure for future generations.

People with an IQ greater than their shoe size (including some politicians) understand the dilemma: how do you maintain 'growth' without destroying the very thing that growth is dependent on?

As for more dam building - perhaps people (including some politicians) should just do some basic homework before they make fools of themselves - the Australian Water Association is a good place to start, Mr Abbott.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 24 January 2011 1:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot, Monday, 24 January 2011 1:01:39 PM

your post seems a bit aggressive ?

I am unable to put a score on my IQ never been tested .

My age 67 .

I was mostly self employed Refrigeration and Engineering .

Class 5 Masters Certificate . Coxswains Cert.

Pilots Licence .

Certificate of Competency "Boiler-Steam.Engine"Vic.

Various Welding Certificates .

Does this help ?
Posted by Garum Masala, Monday, 24 January 2011 1:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot, Monday, 24 January 2011 1:01:39 PM

sorry please clarify the Abbott part of your post ?
Posted by Garum Masala, Monday, 24 January 2011 1:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garum Masala: Ever watched ‘grumpy old men’? Perhaps I’m just a grumpy old fart too.

You seem to ‘grump’ about Oz being a net importer of food. Thing is, we are now living in a ‘global’ world - and people like you and me see some problems. What did we do when this was starting to happen before our very eyes? Do we have the right to complain now, or should we instead be doing something to make it better? I’m not suggesting you or I should rock up to the World Economic Summit in Davos, but I’m sure you get the drift.

Abbott wants to simply build more dams. This ill considered policy-on-the-run does not give me confidence in his leadership of the Liberal Party, nor his potential leadership of the country.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/water-issues/water-experts-slam-abbotts-dam-plan-20110107-19iwj.html
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 24 January 2011 3:15:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers
/// I don't believe we will ever be or be in a position to make financial reparations ///

With Marxist (Ottmar Edenhofer) heading up the Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the IPCC, and openly making statements like this :

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”

And every Tom Dick and Sophie trying to blame each downpour on AGW
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11528

I would have thought we were at least within cooee

/// The average westerner who consumes the equivalent of a hundred from starving countries.///
Haven’t you heard Squeers “ there's no such thing as average”
Of course, if you put it the way you do, you will confuse a lot of people a lot of the time--- and maybe even yourself.

But look at it this way :let’s take India as an example (no longer underdeveloped – but not one of those bad developed nations either – on average better behaved)

India has a middle class (mc) bigger than the whole population of Australia.
It has a mc bigger than the USAs. And if the truth be known their mc is even more extravagant .

The difference is, beneath all the conspicuous mc consumption there are hundreds of millions of ultra poor who conspicuously under consume.

The Indian mc is doing no less environmental damage that Ozs or the USAs –likely more,
But when you AVERAGE them off with the hundreds of millions of poor – they disappear off the radar.

And one more thing to remember, all those hundreds of millions of poor are just waiting for some enhanced spending power to move up to mc level , or, a pretext to flee to the west ( which has the same outcome) and people like Ottmar Edenhofer may give them both,
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 January 2011 7:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,
Quite true all that you're saying, but I don't get your point? The Indian disparities are no greater than ours were in our historically comparable times: Victorian England. Have you read what Engel's had to say about it, his first-hand account of Victorian England? Should be available online.
So the Indians are upwardly mobile, so are the Chinese; on an unprecedented scale of course but that's what capitalism is all about. So what? You wouldn't begrudge then their bite of the cherry would you? Anyway, think of the economic growth they'll generate! They'll certainly make us richer too, at least till we run out of resources and we're living on the rim of a bloody great ditch (it'll make an excellent dam!).
And why should the Indian MC care about the environment? We didn't, and still don't.
Looking back over your post.. you don't see a double standard in there?

<And every Tom Dick and Sophie trying to blame each downpour on AGW>

I'm not blaming every downpour on AGW, and neither is anybody else who's given it a moment's thought. That kind of line is just hyperbole, salivated over or invented by hysterical denialists.

Have you ever considered trying to see reality outside your myopic world view?
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 24 January 2011 8:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

The point was that to talk of averages (or percapita for that matter) as measures of culpability can be very misleading.

With regard to:
"I'm not blaming every downpour on AGW, and neither is anybody else who's given it a moment's thought. That kind of line is just hyperbole, salivated over or invented by hysterical denialists."

Did you read the link I gave?

Here's a list I compiled--it took me less than two minutes:
1)http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11528
2)http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513#196140
3)http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6freoof-1225988809313

Three in as many days –all with the same blame AGW line.

You say: “ I'm not blaming every downpour on AGW, and neither is anybody else who's given it a moment's thought “

Perhaps that’s it, they didn’t give it--a moments thought!–it is by now a conditioned response–blame AGW.
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 January 2011 9:10:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it just me, or does SPQR sound an awful lot like ALGOREisRICH?
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Monday, 24 January 2011 11:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/// Is it just me, or does SPQR sound an awful lot like ALGOREisRICH? ///

Soooo..there must be something to that old idiom: “Great minds think alike” ...hmmm, I wonder if AGIR is also swarve and sophisticated and uber cool?
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 6:00:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR (AGIR?),
we've always had extreme weather events and so 'tis difficult to say whether the latest spate is due to global warming. What we can say, of course, is that heat is energy and that we are experiencing the warmest planet on record year after year. It's quite reasonable to conjecture that there's a connection: unprecedented high temperatures are likely to induce unprecedented weather. This is neither an item of faith nor denialism among reasonable people, none of whom is "trying to blame each downpour on AGW". Extreme weather events however predictable, if not pin-pointable, in a warming ecosphere.
Reasonable people are, as I say, not dogmatically ascribing all extreme weather events to global warming (though all weather events are ultimately part of the same dynamics), but they're not dogmatically denying mountains of evidence either--like you do, for instance..
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 6:54:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it just me, or does SPQR sound an awful lot like ALGOREisRICH?
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Monday, 24 January 2011 11:09:54 PM

Dear Aleister,

The same question was asked of SPQR a few days ago on another thread but we are still waiting for a straight answer.

It appears (though unconfirmed) AGIR was suspended for a month. SPQR surfaced a week into the penalty and unlike a normal newbie was right into it. I had hoped SPQR might have been retired once AL's suspension was over but instead we see the personas even complimenting each other as in this thread.

I owe belly an apology if they are in fact separate people but at the moment I think I might be safe.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 5:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR AGIR?

Not religious enough. SPQR sounds, writes and looks more like spindoc.

But, who really cares? You don't really get a straight answer from any of them.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 5:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
It’s amazing, you know me even less than CSteele and yet you’re telling me what I believe:
“but they're not dogmatically denying mountains of evidence either--like you do, for instance.”

My only point of contention over AGW, on this forum, has been on the issue of whether or not the below statement was fair and reasonable:

/// To quote the head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods”. He could probably add the long drought and the recent Qld floods that broke it as well ///

And it’s becoming pretty apparent that it’s NOT, since when asked to defend it, people
skirt around what is right before their eyes and start to re-write it –so it sounds like this:

“It's quite reasonable to conjecture that there's a connection”

Or this:
“we've always had extreme weather events and so 'tis difficult to say whether the latest spate is due to global warming”

I’m sorry Squeers, but that is exactly what the quotation is asserting !

It’s saying without AGW it is EXTREMELY UNLIKEY that any of these events would have occurred .

A proposition amplified by :
Sophie Trevitt : http://tinyurl.com/4nhv79l
“ the potential losses precipitated by climate change (like the lives and livelihoods that are currently being devastated by the natural disaster in Queensland)”
And by Bob Brown http://tinyurl.com/4ahlwm6
“It's the single biggest cause - burning coal - for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now"

If as you say : “ Reasonable people are… not dogmatically ascribing all extreme weather events to global warming”

But our straw poll or modelling has produced three examples in a row, couldn’t we quite reasonably draw a IPCC-like conclusion that there are few reasonable people on your side of the debate (?)
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:34:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR:
<But our straw poll or modelling has produced three examples in a row, couldn’t we quite reasonably draw a IPCC-like conclusion that there are few reasonable people on your side of the debate (?)>

NO.
There are certainly loonies on both sides of the debate, but minimifidianism, which monolithically refuses to acknowledge evidence, let alone assess it objectively, is NOT REASONABLE.

Global warming is certainly a compelling explanation for the upward trend in extreme weather events, but I agree that no one is in a position to assert this without qualification. I'd like to see a graph pegging this trend to the warming trend, but there's unlikely to be enough data to make such a graph for many years, indeed we're unlikely to ever have a complete climate model, or be able to accurately pinpoint its volatility.
AGW though, like most science, is based on inference from the available data. At what point do you decide to quit a dangerous situation? Do you need a blade between the ribs before you're convinced?
On what do you base your scepticism on AGW?
Unless you can show me intellectual/evidential objections, I will continue to see denialism as based either in vested interest, on political paranoia, or prejudice of many hues.
What it comes down to for popular or layman-denialism, is we're a rich country and the contented centre doesn't want its ideological slice of heaven tampered with (a delusion anyway).
Well, sorry for the inconvenience, but sh!t happens!
Burying your head in the sand won't make it go away.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 7:43:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

/// On what do you base your scepticism on AGW? ///

Aw! I don’t know I’m in either camp.I consider myself more of interested observer , who, disguised as SPQR , mild-mannered poster in cyber space fights a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the scientific way.

Cheers!
Catch you next time
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 9:58:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Explanation of SPQR:

The abbreviation SPQR means, in English, the Senate and the Roman people, but what exactly those four letters stand for -- in Latin -- is a little less clear. My take, which I've recently changed, is that SPQR stands for the first letters of the following words with "-que" added as the third:
Senatus Populusque Romanus.
That -que is added to another wo

Translated: Short Fat Agnostic.
Posted by Garum Masala, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 10:58:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGW cannot be true

If we have to change our ways

As simple as that
Posted by Shintaro, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 12:17:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"hmmm, I wonder if AGIR is also swarve and sophisticated and uber cool?"
-ALGOREisRICH

It's spelt 'suave', you daft twat.

"Not religious enough. SPQR sounds, writes and looks more like spindoc."
-bonmot

I disagree; it's much easier to bury subject matter (e.g. Al's religious waffle) than it is to disguise one's style. SPQR and Al employ exactly the same style - the heavy use of CAPS LOCK, the identical and idiosyncratic use of two or three slashes to denote quotations when convention dictates that quotation marks be used, and the tendency to break up sentences with numerous - and... and of course, they back each other to the hilt. Forgive me for being suspicious, but this Al/SPQR guy is extremely suss.
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Sunday, 30 January 2011 1:31:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy