Dearest Shadow

You accuse others of going ‘off thread’ but are quite willing to engage in that tactic yourself – the epitome of hypocrisy and the strategy of someone ‘losing it’.

The real Shadow Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, gave a speech about “The future of newspapers: is it the end of journalism?” and you have the arrogance to call it off-topic “utterances”.

Ok Shadow, you are from the 'extreme right’ (explaining much of your virulent OLO rants) and Turnbull is much more moderate (centrist if you like) but please, show some "intelligence" and give him the credit that is due.

SM, you may want to dismiss Turnbull’s “utterances”, but he is correct (and on topic) when he says the MSM, op-eds, shock-jock ‘journalists’ (Bolt and Jones being prime examples of Monckton’s front line) and ‘opinionaters’ like yourself, are becoming more shrill and shallow.

Of course, this is ostensibly due to 24/7 sound-bites and the 'dumbing-down' of the masses by the ‘stuck-in-the-muds’ and power control freaks who will say anything to gain 'office'.

Turnbull is correct – we are in desperate need for real fact-checking investigative journalism. The likes of Monckton, Gina and their fellow travellers will make it more difficult and no doubt will/has contributed to a lower RSF press freedom index for Oz.

.

Poirot

At the risk of being accused of agreeing with you : )

“I for one am in favour of giving Assange the Médaille militaire, the Noble Prize, 15 virgins in paradise and a billion in cash as a reward for his courage in doing damned well the only significant thing that can be done at this time -- momentarily fracking-up (profanity removed) government control of information.” Bageant.

At the risk of being accused of disagreeing with you:

Abbott & Co has moved more to the 'right' (Tea-Party-esque) and the Greens have forced Labor more to the left. I would posit the only way to move-buzz-word-forward is to meet in the middle. Rudd tried, Turnbull tried. They both got knifed, methinks we're in for a very uncertain future : (

BM,

Are you delusional?

"you have the arrogance to call it off-topic “utterances”"

I said no such thing.

I wasn't even referring to Turnbull's article rather your references to snippets from other politicians comments on global warming. In fact I said I agreed with Turnbull.

I would firmly place you with the looney left. The Don Quixotes charging at imaginary foes.

Bonmot,

Je vous demande pardon (& all that baloney) I know it's impolite of me to intrude on your cooing session with Poirot, on valentines day ;)
But I'm sure you'll get back to it as soon as I've said my little piece.

Re: <<Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.>>

It is fact that (in some locales) years 1-5 have shown an increase in average temperate.
And it's an opinion it is due to AGW.
It's also an opinion that we can ameliorate it by reducing CO2 emissions.
But it's a blatant beat-up, that when the X family who chose to clear the mangroves & settle on a low delta in Bangladesh gets washed out, it's all due to AGW.

I'll give you one thing though:there would be no "uncertain times" under your tutelage. You'd leave us with no uncertainty as to what we could read & hear.

But heck, look at the upside: Our media would no doubt get a five star "world Press rating" ...from The Guardian ...or GETUP...or one of the other little leftist (group) think tanks!

You have literally and figuratively lost it, Shadow

You are delusional if you think I refered to "snippets from other politicians' comments on global warming". I did not.

The only politician I referenced was Malcolm Turnbull.

Sadly, you are not imaginery - as many of your OLO foes would attest.

.

SPQR

I find your comprehension skills very disturbing.

When will you get it through your thick head that it is NOT all due to the anthropogenic component!

Natural variability (noise) does play a part!

Pouring billions of tons every year of a GHG into the atmosphere does have an influence on climate (that is the signal).

The component due to human activity is now a signifcant component, but NOT the only, component.

For your particular stupid edification, science is not absolute (there are uncertainties). However, there are those (of your class of ignorance) that won't take any action on the science unless it is "proven" 100 percent!

Your ignorance of that fact is telling and is a blatantly stupid and dumb position to hold, SPQR!

If you want to play like you know science, go back to school and learn some basics, go to university and do some catch-up, then do some post-grad in the specifics and then, get a job and work in the field for a few years.

As it is, you don't have any credibility where it counts other than displaying your ignorance and your unintellectual opinions on an opinion site. But go ahead, show us all, you're entitled.

Here's a tip: don't get your science from the blogosphere or your favourite MSM shock-jock to justify your own ignorance - it shows, BIG TIME.

Please show me, Bonmot, where in my last post --or any other, I have implied that you believe it is all due to the anthropogenic component?

Please show me , Bonmot, where in my last post --or any other, I implied that the science needed to be 100% certain –ON ANY ISSUE?

It would appear that it is you who suffers from a comprehension deficit --or, perhaps, it’s just a age related memory issue!

On the other hand, Bonmot, have been a long term cheerleader for bodies who push the proposition that ever breeze and ripple is the result of the anthropogenic component!
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13002
As I pointed out to you before –if you can remember it – you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds!

You do science no favors by feigning to speak on its behalf. Fortunately, you are in no position to arbitrate as to what is scientific and what is not. You are little more that a political groupie seeking to use science for your own ends.

PS: Thanks for the careers advice –I might take it up, after I finish my current masters.

Hollie I will apologise for my tame insults; you touched a personal nerve and hence my amydgala overrode my ability to reason in a complex and nuanced way.

I spent a number of years in a relationship in which I was abused so I can certainly refute your self-serving analysis which appears to absolve men of any responsibility for their violence.

I spent many years as a research psychologist and still keep in touch with the field and and colleagues and I am not impressed by 'natural' psychologists like yourself, who believe they understand people better than 'academics' or even 'practitioners'.

It is very depressing to think that with all the evidence available these days to show that human are essentially irrational and motivated by a great many impulses that are not amenable to rational analysis.

Your claim that 'underneath it all, we do what we want'; it is on a par with the one that says 'we all have a choice'. What rubbish, there is absolutely no evidence that people do make free choices or do what they want; most people don't even know what they want.

I've not the time or interest in educating you and it is your responsibility to use the resources of the internet to educate yourself, before you come out with any more of your folk psychology nonsense.