Yes, God created common-sense, packed it in a sand-bag with a small hole so it will drip down and spread as He flies over the lands. Unfortunately, as He flew too low over the Himalayas, the sack was caught by one of the peaks, enlarging the hole, so by the time He reached Australia very little was left in the bag.

Yuyutsu, another Aussie hater; anyway modern civilisation came from overseas. What happened is we were issued with no instructions and have to muddle along and will frequently stuff up. Our responsibility is to learn.

What is sure is that dogmatists of centuries old religions, such as Lefties don't have the answer. All their tilts at responsibility are fiascos.

Very creative and entertaining. Lest Ian’s great sense of humour, and mockery of the Green perspective on life, obscure the seriousness of the single most divisive question in this debate, let me restate it as clearly and simply as possible: Can energy gathered from the sun and wind ever replace fossil fuels and reverse the changes they have caused? Yes, I know Ian, and many readers of this journal, are climate sceptics, but the question deserves quite separate consideration by everyone.

It would be funny if only it was not so true.

Very amusing.. don't do anything as it will affect the environment. Maybe we could grant greenies their own homeland.. the Northern Territory say? They could do what they want in the NT provided they leave the rest of us alone and, no, they can't have subsidies. We'll send study missions in a few years to see how they've done..

Just goes to show how Ian has come full circle, many years ago he was taking on Christians for their anti-science stance.
Now he stands should to shoulder with them quoting scripture at us.

It's part of the great appeal of the piece that he has impeccable credentials on creationism - he doesn't believe in it. Context is the handmaiden of humour, and very few on the Greens side understand one or have the other.

It is amazing the amount of hate and invective the Greens seem to generate.
I am of the opinion that it is because in the main they are telling it as it is and not embroidering facts to hide fear and greed.
So sad that people are brainwashed into believing the antigreen message and not able to think things through for themselves.
As for religions, I have discovered the reason for them at last.
Humans are the only creatures that are able to reason and realize that they are going to die one day.
Most of their brains are unable to cope with this and they have developed a defence with religions.
They are now able to fool them selves that they will live for ever in some version of paradise and so they are safe from really dieing.

It was just a little humorous, if entirely sacrilegious and a trifle overdone.

This however just exposes the obsessive nature of the denialist camp, who also deny God, creation or even shock horror, intelligent design.

And only ever rely on a cherry picked science to reinforce their histrionics. i.e., the creation by pure chance of a complex human being, is less likely just on the odds alone, than a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard and creating a fully functioning and flyable 747!

And to invoke the environmentalist holy dictum, if you repeat something enough times, then even vastly more complex life evolved from a single celled organism, is the result!

Even then in the absence whatsoever, of nitrogenous coke, which would have at the very least, provided evidence of the mainstay of fundamental environmentalism, any primordial soup, which allegedly produced the first single cell and by pure unadulterated pure chance/endless repetition!

If everything is energy, and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then everything that now exists had to exist in another form before creation! Dark matter perhaps?

The sun is responsible for most of our climate and given it has been waning since the mid seventies?

What then has been melting the formerly permanently frozen tundra, the ice sheets and the formerly permanent summer sea ice of Alaska? Overheating denialists perhaps?

Even so, perhaps Ian and his devotees, can explain what it is they have against vastly cheaper carbon free thorium (halve price) power, or indeed, even cheaper (quarter price) carbon neutral biogas coupled to ceramic fuel cells, that will halve domestic power yet again?

Moreover, we'll need to run out of humans before we run out of human waste!

Perhaps the only thing at risk here, is the captive energy market that supports the coal community and geologists like Ian?

You'd think that a geologist would know something of the paleontologistical record and what that tells us; and as clear for those who know how to read it, as pages in a book!
Rhrosty

Apologies and correction, paleontologistical should be read as palaeontological.
Rhrosty.

"...the creation by pure chance of a complex human being, is less likely just on the odds alone, than a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard and creating a fully functioning and flyable 747"

That's right, a human being is vastly more complex than a 747, but Rhosty misses the point that physicists don't claim chance created a man. The science supports the existence of evolution, with man and all other life arising from from a simplest, spontaneously created by chance, life form capable of reproduction/replication.

A 747 can only arise through a process far more certain than chance, i.e. intelligent design.

Have fun god-botherers, go for it.

I think this right up there with such conservative satire as "Julia Gillard on the menu" and "Abbotts tax plan". Although to be fair, Abbotts tax plan was really described as more of a 'morbid joke' than satire.

Ho ho, what a laugh we had at your expense.

I'll look forward to your advertising your Adelaide Fringe Festival gig on OLO Ian!

I'll be there with bells on.

Hi Robert LePage

What "hate and invective" are you referring to? The article is merely poking fun, and the posters on this thread (so far) seem pretty restrained.

I think it is hilarous that the same dishonest tactics that Ian used against creationist are now being used by the warmist religion against him.

>The science supports the existence of evolution<

No it doesn't, it just supports the probability of adaptation compelled by change. And simply put, that single fact supports intelligent design!

The entire theory of evolution is comletely dependent on a single celled organism erupting by pure change from, wait for it, a primordial soup for which there is no evidence; plus, a series of perfectly timed steps, which even then are reliant on the birth and death of countless stars, to in fact, create the carbon and the oxygen, we carbon life forms need as absolutes for our very survival.

And for there to have been a primordial soup, we would have needed to find some nitrogenous coke deposits, particularly where there hasn't been the very convenient mantle folding, that allegedly destroyed any and all evidence of such a soup, if there ever was any.

And some of those very convenient single celled organisms just refused to move with the evolutionary imperative and stubbornly refused to evolve, remaining single celled organisms to this very day.

Instead of becoming bone cells, skin cells, brain cells, nerve cells, blood cells and so on, all cooperating magnificently, to create the thing that is as complex and intelligent as a human.

And only needing alleged endless repetition to just create a single celled organism to begin with?

Nothing that lives, lives without the life force, and regardless of the science, nothing but nothing science has discovered explains it or its creation.

Nor countless out of body near death experiences or a young man awakening after a long term coma able, though never ever having been exposed to anything Chinese, to speak fluent Mandarin upon awakening.

Evolutionary theory, founded on the non science of being able to create something from absolutely nothing! MAGIC! Given nothing begets nothing!

At least I started from the premise of a junkyard, a whirlwind, magic and vastly better odds!
Rhrosty.

What is amusing here is that conservation was originally a cause of the Right, not the Left, which was focused on jobs and human welfare. In the US for example, President Theodore Roosevelt, America's conservation president, was a Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_movement_in_the_United_States

The traditional Leftist attitude to Nature can be seen in the enormous environmental problems created by Communist governments in Eastern Europe.

Just for you, Rhosty, to get you up to speed on this:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html , and,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Scientific_criticism

About as funny as a fart in a lift.
A twisted attempt at denigration that fails on every level.
Still having problems with logic poor prof.
God, courts, greenies, politicians? WTF
Capital cities, populations, Greenpeace etc that all exist BEFORE creation?
Straw man arguments never work.
Trying(failing) to disguise your abuse behind "humour" was the best you could do?

I assume the godbotherers have no problem with blasphemy and laughing at god any more. I look forward to seeing many more god and religion jokes on OLO in the future.
Here's one to start.

Hitler walks up to the Pearly Gates and says to St Peter, "I'd like to come in."

St Peter: "Not likely!"

Hitler: I've repented and I've given back all the gold and treasures that I stole from the Jews, and I'm really sorry."

At that point, Jesus walks up and asks what's going on.

St Peter: "It's Hitler here, he wants to come in."

Jesus: "Bugger off!"

Hitler: "No, it's true! To prove it, I've got a six foot solid gold cross I can't find the owner of. I could give that to you."

Now Jesus was partial to crosses, so he went to see God.

Jesus: "Hey Dad, I've got Hitler outside and he wants to come in now he's repented."

God: "Tell him to get lost!"

Jesus: "But Dad, he's given back all the gold that he stole from the Jews - except for a six foot, solid gold cross he can't find the owner for. He says I can have it."

God: "And what do you want with a solid gold cross? You couldn't even carry a wooden one!"

Dear mikk

Your laughing at all mankind's developments....I don't think its funny at all.

Life is serious business.

Tally

Well Mikk, couldn't resist:

When Goebbels arrived at the pearly gates, St. Peter told him that he is free to choose between heaven and hell.

So Goebbels asked to be taken into heaven, there he saw all over long-bearded Jews, radiantly happy, sitting at tables, praying and studying Torah.

Then he told Peter: "This is boring, can you take me to hell please?", to which Peter responded: "you can go there for one day only".

Goebbels agreed, went down to hell and there he saw everyone partying, lots of booze, women and merriment, but before he knew it time was over and he was taken up the elevator back to heaven.

Then Goebbels asked Peter, "please can I stay in hell instead?", so Peter responded: "Your elevator-bills are already running high: you may, but only if you sign here that you won't change your mind again."

So Goebbels signs happily, the elevator takes him down to hell and when the door opens, there's fire and brimstone and demons chase him with pikes, so he screams "Where are the parties? That's not what I had last time!", so the demons laugh: "The service you got last time was for tourists only!"

When a contest of ideas passes a certain point, where one side is no longer grounded in reality, is so extreme in its position that meaningful debate is no longer possible and their concepts become a tangible threat to society, then shame, mockery and ridicule become the most effective method of response.

The “time has come” signal arrives when society shuns the use of shooting the messenger, abuse, vilification, denigration and vexatious negativity. It is our society and a culture that will decide the fate of not only the ideas but also the methodologies and those who promote them. Ideas based on these “ corrupted values”, along with those who espouse and support them are being rejected by our society.

This rejection process is best exemplified by a real intellect confronting the vexatious negativity with the potent weapons of shame, mockery and ridicule.

If Ian Plimer needed confirmation of the power of ridicule, all he has to do is read the responses from those he shames.

Our “gatekeepers of thought” haven’t even worked out what just happened to them!

The article is on a superficial reading is quite funny, until one realises that it is actually promoting greed, pollution, discrimination and denigration of science. It attacks anybody to the left Genghis Khan and equates God to the business community. The only surprising thing is that it has failed to upset more people on this site.

Dear Warmair,

The article attempts to describe not God, but life in Australia, where people are unable to go about their life without encountering the government behind every corner. Many of us prefer to laugh than to cry over that which we cannot do anything about.

As a matter of fact, when was the last time a saint, a sage or a prophet was born in Australia? The article explains, though with humour, why they boycott this place!

Indeed spindoc, I think they just got savaged by a piece of wet lettuce!

Probably butterhead, or maybe iceberg.

Runner, April 20 writes; "I think it is hilarous that the same dishonest tactics that Ian used against creationist are now being used by the warmist religion against him." But she fails to realise that her hilarity is a guise for confusion. One can be reasonably certain that she has never read the Good Professor's book, Telling Lies for God. Lies against creationists? There's the hilarity! His book brilliantly reveals who the liars are and the dishonesty that saturates creationism and its adherents. Runner has no answer to the facts and vents her spleen in generalities. Her posts are more aligned to gain approval from her deity than to inform the unbeliever

Rhosty writes; ">The science supports the existence of evolution<

No it doesn't, it just supports the probability of adaptation compelled by change. And simply put, that single fact supports intelligent design!"

Your contrived and misrepresentative definition, simply put, is NOT A FACT but an arbitrary assertion dishonestly wrought in words that superficially emulate scientific expression. Adaptation by an organism to changing environmental influences is an established fact no better supported than by the example of Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands. The islands of the Pacific are natural laboratories demonstrating this law of nature a thousand-fold. The break-up of Pangea by tectonic forces demonstrates this on a global scale. Thus science supports the theory of evolution, a SCIENTIFIC theory so well supported by observation, predictability and experiment that it would be perverse not to regard it as a fact. It is however always subject to falsifiability but no evidence has been found that contradicts it in any way.

Also; "The entire theory of evolution is comletely dependent on a single celled organism erupting by pure change from, wait for it, a primordial soup for which there is no evidence;" Which of course is utter codswallop. Such an assertion is revealing of the profound intellectual indigence of the asserter. The science of abiogenesis deals with the origin[s] of life on Earth. It is a completely separate discipline of science within the biological sciences and is the subject of intense study. That our itellects are so far unsuccessful in solving the problem of how life emerged provides no genuine scientific reason to give up and shout "God must have done it!" [continued in my next post

The first "live organism" was not a single living cell. It was a combination of chemicals that are naturally attracted to each other because of the vacancies of position in the circulating elactrons. As 2 atoms of hydrogen are attracted to 1 atom of oxygen to make di-hydrogen oxide or WATER. Now I'm not saying water is alive, I am simply explaining what chemical attraction is. The smallest entity of a combination such as this that can exist on its own is a molecule. Over millions of years of varying conditions on Earth in thousands upon thousands of environments, untold numbers of molecules formed and broke up time after time until one molecule became so different it had the ability to replicate itself. That is how science currently sees the scenario in broad terms. A living cell, a highly complex mechanism, is predicted to have evolved several million years later.

The great MLK jr, a flawed but noble character admired by believer and unbeliever alike, said; "Nothing in the world is so dangerous as sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Creationism is constructed with both of these traits as pillars of foundation. And by your post Rhosty you have demonstrated how representative you are of the great man's lament

Dear Yuyutsu

The article attacks:-

Unions
Greens
The anti nuclear lobby
Anti pollution lobby
Renewable energy
Gaia
God
Astrologers
WWF
Vivisectionists
Gays
Animal liberationists
Communists
The left
Bureaucracy
EIS
And indirectly science
Human intelligence

On the other it promotes:-

The capitalist system
The market
Greed
Any type of development
Nuclear power
Fossil fuels
Economists
Hunting

While the article is probably aimed at Australia, the list is broadly international in scope.

Bugsy,

"I think this right up there with such conservative satire as "Julia Gillard on the menu" and "Abbotts tax plan". Although to be fair, Abbotts tax plan was really described as more of a 'morbid joke' than satire.

Ho ho, what a laugh we had at your expense.

I'll look forward to your advertising your Adelaide Fringe Festival gig on OLO Ian!

I'll be there with bells on."

Well, I suppose it was a valiant attempt...(why can't righties do satire well, I wonder?)....too long and rambling. I think Ian got carried away with the whole narrative - not to mention, he obviously thinks he's pretty good at this humour lark.

If it had been a little snappier and not so windbaggingly long, it might have evoked a titter from moi.

Still, all the righties here seem happy with a bit of long and rambling third rate satire...which is not surprising.

Dear Warmair,

It is indeed interesting how the same material can be read in so many different ways.

Yes, if the article is to be taken literally, then it is indeed paranoid. I admit that I read this article more in the way a child would watch a Charlie Chaplin movie, concentrating on the way he walks and falls rather on some grand social manifesto.

The message I got is: "You could even be God, yet you couldn't do what you want because the government will be out to get you." Why government and not "Unions; Greens; Anti-Nuclear lobby..."? because only government can take you to jail if you disobey: without it, the others might bark all the way but the convoy shall pass.