warmair, I have only just opened thus thread, so sorry fir any delay.

I find it funny how when the labor party is being flogged, the old mud has to be dug up, in a desperate attempt to make some stick.

The reality that you and all labor lovers simply have to accept, is that your beloved bunch of no hopers are gone for all money, as not even John Huston himself could loose this election.

But at least once this mob are gone, a real government can go about attacking climate change as one of the global contributors we are, not the stand out heroes labor want us to be.

Btw, come September 14, you can stay in bed mate, cause your vote, or non vote won't make a scerik of difference.

Ar I love self destruction, but if only Julia has accepted defeat, gracefully last time, her fall from grace would not have been such a hard fall.

Perhaps Anna may be able to write her CV.

Quote rehctub

Btw, come September 14, you can stay in bed mate, cause your vote, or non vote won't make a scerik of difference.
________________________________________________________________________________________

I am not a huge fan of the labour government but yet if every body stays in bed, based on the view that the result is a foregone conclusion, nobody will get elected.Where my vote will make a difference is in the senate

@ Spindoctor Sunday, 3 March 2013 9:55:24 AM

1. Yes.
Do you not think we have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, they have about 1 month left to sign up.

4. Is where your spin is turbo-charged guff. You could read this, to the bottom:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

You have previously acknowledged that inherent in UNFCCC policy making is political, sociocultural and religious complexities. Policy making decisions are not always made as best and as quickly as we would like, but decisions they are. It’s not easy.

One thing the politicians, economists and religious extremists can’t do is change the science.

Just because politicians, economists and religious extremists don’t want to take timely action to live in a more environmentally, ecologically and economically sustainable way does not make the science wrong - they base their inaction on extraneous reasons. For example; Budget Gillard, Crap Abbott and NoNuke Milne.

Think about it.

qanda,

If you don’t mind, I’ll answer any questions on my own thanks. I don’t actually need you to both pose the question and then insert an answer on my behalf.

<< You have previously acknowledged that inherent in UNFCCC policy making is political, sociocultural and religious complexities>>.

Actually no, what I said was socio-political and religious, meaning that ideological mantra’s do no require cognitive skills. A perspective that you and your friends demonstrate without much help from me.

You say << Just because politicians, economists and religious extremists don’t want to take timely action to live in a more environmentally, ecologically and economically sustainable way does not make the science wrong - they base their inaction on extraneous reasons >>

Oh yeh! You mean those who refuse to accept your alarmism, failed predictions and flawed science that even your own side now say isn’t valid?

What do you want from us? To help you convince our political “extremists” that there really is some good CAGW science? Do you want us to have a chat with the “religious extremists” who disagree with you? Do you want us to provide an economic case to the economic extremists who consistently refute your case?

It’s always the same isn’t it, if we don’t agree with you we are all “extremists? Isn’t it time you reviewed your own scientific proposition and asked yourself why your science is no longer credible enough to convince the Kyoto signatories, the renewable energy investors and the emission trading markets to divvy up some more public funds to stop the egg on face heading your way?

I once respected your passion for your cause, but the more pressure to which you are subjected, the more infantile your responses.

Grow up and get another life qanda

You directed your post at me and asked the questions, I answered.

Just because you don't like my answers you resort to ad-hom - that's infantile.

spindoc,

Hey, hey, Boo Boo (As Yogi would say:)..here's a "skeptical" fella who asks questions - and then when the person they are directed to answers them he says:

"If you don't mind, I'll answer the questions on my own thanks.I don't actually need you to both pose the question and then answer on my behalf."

Um...you're the one who asked questions and is complaining because someone answered them.

You're the one who seems to want to pose them and answer them too.

Talk about an infantile response.