SR,

"You fantasy was to base you starting figures on the year a PM came into power which was completely ludicrous and once again totally negates any sense of you being an honest broker in this."

I know that, with your rather limited numeric skills, this won't make much sense, but the choice of start or end year doesn't really affect the point I made. Start in 1996 and end in 2007 or start in 1997 and end in 2008 and you still end up showing that your claims about immigration under Howard were bollocks. Just like your claims about Rudd. Just like your claims about Gillard. Just like your claims about Abbott. All bollocks.

"If you wanted to tell them they are wrong go ahead. Sure they include construction in their definition ..."

So you claim that the number is 30% and then can only find data that doesn't support that claim and only gets close to it by including things like construction and mining. And yet you still think your assertions are valid. Nice! And if you're going to compare this new not-30% statistic to Australia then you'll also need to include construction and mining in the Australian comparison figure. But that will negate your point so I guess that won't happen.

"As to emissions of course going to renewables in their energy sector has reduced the figure from what it would have been without them."

Reduced to mere assertions. If only the numbers supported your claim. But alas. In fact, its entirely possible that favouring renewables has increased their emissions since they still need base-load to cover for the failing wind sector.

favouring renewables has increased their emissions since they still need base-load to cover for the failing wind sector.
mhaze,
Amazing that no-one has tried to contradict you on this after two days ?

Dear mhaze,

You charged;

“So you claim that the number is 30% and then can only find data that doesn't support that claim and only gets close to it by including things like construction and mining.”

Which is why I said “close to” you clown.

Enough already with the continual verbaling. It is deceitful and just strips away any credibility you might be bring to the table.

Look, I enjoy our exchanges. There aren't too many people on here who make me properly defend my positions. By doing so you help me give rigor to my arguments when I employ them in the real world. But there has to be some degree of honest brokerage or else the whole thing is just an inane exercise in one-upmanship.

"Which is why I said “close to” you clown."

Well you didn't say that...I did.

"Enough already with the continual verbaling."

Here's what happens. I read your posts and see something that doesn't make sense to me eg how many US troops in SKorea, size of Germany's manufacturing workforce. So I go and research it. Sometimes I find its right and that means I adjust my opinion. Sometimes I find it wrong but inconsequential to the discussion but of interest to me alone. So I don't post on it but file it away in the memory banks.

And sometimes I find it wrong and of consequence and I post the data. The tone of that and subsequent posts depends on the tone of the person who made the error. If they post the erroneous data in a pompous of condescending manner, I reciprocate. If not I merely note the correction.