You really couldn't make this stuff up, but climate activist academics do.

The following is a few examples, from just one day at various web sites. Once we have got rid of the UN creeps, the next job is to get rid of the dills who hand out tax payer dollars to so called scientists whos research produces this junk.

Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed.

Climate change could wake up Canada’s dormant volcanoes.

Climate change and wildfires;

Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.

Permian Extinction… Because Climate Change!

Washington Post: The UN Needs Enforcement Authority to Solve the Climate Crisis.

Italy Proposes €6000 (US $6800) Vehicle Sales Tax to Subsidise Green Electric Vehicles.

Fishermen Sue Big Oil For Its Role In Climate Change.

Part of the reason for the riots in Parris, & spreading, is that Macron announced a tax on ICE cars, to be used to subsidise the cost of electric cars.

How much of this rabid ratbag stuff will it take before the useful idiots start to realise this is total stupidity. They are being taken for a ride & helping give our freedom to the elite. If the academics actually believe this garbage it shows that belief in the scam can addle your brain.

Most of them don't of course, believe any of this stuff, but hope it helps with their next grant application. It they want to publish some truth they could write a paper explaining that “Climate change promotion makes academics dishonest”. They would of course lose their job, but could then know that at least once, they had published the truth.

And in passing it appears few have learned that General Motors are pulling the plug on the Volt. Despite about $8000 subsidy from the long suffering US tax payer even doctors wives won’t buy them.

Strange isn’t that the media who praised the thing to the roof are strangely silent on its demise. I guess another global warming agenda failure doesn’t fit their propaganda.

They have to continue making stuff up (lying) as everyone of their claims and threats get rolled, as they have over the last 30 years. There is too much money in it for them to give up. Most of them have made very lucrative careers out of the CO2-caused myth of climate change. Perhaps they could be persuaded to take up fiction writing, because they have been good at making things up about the climate.

Or Alternatively, if that doesn't win 'em over - 'Blame Russia'.
Putin's responsible for everything.

As for climate change, 'Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring'.
- That's really all you need to know about it -

Above that, you're expected to use your human ingenuity to master your own environment.
Buy insulation or an air conditioner; or something.

Didn't Al Gore say that the world would be wiped out by 2015 by the rise of sea level?
How much cash did he make you idiots?

I think we'd all better go down the beach again to check and make sure the ocean is still where we left it, just in case.

Here are 4 things that should put even a little doubt into peoples minds.

1. Out of 100% exactly how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

2. What is the optimal average temperature the planet should be?

3. Scientists made all the predictions in the past without knowing there was another cause for the ice melting "a radioactive heat source is slowly melting it from underneath" could there be more things that influence climate change?

4. Take the trillions of dollars away from the solution, would there still be a problem? That's how much money will go from so called rich countries to poor VIA the bankers and Al Gore and others they will make billions.

Humans elected Donald Trump, do not be surprised if you find some are stupid
Some flat earthers even think finding a list of fools will change a truth
Daylight saving after all fades the curtains and puts the chooks off laying

yep well we accepted the big band and evolution as 'science' so why not this c-ap. Consensus pseudo 'science' being as a tool to make a mockery of true science. The Greens and Labour set policy on this rubbish. Thankfully Turnbull is gone so hopefully the Liberal party will put Australia first and ditch Paris fraud.

Come on Belly, long before Trump enough of them were not only stupid enough to elect Obama, but even with 4 years of watching the corrupt clown, they were stupid enough to re-elect him.

And wouldn't you know, it is the ones who elected Obama that are stupid enough to have fallen for the global warming scam.

Now we see both May & Macron having to be given big wake up calls, to remind them who they should be serving. How much longer before that fool Merkel is given her marching orders. Surely she has done enough damage to the German economy.

The wave is gathering strength, & "with a little bit of luck, just a little bit of luck", will turn into a tsunami to sweep all this politically correct multiculturalism, along with socialism back into the box it escaped from.

A symptom SM? thinking the world is mad but you are ok
See God got in to this subject
Best cop it, he like climate deniers are not followers of facts or truth

I don't have any climate change stories to share.
What I do have is the recent experiences of the
most incredible sunsets we've been seeing here in
our suburb. Rainbows and all - sheer magic!

So it's not only the shops that are glistening -
but so's Mother Nature out here. And to top it all
off - the elderly at the nearby Nursing Home (where
my mum used to be) where I volunteer twice a week -
singing their hearts out with Christmas Carols -
truly bringing Joy to the World.

Though you'd like to know!

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT!

Hasbeen Merkel is not the leader she quit the leadership (idiots gave her a 10 minute standing ovation ) about 6 days ago.

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has been elected leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party, bringing Angela Merkel's 18 years at the helm to an end.

'So it's not only the shops that are glistening -
but so's Mother Nature out here. And to top it all
off - the elderly at the nearby Nursing Home (where
my mum used to be) where I volunteer twice a week -
singing their hearts out with C'

thanks Foxy hope no Christophobe spoils your future ability to sing carols by taking offense. They have already driven carols out of most god denying schools.

Nature is trying around here too Foxy.

The rain came a bit late for the silky oaks this year, & the jacarandas are far from their best, but I have never seen the Poincianas so flamboyant this far south, & my hibiscus seem to think it's Christmas.

It is drying out a bit now, but if we get the promised downpours this weekend, it will ne a green bright Christmas.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock. Still banging away on your old drum as the village idiot it seems.

What do the rest of the lads at the Mens Shed think of your carrying on like a pork chop? Or are blokes like Frank, Gary and Theo all of the same mind (actually I know they are not)? Is it a little like the Liberal Party, disavow the science or get the boot?

So your state has a whole series of record temperatures for this time of the year and extensive bushfires, some entering rainforests in a manner they never have before, yet all you can do is blame the Greens? That is the very definition of 'thick'.

I am starting to get on in years but I really hope I never get as daft as you old matey although getting deaf must be a bonus as you can't hear them laughing behind your back.

Anyway, which of your so called headlines do you find the most egregious? Whichever it is I will dissect it to see if it has any substance. Your call.

Dear Foxy,

The first half way decent sprinkle in a while. Some of the water authority dams down our way are the lowest they have been since the millennial drought and it was starting to look pretty serious so the is a good Christmas present for sure.

Hey Hasbeen,
Merkels gone...
Let me introduce to you the Mini-Merkel
http://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/new-leader-chosen-to-replace-germany-s-angela-merkel-20181208-p50l04.html

AC, you've got to be kidding.
I can only deduce from the appointment of all these females to the top of their respective political parties as a sign that things are that bad because of PC, or that all the men have found out world politics status are heading for a real bad time, so the guys are saying, no I don't want to be remembered as the person who ran the country into recession or worse, depression.
The obvious thing to do is put the females up, to cop the flack, while the men sit back all snug and warm in the house, sleeping and only waking to look interested, every now and then, all along waiting for things to get better, naturally, then stepping back into the top job.
And so it is there are so many women in the top job, and not because they were the best choice, but the most expendable.
I can't wait to hear what pearls another female is going to come up with regarding Climate Change.

Nice to see those useful idiots are still yabbering away.

Of course Hassy would be a climate change denier, after spending 50 years poisoning the Great Barrier Reef by pumping his dirty bilge water all over it from his rusty tub, what else can you expect!

Foxy you are a gem, your wishes taken on board and returned, to every single poster here yes including runner and ALTRAV
Here we are again, on the OLO border, we have one you know
On just about any subject those of us calling a spade a spade will be told we are lefty idiots and in fact it is a broom
One side of the man made climate change debate has had the wool pulled over their eyes
We are told it is us believers
We know about bush fires in the Arctic circle, over 40 degrees even in spring.
We here daily of melting ice, the UN and other world bodys warn us, our government yesterday in Poland, along with Disneyland, aw all right America, was the only two country,s who attended a pro fossil fuel meeting
Have yourselves a very merry Christmas everyone and in all probability a hot one

The "left liberals/ labor/ greens" won't encourage population control and responsible culture the "right liberals/ free traders" won't admit to climate change- world population is the problem.

The "left liberals" won't acknowledge that there is no good solution to energy. Elon Musk says that we have to solve the sustainable energy conundrum- we haven't yet...

Australia should develop a nuclear industry for defense... and energy.

There are too many people.

Foxy,

I'm not so sure its politically correct to say Merry Christmas these days.

Might I suggest, as an alternative:

Happy holidays or

Happy Saturnalia or

Merry Festivus or

Just start preparing your grandkids for their future by saying Allahu Akbar.

__________________________________________________________________

It seems the usual suspects have the jargon down pat - no data forthcoming but the standard 'denier' and 'flat-earther' moronosity spread liberally around.

My impression is that the 'non-deniers' don't actually know why they are required to believe that we're all gunna die because of CO2, but they've been so used to just following the herd for so long that they do it instinctively.

For those who preen themselves on following THE science perhaps these would be of value:

Smirnov, 2018 : "The line-by-line method gives the change of the global temperature K as a result of doubling the carbon dioxide concentration. The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now."

Davis et al, 2018 : "Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most."

Meanwhile the vast majority of nations are pumping out more CO2 than ever, the French have said enough is enough, the US fracks its way to reduced emissions and our politicians continue to pretend that we have some control over the climate.

CM, I don't understand your last paragraph and how it fits in with the preceding points.
Can you elaborate on, 'there are too many people'?
Or what do you mean by this?

Thank You everyone for your Good Wishes.

I've done all my Christmas shopping, sent out all my cards,
both locally and overseas,
and am now getting the house in order and have my
cooking supplies sorted and ready to go. It will be Carols
by Candelight coming up (it's still raining), and my spirits
are high. It will be another big family get-together at our
house, as always.

Once again - to all of you - Wishing you All the Joys of this
Beautiful Season, and Good Health, Joy, Love, and Laughter,
for the New Year 2019!

Be kind to each other.

Dear Foxy,

I've been an atheist all my life, but I happily sing all the carols with my singing group - why should God have all the best tunes ? - I really go for the high note at the end of 'The Holy City' and especially love 'Mary's Boy Child' and Mariah Carey's 'All I want is - you'.

There are many wonderful lessons to be learnt from the Bible, maybe not so much from the 'love god, get down on your knees, he'll give you eternal life in return' stuff but stories like the Good Samaritan - could this selfless behaviour ever be approved of in any other religion - to help someone who is NOT of your own group ? - and the awareness that much of the early push against slavery came from Christians, especially Quakers. 'Chains shall he break, because the slave is our brother' - is there the slightest hint of this in, say, the Koran ? Yes, western countries supported slavery, but were also the first to abolish it - Britain around 1809 (compare Saudi Arabia: officially abolished around 1962, but ... ). For compassion, I still get emotional over the story of Judah and Tamar. And of course, Esther.

Behind the worshipful guff are important principles, perhaps unintended but still there. I'm not interested in eternal life - I'll live out my span (which is already much longer than the world average), then I'll go. If there is a god, he/she can do whatever he/she likes with my remains. But there are far more important issues in Christianity than some selfish desire to live forever, and therefore to constantly praise and fawn over a god, jut in case. I agree with Schopenhauer who suggested that, if a Christian could be persuaded that there as no eternal life, he/she would become an atheist in twenty minutes.

But they can't take away that wonderful Good Samaritan story.

So I hope you have the very best Christmas celebrations with all your loved ones.

Love,

Joe

There was another reminder today of the lies told by climate change crooks in the past. In 2008, a UK government official said we had seven years to save the planet. A writer for The Observer confidently predicted we had 10 years to save the planet. That was in 2006. The UK-based New Economics Foundation said we had 100 months to save the planet… 124 months ago. And, on and on, the lies still coming.

I note the clear lack of CC believers not having anything to say about the recent news, which explained why the water from one of the poles, can't remember which, (maybe the North Pole) was warmer than many years ago.
It had nothing to do with CC, but everything to do with a nuclear source beneath the ground.
The ground is apparently thinner there and this has given the opportunity for the heat generated by this, below ground source to heat the surrounding area, thereby causing the glaciers and ice to melt.
And this is the reason the water coming from the North Pole is warmer.
NOT CLIMATE CHANGE!

Dear Philip S and AC,

Merkel gone?

Come on you two. Merkel is still the Chancellor of Germany and will remain there until 2021.

Making even a small effort to get these things right would be welcome.

SteeleRedux - Good call it appears you are right regarding Merkel.

She has not sort re-election as party leader in the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) new person took over 1 week ago.

She will not seek re-election as chancellor in 2021

ALTRAV Quote
"I note the clear lack of CC believers not having anything to say about the recent news, which explained why the water from one of the poles, can't remember which, (maybe the North Pole) was warmer than many years ago.
It had nothing to do with CC, but everything to do with a nuclear source beneath the ground.
The ground is apparently thinner there and this has given the opportunity for the heat generated by this, below ground source to heat the surrounding area, thereby causing the glaciers and ice to melt.
And this is the reason the water coming from the North Pole is warmer.
NOT CLIMATE CHANGE!"

I am confused you seem to be bringing up something that does not appear on here but there is a whole thread on from Nov 28th.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8543#271152

SteeleRedux Having re-read what AC and I wrote, neither of us said or implied she quit as Chancelor

My comment as you can see, she quit the leadership but of the CDU, as it clearly states in the second sentence.
I will accept a fail for not differentiating between CDU leadership and the position of Chancelor in this instance.

"Hasbeen Merkel is not the leader she quit the leadership (idiots gave her a 10 minute standing ovation ) about 6 days ago.

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has been elected leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party, bringing Angela Merkel's 18 years at the helm to an end."

I'll let SteeleRedux have this one Philip S.

-Well truthfully I don't really have a choice;
I hold myself accountable to the same rules that I hold others to
The only way to get to the truth is to separate arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.
And so: Prove me wrong on merit and I will concede, and you'll earn my respect.

I'm not going to get angry and try and wiggle out of it if someone proves their argument fair and square.
I did say Merkel was 'gone' and this was incorrect in the way any reasonable person would take it.

I never fight to win when I'm already proven wrong.
It's easier to just accept the error, concede the point and move on.
- Plus it's a small lesson and reminder to stay true to facts, and I think it just makes one look more stupid to continue to argue from a proven false position;
- But that's just me -

What I'd actually seen prior to commenting was a short clip showing Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer elected head of the CDU and being congratulated and embraced by Angela Merkel, and that's certainly not the same as what I related in my comment.

I was wrong and misinformed the forum, and deserved to be called on my error.
It's ok, no real harm done.

Another one today!

Climate Change is Creating Dangerous Hybrid Puffer Fish.

As I said, you couldn't make this garbage up. Well you couldn't unless you were an academic desperate for a grant.

What will it take for our useful idiots to realise they are being scammed?

I must admit there are some interesting stories in the media about climate change. Sadly I haven't the time to sort out the signal from the noise.

In order for the Earth to heat up - energy in > energy out. Simple.

The earth gets its energy from the Sun and from radioactive fission.

"At the upper reaches of our atmosphere, the energy density of solar radiation is approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter)."

So EnergyIn/time = 1368 x Cross Sectional Area of the Earth (pi x 6000^3^2) Joules/second

By monitoring the Sun it's possible to calculate the radiation hitting the Earth over time. By monitoring the Earth it's possible to calculate the radiation leaving the Earth. If you subtract the EnergyIn - EnergyOut you can calculate if the Earth is retaining Energy from the Sun.

Heat energy from radioactive sources appear to be very small compared with the energy from the Sun. See below...

http://earthsky.org/earth/what-is-the-source-of-the-heat-in-the-earths-interior
while the heat energy produced inside Earth is enormous, it’s some 5,000 times less powerful than what Earth receives from the sun.

I'm not sure if this is the way that Scientists calculate these things but it's the way I would do it

Philip, thanks for the heads up.
Your article you refer to is exactly the one I speak of.
I am just relieved that you have made reference to it so I don't have to argue with the usual bunch of clowns as to the validity and then the origin of my comments.
You have given me the backing always asked of me from the know-nothings of the world and in particular those here on OLO.
This should be another rather large nail in the coffins of the CC clowns
Thanks.

On a slightly different note:

SteeleRedux a little while back was all gung-ho that Trump had to pay Elizabeth Warren on a bet because she'd proven that she was an Indian.

Today Fauxacontas admitted that she wasn't "a person of color".

Oh dear, what to do when the facts don't match what you soooooooo want to be true.

Ignore the facts, obviously.

Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 14 December 2018 9:25:55 AM
CM, I don't understand your last paragraph and how it fits in with the preceding points. Can you elaborate on, 'there are too many people'?
Or what do you mean by this?

Posted by Canem Malum, Friday, 14 December 2018 8:39:31 AM
The "left liberals/ labor/ greens" won't encourage population control and responsible culture the "right liberals/ free traders" won't admit to climate change- world population is the problem.
The "left liberals" won't acknowledge that there is no good solution to energy. Elon Musk says that we have to solve the sustainable energy conundrum- we haven't yet...
Australia should develop a nuclear industry for defense... and energy.
There are too many people.

Comment1- "left liberals/ labor/ greens" won't encourage population control and responsible culture. The "left liberals" won't acknowledge that there is no good solution to energy.
Meaning1- If people are the cause of loss of habitat, environmental damage, etc. If the Labor party supports policy to increase Australia's population and doesn't encourage high population countries to reduce their populations to levels that balance the environment with mans activities. A responsible culture/ conservative culture is one that takes responsibility and controls their actions- it's difficult to get a liberal culture to act responsibly perhaps- as freedom takes primacy over stability and sustainability by definition. A liberal culture is not free when it is controlled. A "free" culture tends to be overwhelming of those unable to speak- it tries to be too smart for its own good- in the end just creates a new privileged class- that privileges itself over the environment.

The "left liberals" won't acknowledge that there is no good solution to energy- if there is no good solution to energy then they can't blame the businesses- the problem then reverts to the problem of trying to control the behavior of the population- but they believe in Social Libertarianism- raison d'être.

Comment3- Australia should develop a nuclear industry for defense... and energy.

Meaning3- If Australia has a low density population then high density population nations will always see this as an opportunity to expand. A low density population can't defend itself against the will of the high density population for long by traditional conventional means- but a low density mankind is better for the environment and stability. Nuclear weapons and perhaps WMD's appear to be the only way to prevent an invasion of some form- ironically nuclear weapons may be what saves rather than destroys us. Powers such as India and China currently have nuclear weapons and probably see Australia as a soft target. Part of the reason nations expand their populations perhaps is for power in its various forms- few willingly give up sources of power- so populations get larger- more so for rising powers. If a culture or nation fails to manage things then it will eventually become someone elses problem to manage. Water will continue to flow until it is stopped- Western liberal culture has developed to a point that it is unwilling to stop. Liberal culture is nihilistic in conclusion- but there is no vacuum in politics- therefore it seems likely to prepare the way for the next system- like John The Baptist. Liberal culture doesn't acknowledge the bad side of man as freedom is good- by definition- in liberal culture (whether Social or Economic) the only bad is that which stops freedom. For this reason Conservatism is the Liberal definition of evil.

But good things never happen by themselves.

Altrav- I hope this explains the view point of the original comment a little better.

CM, WOW, thanks for that.
I don't think I'll be able to sleep for a while after reading your response.
Much appreciated, I only hope I can retain or even understand some of what you have said.
I applaud your linguistic and humanities skills, you far outreach me.
Again thank you, always look forward to your comments.
I think you are what I am not, but would like to be.

And even another.

"Climate change causes time travel? Humans turning clock back 50 million years". The Pliocene is coming to get you.

They are even trying to frighten the children that the Dinosaurs could come back.

Surely our warmists should be starting to realise there can't be this much smoke, with out a fire producing it. All this useless garbage coming out academia in an attempt to support the UN sponsored scam.

I wonder if they realise they have just knocked their tipping points rhetoric, necessary for global warming to happen, into the dust. The world was between 3.5 & 6 degrees hotter, but did not go into some runaway fireball.

Come on kiddies, apply some common sense, think a little, & join the realists. Global warming is a con, or it wouldn't require so much bulldust to try to keep it going.

Never been to a protest in my life, but I might just order a yellow vest for when a worthwhile one reaches here.

Hasbeen,

The link below tells us that - there's lots of
confusion around climate change, so read on to
clear up myth from fact:

http://wwf.org.uk/updates/10-myths-about-climate-change

Hasbeen, the link in question tells us 'there is lot's of confusion around Climate Change.
The first clear fact, is by it's own admission of confusion.
If something is obvious, there is NO confusion.
Then the whole thing is riddled with could be, might be, it's possible, and so on.
Where are the firm factual assertions that cannot be challenged and thereby eliminating any doubts or confusion?
It's just another of many attempts to find justification for keeping the CC movement alive.
This article carries no weight compared to one that both philip and I coincidentally mentioned, regarding the recent discovery of a nuclear heat source beneath the North Pole, explaining finally the reason for the warming of water from the region, and not anthropogenic after all.
So with the benefit of time we are slowly debunking the CC myths.

Hasbeen,

The given link is one from an International Network, the
most experienced independent conservation organisation. It has
millions of supporters active in over 100 countries. It's
mission is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural
environment and to find solutions to the challenges
confronting us. It works with governments. industry, and local
communities to allow humans to live in harmony with nature.

The link also provides other sources of information that
you can follow up to check on the authenticity of their claims.

Just thought you as an intelligent man - would like to know.

Foxy Quote " The given link is one from an International Network, the
most experienced independent conservation organisation. It has millions of supporters active in over 100 countries."

So that glowing reference is supposed to make them infallible, not with me.

From you link.
1. "CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a GREEN gas which plants, crops and trees need to grow. This is true, but in the context of climate change, this is misinformed."

** There rebuttal to this ONLY include man as the cause no other and does not say % wise by how much. **

9. "Global warming was made up as a way to make money."

Climate change has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; if it was a conspiracy by one group, then why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 97% of climate scientists, with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory. You can check the data and the science right now if you want to.

Supported by 97% of climate scientists. I say BS. That has been proven a false statement.

Big organization and they can't even get the grammar right. quote "with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory.

Philip S,

Did you click onto their "Climate Change" section
and elsewhere?

cont'd ...

There's much more on the link to click.
If you have any questions - they'll happily
help you out. As for the number of scientists?
That has already been verified.

cont'd ...

Philip S.,

Here's the link to prove it:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Foxy the WWF is one of the greatest rip off merchants, along with Greenpeace on earth.

I can't imagine why you would suggest such a lying organisation to anyone as a source of information. They could not lie straight in bed.

It sure tells why you have such greeny ideas if you believe anything coming out of such a bunch.

Foxy - You are so blinded at the moment that any discussion with you would be futile.

People on here have shown some evidence was wrong or had to have been calculated incorrectly but you can't see it or blindly do not want to see it.

Wait till you and your grandchildren start paying through the nose so to speak to fix what is not broken.

As time goes by and more so called evidence is proven wrong we can start again.

Guys, here's another one that 'went through to the keeper'.
Just one of many questions for the CC freaks.
If this CC is so serious, so dangerous, a matter of life and death, with all this urgency and threat of death and the list goes on, would we not have seen some REAL and tangible results which were actually turning things around, instead of all this money and grants and research which has achieved nothing in over forty years with NO real advancement in any of the alternative energy sources.
Solar has been around since the beginning of the 20th century, as was wind, even earlier.
The only two left in the race and they are both older than most posters on OLO.
There is nothing new about renewables today other than the 'tidying up' of an old technology, to make it seem like a new technology.
Sure batteries are slightly more efficient today, but that was already in the pipeline well before CC came along.
These are undeniable facts just like the failure of the renewables to even come close to nuclear or other older tried and true technology.
So in closing, we must ask, if CC is so serious and it has been talked about for a very long time, then why are we really no further advanced than we were nearly a century ago?
The answer is; Because it's all a load of BS and there are too many people making too much money from it, otherwise we would have had the new technology up and running well and truly by now, to mitigate the death of all living things on Earth.
So by logical deduction, CC cannot be a real thing, and so we are not seeing any real response to a BS problem.

Struth, WWF explaining how the we're-all-gunna-die meme really really is real. What's next? ISIS explaining how Islam really really is the religion pf peace and how the 10 year old sex slaves really benefit from it?

Just take one of their ten mythbusts - the bridge analogy. Here's what I wrote to Rache a while back when she fell for the story:

" how did that 97% figure came about...Two researchers sent out two questions to ~10000 scientists. About 3000 replied. When the researchers compiled the answers they didn't like the results. So they started discarding certain types of scientists eg geologists, solar experts and so on. Finally they got the result they wanted - 75 out of 77 (97%) answered yes to both questions. Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000. Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate. But it was the result they wanted so.....

So what were the two questions..1. Do you think temperatures have increased since 1800 and 2." “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Significant wasn't defined so could mean anything from 10% to 100%.

So back to your engineers. They aren't saying the bridge isn't safe. They are saying its changed since it was built and man played some part in it. That's it....

But since we're now in the realms of pretend let's say that most of your 97 engineers think it will be unsafe at some time. When?
Tomorrow? Next month? Next year? No, in fact it'll be toward the end of the century. So they aren't saying you shouldn't cross now but that your great grand-kids shouldn't cross it in 80 or 90 years because it'll be unsafe then.

Now we know our great grandkids will be immeasurably more wealthy we we are, and we know that they'll have access to technology that our futurists haven't even imagined yet, but somehow we also think they'll be morons who won't be able to repair the bridge themselves. So we have to do it for them."

The mindless insult
Hurled at those of us who believe the science?
Why
Just think very near half of the world agrees with us
Many many country,s do too
What is it that brings people to be so outright dreadful when talking of those with another opinion

Altrav- Thanks for your feedback.

Trump on the Paris agreement:

“The Paris Accord is not working out too well for Paris." (referring to the yellow vest riots).

Those riots are people finally deciding that they can't pay any more to the global warming gods.

But we see it all over. Do a survey and large numbers will agree that 'sumfing' should be done about GW. But someone else should pay for that 'sumfing'. Part of the angst in Paris is that the measures fall disproportionately on country-folk while the elites get a pass.

How many stories have we seen of people telling us that we have to sacrifice while they continue their CO2 generating lifestyle. As Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe GW is real when those telling me its real starting acting like its real.

Its here as well. Greenies based in the cities are just fine with closing down Adani and any other coal mine. Job losses don't matter to them - its not their jobs.

But when it does affect them - electricity prices, petrol? Then the government is required to do 'sumfing'. We've been through how many PMs trying to reconcile the desire to do something about GW with the demand that that something affect someone else.

If the Libs/ALP/Greens really thought we're-all-gunna-die then they'd be telling people that they welcome higher electricity prices, higher (much much higher) petrol prices. They don't because they don't.

Belly,

"The mindless insult...what is it that brings people to be so outright dreadful when talking of those with another opinion"

Yeah, right-on. Like calling some a flat-earther, a denier or just stupid because they have different views on the THE science (sarc).

Luckily Belly, you're so fair-minded and 'woke' that you'd never do that, heh?

Gentlemen,

The evidence is compelling.

You're outnumbered by the experts and scientists.

You can brush things aside all you want. The facts
are there and they are real.

I've given links from NASA. Here's another one with
evidence:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Also people like - documentary maker and environmentalist -
David Attenborough have urged world leaders to act as
leaders and limit global warming, which he called
"our greatest threat in thousands of years."

His call to tackle climate change was made at the United
Nations (UN) two week climate conference 2018 in
Katowice, Poland, on Monday December 3rd, 2018, where he
was given a "People's Seat" (representing the world's
people). There's more in the link below:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/kids-news/news/documentary-maker-sir-david-attenborough-calls-for-world-leaders-to-act-to-save-our-planet/news-story/ac41bc91a3e9676d10057d7a8f151e8e

Dear Philip S,

You first say; “ Good call it appears you are right regarding Merkel.”

Then you backtrack on culpability by saying; “Having re-read what AC and I wrote, neither of us said or implied she quit as Chancelor”

I'm afraid a technicality doesn't wash here old chum but rather leaves you in a less than flattering light. At least AC had the good graces to properly concede. I give him a tick for that.

Dear mhaze,

Are you really still smarting that much from losing the argument last time? This is pretty simple so I will repeat the situation. Trump said Warren did not have any indigenous ancestry, she said she did. Trump offered Warren $1,000,000 to her favourite charity if she would take a DNA test. Warren did and it proved she had indigenous ancestry. Trump then denied he had made the bet but when pressured said he would only pay if he could do the test himself.

Time to get over it mate.

SteeleRedux You read into things what is not there. Normally I would not even come back to you on this one, I was going to let you have a win, but you think you are so right with your comeback.
**
My exact comment.
Hasbeen Merkel is not the leader she quit the leadership (idiots gave her a 10 minute standing ovation ) about 6 days ago.

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has been elected leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party, bringing Angela Merkel's 18 years at the helm to an end.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 13 December 2018 5:57:24 PM
**

1st sentence "Hasbeen Merkel is not the leader she quit the leadership"
Clear and concise, if you only read this sentence, she quit the leadership.

2nd sentence "Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has been elected leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party"
Clear and concise, It says who is the new leader and WHAT she is the leader of.

Technicality, no you read only part of my comment or you read into it to mean chancellor which as anyone can see is not there.

As stated before.
I will accept a fail for not differentiating between CDU leadership and the position of Chancelor in this instance.

mhaze unfortunately we are all fallible including you
IF you can find it in you to defend the rant posted by ALTRAV then you have my sympathy
Foxy heard about trying to force a camel through the eye of a needle?
Just maybe the science is true, well it is, however we do not need to get down in the gutter to bad mouth those who think differently
I QUESTION the constant insults posted by a few, are we adults of badly behaved children
An inability to be civil is displayed here by a few

Belly, I will put my name on the list of names I believe you were aiming your question at.
Firstly, I find that too many people don't have the courage to say what they feel, for fear of being shunned or rejected.
This accounts for most of the population,"nearly half of the world agrees with us"??"Many countries do too"??
Secondly, because of this fact, things are mis-represented and so taken as fact, this is un-acceptable and must not be allowed to continue unchecked.
Thirdly, what some call insults or offensive, is a matter of opinion.
If in the normal course of ones delivery of a topic, the wording is not to the reader/listeners liking, they have the right to be offended, but not the right to call the one commenting, offensive.
The commentor is equally offended by being told they are offensive, so it seems that we must talk in a way that is not ourselves.
Consider this then, having a conversation with ten people, they all get offended at different times throughout the discussion.
In your opinion, which type of discussion do I use because I stand to still offend nine of them, whatever language, words, or method of delivery, I use.
Finally the ONLY appropriate and logical form of conversation is to speak your mind, in your manner, in your words, it's your right and you know the old saying, 'you can't please everyone'.
Belly, what is offensive is when you and those of similar attitudes try to virtue signal or virtue shame others as a response to exactly the same things you accuse me and others like me of.
Belly we may not be claiming that we are absolutely right all the time but we are stating that you are possibly wrong all the time.

What a pack of buffoons. All the product of a huge amount of spending from the fossil fuel industry, well exceeding what was spent by the tobacco industry.

There is not a scientific bone in any of you and yet you sit here running mantras directly from PR companies intent on spreading disinformation to retain profits. Why? Well the only way you could have so divorced yourself from the scientific reality as to be able to be making such sweeping statements of nonsense is if you felt you had some authority to do so. This is despite any expertise in the area at all.

Truly mindless minions the lot.

The vast majority of those working at the cutting edge of climate science are deeply concerned about the clear present and future impacts of climate change. Many are trying to figure out what that world will look like because human greed will likely stymie much of the action required to halt the warming. Sure some of the studies being done are questionable, but the vast majority are not. They are giving us a much needed heads up on what mitigation measures will be vital.

For this ignorant, pissant, bunch of deniers to be pillorying them in such a manner is typical. Unfortunately they are not self regulating like those who didn't believe smoking caused lung cancer and continued puffing away at 2 packs a day. They have found a refuge on OLO where they can gee each other on, safe in their smugness and bombast.

IF we were smart we would study the reasons for the flood that wiped out the earth thousands of years ago. It certainly did not fit any climate model.

//IF we were smart we would study the reasons for the flood that wiped out the earth thousands of years ago.//

XD

Yeah, and while we're at it we should conduct some proper scientific research into how the White Witch of Narnia was able to alter the climate so that it was always winter.

Foxy you are doing it again.

David Attenborough, like his brother was an actor. He was given the job of narrator of a wildlife documentary by the BBC, & did a great job. They continued to use him for that job, & he became famous for it, ultimately becoming the face of BBC nature documentaries.

He has no qualifications, or special knowledge, & has probably become indoctrinated by the much more dedicated people who actually do the work of shooting the documentaries.

In fact in the more recent ones I have been disgusted that he is flown all over the world to get his face in the productions, simply to maintain his fame. Typical BBC. As with the IPCC crowd, their massive generation of CO2 by their air travel they justify somehow. It is only ours that is a problem.

Again I can see how you can have such a wrong slant on global warming, when you quote actors as your source of information.

Hasbeen,

Sir David Attenborough is not an actor. He is the younger
brother of director, producer and actor - Richard
Attenborough. Sir David has a degree in Natural Sciences
from Cambridge University. He has an amazing background
and has dedicated his life to celebrating and preserving
wild-life. He has written, produced, hosted, and narrated
countless award winning nature-focussed programs.

He began his career as a producer at the BBC where he
launched the successful "Zoo Quest" series. He was
made controller of the BBC and later the Director of
Programming. He was instrumental in expanding
the natural history content. He left the BBC to begin
writing and producing various series including the smash
hit - "Life on Earth, which set the standards for the
modern nature documentary. He's considered to be a
British National Treasure. And his reputation as a
naturalist is beyond reproach.

But then I suspect that you as an educated, supposedly
knowledgeable, and intelligent man,
would already have known that. You're
just stirring the pot.

OK, Steely, Foxy and Belly, having been given the right to respond in kind, I will gladly take up the challenge.
Now let's see where to begin?
So you buffoons believe we are too harsh in our deliveries and lacking factual content.
None of you have any scientific knowledge and yet you make sweeping statements as if an authority on topics you know 'absolutely' nothing about other than what you read.
Us 'mindless minions', are always asking for 'actual' examples of something and not just taking someones word for it.
For you to be 'pillorying' us for daring to question or dis-agree with you and your fellow blow-hards is the height of hypocrisy, when it is clearly by your own admission, are the 'ignorant, 'pissant' bunch of 'deniers', who have attached yourselves to the very same mob of people who have accepted the stories as facts, when there are too many gaps and questions, to just blindly follow and worse still, dare to enforce or instill a particular dogma or theory, without absolute and conclusive evidence to confirm it completely.
You have found refuge and comfort in each other because you are too gutless to actually speak of your own ignorance on any one topic, for fear of being called 'smug' or 'bombastic'.
Now to get to the point of reality and not some ramblings of a 'smug' self righteous prick, and that is:
If this CC thing is as serious and dangerous as it's made out to be, why, when we have been crapping on about it for nearly a century, do we not have the new technologies in place as of decades ago?
Why are we still crapping on about CC and the billions stolen in the name of research, technology and renewables.
Mankind is not that stupid when it comes to inventing or creating new things, especially if it's need is urgent.
Well, even though the general population are morons, as is displayed on OLO, those entrusted with the job of solving problems are not, especially ones that, 'allegedly', threaten the very lives of humans WORLDWIDE.

Dear ALTRAV,

You wrote;

“OK, Steely, Foxy and Belly, having been given the right to respond in kind”

In kind? Oh please spare me the victimhood crap. You lot love to dish it out but when someone responds in kind you act all righteous.

These are just some of the terms you used earlier in the thread; “usual bunch of clowns”, “ the know-nothings of the world” and “the CC clowns”.

The only right you are exercising here is the right to be offended and is typical of bullies.

Anyway you banged on with; “None of you have any scientific knowledge and yet you make sweeping statements as if an authority on topics you know 'absolutely' nothing about other than what you read.”

Are you really that thick? We rarely make sweeping statements rather what we do is quote the bloody authorities themselves, you know those people who have spent years studying and decades researching climate science, the bloody climate scientists!

This is what I said in my last post “The vast majority of those working at the cutting edge of climate science are deeply concerned about the clear present and future impacts of climate change. Many are trying to figure out what that world will look like because human greed will likely stymie much of the action required to halt the warming.”

You see, I'm referencing the science and the scientists.

It is you lot, with little to no scientific knowledge, who feel you know more that these leaders in their fields and come up with all kinds of crap in order to to try and challenge the bleeding obvious. It makes you look like absolute fools and you really need to consider giving it a rest.

Pathetic.

//None of you have any scientific knowledge//

A sweeping statement, made as if you're an authority on a topic you know absolutely nothing about.

But if you really are as knowledgeable on my level of scientific knowledge as you claim, what does constant does the 'k' in my tattoo represent, and from what other two well known constants can it be derived?

Yeah, I thought so.

//and yet you make sweeping statements as if an authority on topics you know 'absolutely' nothing about//

Perhaps you could try leading by example and not do it yourself? Might make you seem slightly less of a halfwit.

Dear Foxy,

You beat me to it.

A clueless Hasbeen once again making up rubbish. Where would our Christmas be without him in full and glorious flight.

You are perfectly right about the credentials of Sir David Attenborough. He has deep scientific knowledge butressed even further by being extremely well travelled over a long period of time which puts him uniquely placed to have observed the impact of climate change.

As well as his degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University he is a full Fellow of the Royal Society, membership of which is only given on the basis of excellence in science.

There are other like Bill Bryson of the  A Short History of Nearly Everything fame who are given honourary membership which is awarded to candidates who have given distinguished service to the cause of science, but do not have the kind of scientific achievements required of Fellows.

No, Sir David Attenborough is very much the real deal and you are perfectly justified in quoting him.

I left the thread see one of our trolls said it was a private conversation
Another has chosen yet again to use weird insults against, well any one who does not share his views
In the spirit of Hasbeens reason to post here, please know
*My supplier is ALG,* I get a thirty 30 percent discount for paying on time*
My bill comes via e mail, another saving
It will come tomorrow or tuesday, meter read thursday
YOU MUST DEMAND a cheaper rate, tell AGL you know they do better for others, me
ALTRAV, along with ttbn you are far from bright, please leave you unhinged anger before getting close to the key board
PS the insulting who am I realy is trash, all documents drivers license birth certificate house deeds here for any one to see any time, so be careful

Listen Steeley, you are in no position to pontificate about anything.
If you are so 'right' about everything you tell me why after a lifetime of banging on anout CC and your beloved bloody scientist and experts, why have we not had these panacea's of renewables from heaven, at least 30years ago?
What I argue against is people like you quoting so called experts who have done NOTHING but write, talk and bang on about this HUGE life threatening problem once called 'global warming' only to have been caught out and now called 'climate change'.
I don't care about your attempts to try to intensify and justify CC, because actions or the lack of have neutralised or negated your arguments about CC.
That is where my angst and frustration comes from, I can see pollution all around me, just like everyone else, but at least I can see it, taste it, it's real.
My negativity is aimed at the gravity or size of the pollution, if it is as bad as made out to be, the amount of money being stolen in the name of reducing it, and the fact that after a very, very long time, nothing tangible or conclusive has come from all that money and research.
Now you may want to bury your head in, down or up whatever medium makes you feel comfortable, and that's the problem with you and your lot, you will do or say anything to not have to move away from your comfort zone, even if a train is barrelling down on you, rather than have to face an unpleasant or uncomfortable truth.
I tell you what if someone actually comes up with a real and workable solution with a 100% duty cycle, at a cost lower than what we have now, does not rely on expensive maintenance or upkeep, I'll shut up, because there will be nothing to scrutinise any more.
But until then, even if you grabbed a brain and started asking questions rather than being ignorantly patronising or overly and un-authoritively condescending, I would still keep asking questions.

does not surprise me Toni that you would manifest with the mention of the truth.

ALTRAV,

Don't blame the scientists - they've been warning us
for decades. And telling us what needed to be done.
Regarding the threats to the ecological balance of the
planet and the health of many of its species, including
ourselves. Put the blame where it belongs. On
governments. World Leaders. The problems are extremely
difficult to solve. Some people and many governments see
pollution as a regrettable but inevitable by-product of
desired economic development - "Where there's smoke, there's
jobs." Control of pollution requires international
coordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides
can end up in other country's air or food.

The effects of pollution may not show up for many years, so
severe environmental damage can occur with little public
awareness that it is taking place. Preventing or correcting
pollution can be costly, technically complex, and sometimes
when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

The problem is that all this is not an inevitable outcome
of industrial technology. The problem derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution and other bad things,
rather than bear the costs of fixing them. Fixing things
is politically difficult because the economic interests behind
"smokestack" industries are a powerful political lobby that is
reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task.

No intelligent person can deny that the planet has a finite
amount of resources or that it can tolerate only a limited
amount of pollution. If world population continues to grow
rapidly, if industrialisation spreads around the world, and
if pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing
rate - and all these things continue to happen - where is
human society headed?

The most optimistic answer to these questions would be that,
one way or another, sweeping changes await us. And that's
being polite.

Foxy, you are missing the point.
I don't care about who's fault it is, because if I'm to follow your line of thought you would still be backing the wrong horse.
OK, let's say the scientists have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are right.
If it is so dammingly obvious that the situation is very, or extremely serious or grave, then why hasn't the point been made to do something real or tangible and three dimensional about it?
You can keep banging on about the pollies as much as you like, but I would like to throw in a quick question.
Given that the scientists are so credible and believable, and given that the CC is SOOOOOO serious, would it not be in the pollies, and their family's interest to implement these renewable energy mediums?
One of the answers is that the problem is not as grave as promoted and so nothing is actually happening, of any substance.
So when you can come up with a half reasonable answer, like, even though we can see pollution, it is difficult to make predictions, because it is a variable and ever changing thing, you might get a go.
And so it is easier to speak in half truths, because that way you can hedge your bets 50/50 either way in case you need to retract or concede something.
So to recap; if the scientists are so smart, then the govt, must believe them and actually do something about it like build something to mitigate this 'huge' threat.
Now because we have not seen anything physical to offset this 'huge' threat, it is logical and reasonable to accept that the problem is not as serious or urgent as promoted.
OR WE WOULD SEE SOMETHING REAL HAPPENING!

SR,

Re:Fauxachontas.
Well if you thought you won that argument you're even more delusional than I thought, and that's saying something.

You now say that "Trump said Warren did not have any indigenous ancestry". But that's not what Trump said. He said he'd pay if it was shown she was an Indian. How do I know this? Well its not hard to find the actual quote but one such source was a post on these very pages from a certain Mr Redux... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8485#268276

Now I'll readily agree with you that its never wise to believe anything from this Redux fellow, but on this occasion he got it right - he can't be wrong ALL the time.

She said she was an Indian.
He said he'd pay $1m if she proved it.
She now admits she's not an Indian.
A slam-dunk that anyone with the slightest understanding of logic would accept. Clearly that leaves you out in the cold.

_____________________________________________________________

Belly, I was simply pointing out that, while you were complaining of the mindless insult, you were indulging in it to the max. Look up hypocrisy.

__________________________________________________________

As to GW, clearly there is a large number of people who think, without the slightest evidence, that there's a consensus among the 'experts' that we're-all-gunna-die if we don't bow to the climate deity. There is no such consensus, there is no evidence for it, and there is no certainty that the predictions of the alarmist fringe will come true. But explaining that to the true believers is as useless as arguing with the 'runners' of this world about the consensus around his deity. They want it to be true and the lack of proof isn't even a mere inconvenience to such beliefs. So its hardly worth offering contrary facts.

mhaze,

In other words you negate the evidence that
world scientists, scientific organisations,
(including Australia's own reputable CSIRO)
and America's NASA provide. We understand where you're
coming from. However, we prefer to listen to evidence based
claims. Little has changed since Galileo
was put under house arrest by the Vatican for saying that the
earth moved around the sun. (in fact, in 1633 the Church made him
recant his theory of the universe). Little has changed when
ignorance and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts.

New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities they
open up for the improvement of the human lot, are seen as threats
to those who are comfortable in their ideologies
(religious or otherwise).

ALTRAV,

I did explain why action is slow in being taken.
You seem to have a problem understanding the complexities
involved. Typing in caps - is like shouting at someone.
It just doesn't help the situation or make up for your
lack of understanding. Go back and re-read my post.
Perhaps you might eventually get what's being said.
At least give it a try.

mhaze,

The following link may help you better understand the
Elizabeth Warren situation because clearly you're somewhat
confused:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/elizabeth-warren-releases-dna-results-showing-she-has-native-american-n920056

Foxy, I 'did read' your comment.
Did you read mine?
To clarify, I and billions of other people know pollution exists, so that is not in question.
What is in question is the 'extent' of this pollution, and it's 'real' threat to humanity.
My point has always been that if the experts are right, then even a selfish politician must see that if not him, but his children, will be put at risk, in the future, so knowing this fact and having the power to do something about it by arranging the construction of these magical renewable energy sources to mitigate CC, would they not have done this decades ago, rather than do nothing, as if CC is not as severe as touted by so many.
Then that would lead to the question about half truths.
In that there is truth in CC, but exactly how much of the truth is true.
I hope you can identify the salient points in my post, because like CC they are very subtle and can easily be missed.

//"The mindless insult...what is it that brings people to be so outright dreadful when talking of those with another opinion"

Yeah, right-on. Like calling some a flat-earther, a denier or just stupid because they have different views on the THE science (sarc).//

Dude... the earth is flat. Don't tell me you've been suckered in by the globuralists. You seemed smarter than that.

//There is no such consensus, there is no evidence for it//

Yeah, just like globuralism... but you still swallowed it, hook, line & sinker. Show me the proof of a globe. Show me proof of consensus in the globe model. Until you put up hard proof that I'm willing to accept of the ludicrous globe model, I see no reason to accept any fanciful claims about balls hanging in space, when any fool can see that all the water would run off the bottom.

And another one!

Surging levels of greenhouses gases are making people tired and stupid, scientists claim.

How much more of this desperate hunting for something global warming, & the poor little CO2 molecule can be blamed for will it take folks, for you to finally wake up. Surely the level of desperation the warmists are displaying is telling you something.

If they had any proven link that CO2 caused climate change, they would have produced it, hence this desperate new claim every few hours..

What is making people tired & probably stupid is the constant propaganda CO2 is subject to, & the brainwashing our kids are getting from silly school teachers at school.

Belly Quote "Just think very near half of the world agrees with us
Many many country,s do too"

Where did you get the information that near half of the world agree, I would bet the poor in China, India,Pakistan, Africa have not even been asked what they think, that alone disproves your claim.

Many many country's do too, which country did you ask and how did IT reply notice I use IT because a country can't have an opinion let alone talk. I know the pope kisses the ground but I have never seen him have an intellectual conversation with a piece of dirt.

Foxy (your majesty)You link to NASA on climate change are you aware stands for "National Aeronautics and Space Administration".
Is it okay with you I supply a link to my local car club RACV for a rebuttal.

Philip S.,

You obviously are not aware of the work that NASA does,
nor apparently did you read the links I provided, especially
the one on evidence.

Ever heard of earth-orbiting satellites
and other technological advances that have enabled scientists
to see the big picture, collecting many different types
of information about our planet and its climate on a
global scale. This body of data collected over many years,
reveals the signals of a changing climate.

But if you feel you'll get more accurate information
from you RACV office - I won't argue with you. (smile).

Forgive my sarcasm, I know NASA do a lot more than the name implies.

Philip S not doing your statement that you do not needlessly insult others
mhaze? do you not see? rest my case
Foxy, outside this bubble, well aware even our host does not share our view on climate change
But outside the bubble even young farmers group, and a host of LIBERAL VOTERS are calling for action
It has been [chuckle worthy] put that if it was true why has no action been taken!
Think about it folks,why has the UN called for action, why did we have bushfires in the arctic circle why record heat waves every year why record storms not just records
all time records
Foxy rest, you can not get around the bias of some with truth.

Hey Hasbeen,
It seems like their plan is push the lies so much that every useful idiot including schoolkids believes it.
So anyone that doesn't can be peer pressured into silence while the voice of the lies gets even louder.
Eventually, they'll claim that people who don't agree are heretics.

Climate science is an agenda to initiate global carbon taxes, then global government.

Foxy

That Galileo was both correct and persecuted by the powers that be tells us nothing about the current claims. The Galelio argument has been used by all manner of people and organisations to try to make a theory seems more reasonable eg eugenics, phrenology, Lysenkoism. All wrong but all used Galileo's travails to try to gain some advantage for their views. Its unsurprsing that you'd fall for the AGW industry's use of this meme to hide the fact that their evidence is weak.

"In other words you negate the evidence that
world scientists, scientific organisations,
(including Australia's own reputable CSIRO)"

And you negate other evidence that other world scientists and groups like the CSIRO offer.

What exactly do you think the CSIRO is saying about the future of Australia's climate. Not what you're told to beleive by people trying to use the presitge of the CSIRO but what the CSIRO's corporate position is. Heads up...I'm very confident that I can show that the CSIRO says things very different to what those who don't get beyond the headlines think it says.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for the link on Warren Foxy but you are hopelessly, laughingly out of date which makes your comment that "you're somewhat
confused" terribly funny.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-backs-off-minority-claims-im-not-a-person-of-color

Just once, Foxy, I'd like to see you acknowledge that you are hopelessly wrong and that your assertion that you know so much more than those whom you assume are confused is misplaced. But I'm not holding my breathe.

Dear mhaze,

I'm not sure why you defend this man but hey, we all get our kicks somewhere.

In 2016 Trump said that Warren "made up her heritage, which I think is racist."

Then later he went with; "I’m going to get one of those little kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheekbones."

Even this year he has said; “I’ve got more Indian blood in me than Pocahontas, and I have none.”

So as much as you would like to underhandedly twist this into purely a question of 'Is she an Indian or not?' that was never what this was about. Warren has only stated that she has 'Indian heritage' and this was the language Trump repeatedly used.

A Stanford professor no less and an expert in the field of human genetics told Warren that "The facts suggest that you absolutely have Native American ancestry in your pedigree".

Now he may well deny the facts because he has $1,000,000 at stake and he is a venal, dishonest, liar. What is your excuse?

Dear mhaze,

Geez mate, you do clutch at straws don't you.

The Washington Examiner took a story from the Washington Post and put its usual highly conservative stance on it.

Warren has never claimed she was a person of colour so there was nothing to 'back away from'.

She was speaking at a traditionally black university and “I’m not a person of color. And I haven’t lived your life or experienced anything like the subtle prejudice, or more overt harm, that you may have experienced just because of the color of your skin.”

Perfectly reasonable in anyone's book except yours it appears.

Dear Hasbeen,

You wrote;

“If they had any proven link that CO2 caused climate change, they would have produced it, hence this desperate new claim every few hours.”

They have, repeatedly and consistently but you as usual are determined to deny the physics. So I will repeat for the record CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. Human activities have resulted in more of it in our atmosphere. Therefore the global temperatures have risen.

Now why don't you tell us what part of the physics you feel miraculously do not apply?

mhaze,

Professor Tor Hundloe in 2003 was the first
Australian recognised by the award of an Order of
Australia for his development and practice of an
economics in line with ecological reality and
ethical imperatives. In his book, "From Buddha to
Bono: seeking sustainability." Professor Hundloe
opens up the world to anyone wanting to better
understand how we got into this mess - and how to
get out of it. I highly recommend your reading it.

In the book he points out that:

In case we dismiss the religious intervention in science
(re-Galileo, the murder of Socrates by the state, and so on),
a thing of the past, we need to be aware that
on issues which require radical solutions that are likely
to harm vested economic and political interests, censorship
has not gone away. It still exists today. He gives the
example that:

In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with that
country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO,
were forbidden by the organisation's management from
publicly discussing the implications of climate change.

Management was acting on behalf of the government. And
Australia was/is - one of the standout countries in terms of
human development status. It is not corrupt. It's science
is world class. None of this mattered. In 2006, the
Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on
global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements
such as the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of further Reports on climate change, the
Australian Government's position changed - yet the PM
remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter
global warming.

Little has changed when ignorance and vested interests are
confronted by scientific facts.

New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot,
are threats to those who are comfortable in their
ideologies (religious or otherwise).

Come on Steely, assertions mean nothing. There is no proof to be found.

I was looking the other day at a paper that "proves" that CO2 aids convection, & thus cools the planet, rather than warms it. An interesting & plausible idea, & when the authors have some proof, I'll take them seriously. Until then it has no more claim to being correct than the global warming theory.

Well it does have a little more, as the CO2 caused global warming theory has been shot down from so many directions it is looking like Swiss cheese it's so full of holes, hence the ratbag claims highlighted here from just a few days of global warming hysteria.

Come on Steely, you do know I am right. What does it feel like defending something you know is a lie?

Dear Belly,

Thank You for your advice.

I find it totally unbelievable that with so much
scientific evidence there still exist people who prefer to
deny what's being presented and what's occuring
around the globe. Still I guess if they think
it won't affect their immediate lives - who cares
about the future of others. They won't be around.
So it doesn't matter to them.

Dear Hasbeen,

You wrote;

"CO2 caused global warming theory has been shot down from so many directions it is looking like Swiss cheese it's so full of holes"

Well old cock, this should be pretty easy for you, name just one.

Dear Steelie,

I so admire your tenacity.

I'm also glad that you continue to post.

It's thanks to people like yourself - that
I continue to remain on the forum.

Keep up the good work.

We must those of us, most of them, who do not believe in man made climate change make up for not being able to prove it by belittling others

SR,

As we have discussed before, Elizabeth Warren (EW) is also pretty venal having used her "Cherokee" heritage to gain preferential treatment at university etc.

That her DNA test showed that she probably had an ancestor from North or South America nearly 200 years ago makes Trump's bet pretty safe, and her previous exploitation fraudulent, especially since nearly 90% of "white" Americans have up to 10x as much "heritage" as she does.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No Warren didn't get any preferential treatment because of ancestry at Harvard as the assessors have clearly stated.

And what is this from you? “especially since nearly 90% of "white" Americans have up to 10x as much "heritage" as she does”.

The Cornell University Genetic Ancestry Project showed that less than 5% of Americans have native American heritage. Elizabeth Warren is one of those. Why is it so important that you need to reject this simple fact?

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. It does often feel like a broken record but hey, familiar tunes have their place. We need to understand that quite a few of the OLO characters are so deeply invested in disregarding climate science that change is unlikely. But there is fun to be had popping a few pompous balloons as they are floated by the resident chattering crowd. It has always had its own intrinsic amusement value.

SR,

In the Washington times

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s newly released DNA results show that the Democrat’s Native American ancestry is roughly the same as that of the average white American, and may be less.

A 2014 study by Harvard University and 23andMe found that European Americans tested overall for 0.18 percent Native American ancestry, while Ms. Warren’s results show she has anywhere from 0.09 percent to 1.5 percent."

That you claimed that 5% of white Americans have NA heritage means that according to your measure EW does not have NA heritage. Q.E.D.

SteeleRedux _ As you partly said to Hasbeen - Well old cock, this should be pretty easy for you, answer the following 4 questions.

1. Out of 100% exactly how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

2. What is the optimal average temperature the planet should be?

3. Scientists made all the predictions in the past without knowing there was another cause for the ice melting "a radioactive heat source is slowly melting it from underneath"
** Exactly what did they attribute the increased amount of melted ice too? Because whatever they attributed it too was wrong, do you agree or not? **

4. Take the trillions of dollars away from the solution, would there still be a problem? That's how much money will go from so called rich countries to poor VIA the bankers and Al Gore and others they will make billions.

__________________________________

Belly - Quote "Philip S not doing your statement that you do not needlessly insult others" Like your blind belief in GW, too bad you can't back it up.

Belly Quote "Just think very near half of the world agrees with us Many many country,s do too"

Time to pay the piper.

Name just one country that has polled all the people with a question about GW just one will do.

If you can't it make your statement absolutely false, if you have to lie to make your case believable then you have no credibility.

Maybe you would like to retract your statement.

Philip S.,

Perhaps these may help:

http://theconversation.com/lowy-institute-poll-shows-australian-support-for-climate-action-at-its-highest-level-in-a-decade-98625

http://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/16/poll-shows-consensus-climate-policy-remains-strong/

There's more on the web.

Philip S.,

I forgot to add this link which takes it globally:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/2-public-support-for-action-on-climate-change

Dear Shadow Minister,

For God's sake you lot really do have to refrain from quoting from rightwing, climate change denying, sensationalist rags at me. At some stage I'm just going to have to reply with “Find me a proper source or nick off”.

Okay here is what any decent newspaper with any normal desire to do proper journalistic research would have found. The Harvard University and 23andMe study defined 'native American ancestry' as follows;

“Throughout the manuscript, the term “Native American ancestry” refers to estimates of genetic ancestry from indigenous Americans found across North, Central, and South America, and we distinguish this term from present-day Native Americans living in the US. We use the term “Native American” to refer to indigenous peoples of the Americas, acknowledging that some people may prefer other terms such as “American Indian.” “
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5

Yet the DNA test performed by Stanford Professor Bustamante was far more refined. If you go to Figure 2 in his report you will see that following;

“The test sample's Native American ancestry falls between First Nations (Canada) and Indigenous Mexican peoples, as would be expected for Native American ancestry deriving from the lower 48 states of the United States.”
http://www.scribd.com/document/390895555/Bustamante-Report-2018

Now you are welcome to read the studies and tell me if I am mistaken but unless you are prepared to do even a modicum of research you lot really need to drop this. It makes you look mean spirited, even 'venal' and in thrall to the gutter press of another nation.

//They have, repeatedly and consistently but you as usual are determined to deny the physics. So I will repeat for the record CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. Human activities have resulted in more of it in our atmosphere. Therefore the global temperatures have risen.//

//Come on Steely, assertions mean nothing. There is no proof to be found.//

OK... which of the specific 'assertions' that he made do you feel is unsupported by empirical data? Is it:

1. CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas?
or
2. Human activities have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2?
or
3. Global temperatures have risen?

Because I've studied enough chemistry to know that the first two are definitely supported by empirical data. And recording temperatures... well, it's hardly quantum electrodynamics, is it?

Foxy - Nice try but please read the quote again ""Just think very near half of the world agrees with us Many many country,s do too""

Note the words "very near half of the world agrees with us" a poll of a small percentage can't make that assumption also "Many many country's do too" countries do not agree the leaders of those countries may but they have an agenda that does not include you and me.

Limited polls are easy to manipulate. This is something you should always remember.

Also you forget or dismissed this comment by me. "I would bet the poor in China, India,Pakistan, Africa have not even been asked what they think, that alone disproves your claim."

Belly has failed to answer this and other questions, I call that an epic fail.

Philip S.,

You asked for one poll from one country.

You were given three.

Are you even aware of the work that the Pew Research
Center does? Somehow I doubt it. Just as your reference
to NASA showed how limited your knowledge was to have
made the comment that you initially did.

Go back and read the Pew link - all the countries are
listed.

For your information - the Pew Research Center is a
nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about
issues, attitudes, and trends, shaping the world. They
conduct public opinion polling, demographic research,
content analysis and other data driven social science
research. They do not take policy positions. They have
supplied us with global information. If you want
to dispute their findings kindly give us evidence to
back up your claims

Foxy - Correct me but did the polls say Trump would not be President, so much for the credibility of polls.

Lowry questions.
Are a joke they do not in any way differentiate between man made global warming and naturally occurring warming.

How high do you think that survey results would be if they included in the question mans contribution to global warming is say 10%, the other 90% we have no control over?

Also quote "According to the Lowy poll, which involved a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adults" ** Great poll 1,200 get to represent 12 million or so adults does not say where they came from etc.

http://lowyinstitutepoll.lowyinstitute.org/climate-change-and-energy/#

Now for your Stanford link
1,000 people get to represent 150 million or so adults.

Look who conducted the survey. "The study was conducted with ABC News and Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization."

Here is your PEW one.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/2-public-support-for-action-on-climate-change/

When you can't see the exact questions asked and to who, I am not going to waste my time.

Can't you get this thru your head quote "Just think very near half of the world agrees with us Many many country,s do too" 1,200 people do not represent Australia, 1,000 people do not represent 150 or so million Americans.

Also the questions were biased.

Sorry I missed comment 2 on 15/12/2018

Comment2- "right liberals/ free traders" won't admit to climate change
Meaning2- Business people "free traders" won't admit to things that create expenses for their businesses- a company director that admitted something publicly outside of their duty under law wouldn't be a director for long. Businesses want growing markets as it means a growing business- immigration can create a growing market- but more people mean more foot prints by man. Businesses consider themselves to be the drivers of the nations economic activity- perhaps, perhaps not- but if so they are then their activity probably also drive the damage- all other things being equal

Dear Philip S,

You asked;

1. Out of 100% exactly how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

The initial impetus for global temperature research was the fact that solar cycles had predicted a cooling planet yet midway through the last century it was instead it was found to be warming.

The most robust explanation for that warming has been the huge rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. No reputable scientist is saying these increases have primarily come from any other source other than mankind's activities. Given this I see little reason to ascribe anything less than 100% to global warming being attributed to humans but happy to look at arguments to the contrary.

2. What is the optimal average temperature the planet should be?

Us humans have inhabited this planet as a species for well over 100,000 years. However it is only in the last 10,000 that civilisations began to form. Many ascribe this to what has been called the “Eden Period” which is a period of relatively even climate at a temperature that has been conducive to the advancement of human kind. Now it is true that many civilisations around the world are now better equipped to handle some changes in climatic conditions but you asked for optimal so Eden Period temperatures would be it.

3. Scientists made all the predictions in the past without knowing there was another cause for the ice melting "a radioactive heat source is slowly melting it from underneath" 

Given the lead scientist says; "The process of melting we observe has probably been going on for thousands or maybe even millions of years and isn't directly contributing to ice sheet change” why are we even discussing it?

4. Take the trillions of dollars away from the solution, would there still be a problem? That's how much money will go from so called rich countries to poor VIA the bankers and Al Gore and others they will make billions.

This is nonsense at every level but if you would like to rephrase it sensibly I will have another look.

SR,

Given the variety of dubious sites that you have sited, you have no moral authority here.

Secondly, tiny number of genetic markers found in EWs test are predominately found in native Americans from both north and south America, (as these populations mixed) but can also be found far more rarely outside the continent.

So that EW has a very distant relative from the continent is likely, but that she can claim Cherokee heritage is purely fanciful. And as Heritage is far more than distant DNA, this part of the claim from EW is extremely tenuous.

Finally, that she widely advertised her "heritage" from school to Uni etc makes it highly likely, but not necessarily provable that she gained some advantage.

Philip S.,

So you think that the Pew Research Center, NASA, Lowy, et al,
are all biased? And this from someone who prefers the
RACV to NASA on climate change?

Well, what can I say? You've said it all.
Shades of Monty Python - here we come.

For Your Information:

http://www.pewresearch.org/about/

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“Given the variety of dubious sites that you have sited, you have no moral authority here.”

Bulldust.

I quoted directly from the studies themselves.

Moreover I quoted directly from a Stanford professor who is regarded as an absolute leader in the field.

You don't get to brush these off as dubious just because you don't like what they are telling you. You also don't get to flag your rightwing rags as being somehow more substantial sources when they clearly are not.

It is not me who is quoting partisan journalism rather I have directly quoted Trump and properly referenced the two studies in question.

As to the question of heritage it is Trump who pivoted this to a DNA test not Warren and this was what the bet was about.

If this is really all you have got them you have nothing. Try again with something more substantial or give it away. Your choice.

I know Foxy actually believes every word from the lefty one world government sites she follows & quotes, but what about Steely.

His posts, with all the nastiness they put out, somehow don't ring true. There is always the feeling that he doesn't believe a word of his posts, & merely uses them to empty his spleen on a long suffering world.

There were another couple of impossible papers last night, typical of this last rush of garbage to try to cover the total failure of the last jamboree, with 25000 people all free loading on the public purse.

Hell I thought Foxy might have something to say about the total BS that global warmers print, but no such luck. I guess her eyes are wide shut.

I fail to see what the antics of some bimbo have to do with climate change which, if I'm not mistaken is what this thread is about.
If anyone wants to continue with the bimbo topic, please take it outside.
Now as for CC, I feel that my detractors are so worked up about being convinced they hold the moral high ground on this topic, they refuse to consider the question I have always posed.
And that is, has anyone taken a 'distant' view in looking at the earth?
Say, from space.
I cannot reconcile the notion that humans have done all this disaster and mayhem as has been reported and promoted.
As the CO2 is apparently being created from industries, and these industries are usually corralled in specific localised areas mostly.
Better known as 'industrial areas'.
Now back to the earth from out in space looking down.
What I see and is the case, are these 'spots' which comprise of cities, and some industries.
What I am eluding to is that I cannot relate what I see with what I hear or read.
CC is a relative new subject for humanity to take in, and I am reminded that because of this fact, it is a relatively new science.
Now because science is predominantly based on theory, it is not unreasonable to see why there is so much skepticism.
So as much as I do not deny the existence of pollution, I question the exact extent and origins of it, especially as I and the rest of humanity is being charged with causing it's totality.
By extent and origins, I mean that humanity cannot be charged with causing ALL the pollution, and if so, then where else did the rest come from and exactly how much was due to each source of human and non-human derivative.
So there are two main issues.
Remember, science is theory based, and.
How much pollution is humanity 'really' responsible for?

Hasbeen,

Did you happen to watch the interview with Prince
Charles last night (17/12/2018)?

Are you pro a Republic or a Monarchist?

Do you realise that our possible future King calls
climate change deniers a part of the "headless chooks
brigade?" And that he's totally amazed at those who
are deniers of science. He's spoken at climate change
conferences and has even had a book published on the
subject.

So who's the one with their eyes wide shut?
Not me!

ALTRAV,

Before typing on the keyboard why don't you
read the links I've given so that you know
what you're talking about. The NASA - evidence
one is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Dear Hasbeen,

All the nastiness I put out? Hardly old cock, I try and employ a strict measure for measure regime. If you cop it from me there there is a fair chance you have dished it out. Remember it is a real trait of bullies that they complain of the very treatment they employ themselves.

As to “merely uses them to empty his spleen on a long suffering world” well that is projection if I have ever seen it.

Back to the topic, how can one of your local weather stations experience in the previous two years six of the highest temperatures recorded for a particular month since records began at that station and you not blink an eye?. That is January, March, June, July, September and November all clocking up record maximums against 60 years of data in the last three years.

I'm not sure if head in the sand quite cuts it. Perhaps frog in a boiling pot is closer.

Dear ALTRAV,

I agree, discussions about the redheaded bimbo are fun but to those who worship him any criticisms have them disrupting topics like this to defend him.

As to your view from space of CO2 emissions this video from NASA is an excellent perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

It is pretty easy to see why Arctic ice is the most impacted.

Charles another virtue signaller. If I had treated Dianna like he did I suspect I would need a cause to sprout off my moral superiority in order to cover up inward rottenness. Seems very common among Hollywood and the elite.

Foxy - Please learn how to read before commenting.

Quote "So you think that the Pew Research Center, NASA, Lowy, et al,
are all biased?"

I wrote "Also the questions were biased."

You I will bet you found the link to Lowy then put it here I would also say you did not go the extra mile and find the actual questions they asked.

IF the questions have absolutely make no reference to man made and natural warming it is biased, if you can't see that please just don't waste my time.

As for Pew. Here is what I wrote "When you can't see the exact questions asked and to who, I am not going to waste my time."

As for Stanford.
Now for your Stanford link
1,000 people get to represent 150 million or so adults.

Look who conducted the survey. "The study was conducted with ABC News and Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization."

That above is what I wrote and you come back with this pathetic excuse for a rebuttal.

"Philip S.,

So you think that the Pew Research Center, NASA, Lowy, et al,
are all biased? And this from someone who prefers the
RACV to NASA on climate change?

Well, what can I say? You've said it all.
Shades of Monty Python - here we come."

I can now see why people troll you and are less than civil to you on occasions.

I am not going to waste anymore time with you here.

runner,

What does the private past life of Prince
Charles have to do with the scientific
evidence of climate change?

Just like your standing in judgement over
others as a self-proclaimed Christian -
does that indicate an "inner rotting" on
your part for going against the teachings
of Christ?

"Judge not ..."

Foxy are you aware of the term Conflict of Interests.

Paradise Papers: Prince Charles lobbied on climate policy after shares purchase

Prince Charles campaigned to alter climate-change agreements without disclosing his private estate had an offshore financial interest in what he was promoting, BBC Panorama has found.

The Paradise Papers show the Duchy of Cornwall in 2007 secretly bought shares worth $113,500 in a Bermuda company that would benefit from a rule change.

The prince was a friend of a director of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd.

The Duchy of Cornwall says he has no direct involvement in its investments.

'Conflict of interest'

He added Prince Charles was "free to offer thoughts and suggestions on a wide range of topics" and "cares deeply" about the issue of climate change but "it is for others to decide whether to take the advice".

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said Prince Charles's actions amounted to a serious conflict of interest.

He said: "There's a conflict of interest between his own investments of the Duchy of Cornwall and what he's trying to achieve publicly.

"And I think it's unfortunate that somebody of his importance, of his influence, becomes involved in such a serious conflict."

The prince began campaigning for changes to two important environmental agreements weeks after Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) sent his office lobbying documents.

Prince Charles's estate almost tripled its money in just over a year although it is not clear what caused the rise in the share value. Despite his high profile campaign, the environmental agreements were not changed.

Foxy, why do you insist on NOT reading my posts, yet you comment on them.
I looked at your link reference to NASA, and guess what? the very point/question I pose, is all but explained in the first paragraph.
I direct your attention to the following words in that first paragraph which accentuate my points;
warming 'trend', 'most' of it is extremely 'likely'.
As I said, and this article alone implies, that it is based on theory.
I'll say it again; I know there is pollution, I'm not that dense.
What I and everyone else does not/cannot know, is how much of it is our fault.
Given that the first world may be forced (politically) to stop industries who are deemed to be the 'high' polluters, they will simply move production to a third world country, thereby increasing their bottom line and because the third world does not care about pollution they will increase their pollution output because of the extra work coming from first world countries to avoid the costs and rhetoric of the govt's and the greens.
So the net result will be, (and this you can take to the bank, it's not a theory), that the first world will suffer and go into recession/depression, the third world will rise to a higher lever of status, closer to second and even first world, as the first world slips down into second or third world status.
And the net result of all this will be that the pollution or CO2 levels will shoot up exponentially to a 'real' level of danger, because the third world has no reason to give a toss about pollution.

SR,

"I'm not sure why you defend this man" The man doesn't need defending. But the truth could use a hand whenever you're around.

"'Is she an Indian or not?' that was never what this was about."

Well don't tell me...tell that Redux fellow who started all this with the claim that she was an Indian. I think we can all agree Mr Redux and logic are strangers but he was sure that EW was an Indian, contra Trump. Perhaps Mr Redux has now changed his mind now that his assertions are shown to be bollocks. But then most of his assertions suffer that fate.

In the US the term "person of color" has a specific meaning being that said person isn't white. EW claimed to be an Indian and therefore a person of color. Her speech was an attempt to walk that back. By way of background she still has hopes of running for president in 2020. But she has no chance even with Democrats with the fauxachontas silliness hanging over her. So she and her advisers are trying to find a way to put it all behind her. Hence the speech.

"The initial impetus for global temperature research was the fact that solar cycles had predicted a cooling planet yet midway through the last century it was instead it was found to be warming. "

That is utterly wrong. Midway through the last century the earth was cooling which was very much in tune with the solar cycles which were the among the weakest this century. That cooling led to the 'consensus' (where have I heard that before?) that we were headed for an extended cooling period.

Utterly wrong old chap.

Re your "Eden Period". I've never heard the term and nor it seems has Mr Google. Some of us use the term Holocene to describe the last 10-12000 years. For 25% of that time temperatures were higher than present, especially during the periods when civilisations flourished eg Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period. So if there is an optimal temperature its probably a little higher than now

Philip S.,

The Paradise Papers did not expose any under-
handed dealings of Prince Charles. Yes, $130,000
was invested by his estate from the Duchy of
Cornwall in a company called "Sustainable Forestry
Management," through a friend that Prince knew
at university. Apparently even the Queen has offshore
accounts and investments. It's quite common to invest.

However everything is above board. It should be noted
that the recorded income of the estate is about 34 million
in 2016-2017 on which the Prince voluntarily pays income
tax.

It should also be noted that the Prince of Wales does not
have any direct involvement in the investment decisions
taken by the Duchy. These are the responsibility of the
Duchy's finance and audit committee.

Anyway, thank you for your feedback. It is useful and
I am disappointed that you have chosen not to
communicate with me in the future.
Hard as it may be, I shall have to try
keep on keepin on'. (smile).

Foxy - Can't wait for your answer to this epic fail.

First you stated Quote
"Do you realise that our possible future King calls
climate change deniers a part of the "headless chooks
brigade?" And that he's totally amazed at those who
are deniers of science. He's spoken at climate change
conferences and has even had a book published on the
subject.

So who's the one with their eyes wide shut?
Not me!"

** Are you aware this is the same Prince Charles who stated. in July 2009 **

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

The Prince, who is advised by the leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper, said that even the economist Adam Smith, father of modern capitalism, had been aware of the short-comings of unfettered materialism.

Delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Charles said that without "coherent financial incentives and disincentives" we have just 96 months to avert "irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it."

Are you really that naive, if a person has money in an offshore account they would want to know exactly where it was invested.

If they did not know where it was invested after a time the administrator could just say sorry abc company just went bust all of your money is gone, then put the money in his pocket.

Clearly a conflict of intrests,

Foxy,

Thanks for the summary of Hundloe's book. But its entirely beside the point. Just because one scientist was persecuted while being correct for his theories that aren't immediately accepted doesn't mean that every theory that isn't immediately accepted is correct. Do a quick study on Eugenics.

Now you, like many others who just accept the headlines, have absorbed the notion that almost all science and science organisations are on board with the notion that we are in dire straits.

but that is false.

The CSIRO and the BOM have a joint venture that makes it possible to see what they call 'Climate Futures'.

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/explore-data/about-data/

Using that tool we can see that most of their models using RCP2.6 predict that the temperatures in 2080 will be only slightly or moderately warmer than the base year. But 4% of their models predict somewhat higher temperatures.

And this is how the world works these days. Its these higher unrepresentative predictions that get all the publicity and which lead the Foxy's of the world to think that there is a consensus of doom. But in years to come, when/if the dire predictions fail to materialise, these groups will point to the low predictions as proof that they were always right.

Its a pattern that has been often followed. When James Hanson made his predictions that kicked the whole thing off, he offered three possibilities. But only the most dire was conveyed to the Foxy's of the world and they bought it. But when the time came to test his predictions and it was found that the least scary was the most accurate, Hanson claimed to have always been right.

Gore did something similar with his Arctic Ice predictions.

_

Foxy, Belly, SR and others all claim to be following the science. Here's just one of hundreds of papers I could mention which dispute the consensus ....

Smirnov, 2018 : "The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

(FYG .02K is approx 0.02 celsius)

This and many other papers are saying there is barely any discernible affect on temperatures from CO2.

Do you accept the science? If not why not? And on what basis do you describe people who do accept this science as 'deniers'?

Toni and I'm many others are of the view that since CO2 is a GHG and that its level has been rising and that temperatures have been rising, then the discussion is over. But that totally misses the issue. Apart from issues such as the fact that temperatures also fell while CO2 levels rose, the more important questions are how much more warming might occur and whether that warming will be beneficial (as it has been to date).

One final thing that I find fun to contemplate...what if oil is a renewable?

http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Biogenic%20and%20Abiogenic%20Petroleum.pdf

Philip S.,

Regarding Prince Charles?

It was not a "conflict of interest."

The following link explains:

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-11-07/the-paradise-papers-was-there-a-conflict-of-interest-in-prince-charles-investments/

mhaze,

I object to your reference of "the Foxy's of this world."
There is only one Foxy and she's unique.

Now back to the topic...

Here is a link by the CSIRO giving climate change information:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information

And you may find this helpful:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/assessing-our-climate/Climate-change-science-and-solutions

As for oil being a renewable?

It's the time involved in the process that has
kept it from being considered a renewable.

Foxy - Clearly you are blind.

1st you ignore this.
Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said Prince Charles's actions amounted to a serious conflict of interest.

He said: "There's a conflict of interest between his own investments of the Duchy of Cornwall and what he's trying to achieve publicly.

"And I think it's unfortunate that somebody of his importance, of his influence, becomes involved in such a serious conflict."

2nd - You conveniently ignored this which casts a doubt on anything your idol Prince Charles says.
First you stated Quote
"Do you realise that our possible future King calls
climate change deniers a part of the "headless chooks
brigade?" And that he's totally amazed at those who
are deniers of science. He's spoken at climate change
conferences and has even had a book published on the
subject.

So who's the one with their eyes wide shut?
Not me!"

** Are you aware this is the same Prince Charles who stated. in July 2009 **

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

The Prince, who is advised by the leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper, said that even the economist Adam Smith, father of modern capitalism, had been aware of the short-comings of unfettered materialism.

Delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Charles said that without "coherent financial incentives and disincentives" we have just 96 months to avert "irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it."

July 2017 his doom and gloom prediction failed to materialize, why should anyone believe what he has to say now.

Philip S.,

Still banging on about Prince Charles?
Move on. You obviously haven't read the
link I gave you. It explains things quite
clearly. You're again arguing with yourself.
Lighten up.

Hey folks,

Here's a few light-hearted thoughts on climate change
taken from the web:

A picture of The Titanic going down ...

"If we're sinking why are we up hundreds of feet
up in the air?"
(Republicans for climate change).

"Global warming isn't real because I was cold today!
Also Great News:
World hunger is over because I just ate!"
(Stephen Colbert).

And finally:

"What if its a big hoax and we create a better
world for nothing?

1) Energy independence
2) Preserve rainforests
3) Sustainability
4) Green Jobs
5) Liveable cities
6) Renewables
7) Clean water, air
8) Healthy children
9) etc, etc "

Holy crap you lot are so dumb.
The Climate Change agenda has nothing to do with climate change.
It's about Global taxes, and creating global organisations that supersede national sovereignty.

Useful Idiots = People who fight over the issue.
Smart people = The ones who look who look at what's going on at the COP24 meetings and see what our governments are actually agreeing to.
http://unfccc.int/event/cop-24

Why don't you look at what they are effing saying?
- The words from their own mouths -

"G20 leaders on Saturday agreed a final communique after their summit in Buenos Aires, declaring that the Paris Agreement was 'irreversible'."

"Just this week, the UN’s environment programme said the voluntary national contributions agreed in Paris would have to triple if the world was to cap global warming below 2C. For 1.5C, they must increase fivefold."

Heres a question for you morons;
If fossil fuels are the enemy, why don't they lower production?
Why are they building more pipelines?
- And starting wars just to do it -
Do you think the US military will switch their ships and tanks to solar?

You people are idiots, you're being had, played for a fool to be a willing participant is selling OUR country out.

Yes! It was OURS, but now its not, control now
superceded to global authority.

Bloody idiots, thanks for nothing

Forgot this:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/03/un-climate-chief-has-solution-to-urgent-climate-threat-we-require-deep-transformations-of-our-economies-and-societies/

Foxy You missed it again, the things I do for you.

First you stated Quote
"Do you realise that our possible future King calls
climate change deniers a part of the "headless chooks
brigade?" And that he's totally amazed at those who
are deniers of science. He's spoken at climate change
conferences and has even had a book published on the
subject.

So who's the one with their eyes wide shut?
Not me!"

** Are you aware this is the same Prince Charles who stated. in July 2009 **

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

The Prince, who is advised by the leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper, said that even the economist Adam Smith, father of modern capitalism, had been aware of the short-comings of unfettered materialism.

Delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Charles said that without "coherent financial incentives and disincentives" we have just 96 months to avert "irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it."

July 2017 his doom and gloom prediction failed to materialize, why should anyone believe what he has to say now.
_____________________________________________________

Gee guess who is "headless chooks brigade?" ** Give you a guess P Charles
And that he's totally amazed at those who are deniers of science. ** Does he mean the science of doom and gloom that did not occur.

Why can't you just admit he was wrong and maybe you are being conned into believing him.

Armchair Critic,

Please take it easy and don't take things
so much to heart. This is after all only
a discussion forum.

Thank You for your opinions they are always appreciated.

Philip S.,

I don't want to argue with you.

I've said my piece.

However, I don't have anything more to add.

I shan't be responding any further.

I do appreciate your time and effort.

It has been interesting.

Don't you just love Global Warming except when it is cold.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6506599/Polar-vortex-bring-freezing-air-U-S-send-temperatures-plummeting-weeks.html

Polar vortex 'could bring freezing Arctic air over the U.S. and send temperatures plummeting within weeks'

Weather researchers say that a polar vortex could hit the United States and Canada with extremely frigid temperatures either by the end of this month or in January.

Judah Cohen, who is a climate expert at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, said that the latest studies indicate there is a chance Arctic air could push southward and blanket much of the Northern Hemisphere in the coming weeks.

It all depends on the polar vortex, the patch of air 60,000 feet above the Earth’s Arctic surface, according to The Washington Post.

If the vortex stays stable, the winter will be quite ordinary, with its usual cold spells, snow storms, and thaws.

But if the vortex is disrupted, it would mean especially frigid temperatures similar to those which covered the United States in February and March.

Cohen tweeted: 'Confidence is growing in a significant polar vortex disruption in the coming weeks.

'This could be the single most important determinant of the weather this winter across the Northern Hemisphere.'

There is disagreement over the projections of a possible disruption in the vortex.

While American climate experts say it could happen later this month, European experts are predicting that January will be when it is felt.

The findings about a possible polar vortex contradict predictions by U.S. meteorologists who said in October that this coming winter will be warmer and milder than usual.

The National Weather Service predicted a warmer than normal winter for the northern and western three-quarters of the nation - thanks to a weak El Niño brewing.

The greatest chance for warmer than normal winter weather is in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, Montana, northern Wyoming and western North Dakota.

No place in the United States is expected to be colder than normal, said Mike Halpert, deputy director of the government's Climate Prediction Center.

The Southeast, Ohio Valley and mid-Atlantic can go any which way on temperature, Halpert said.

Hey Philip S,
They're not necessarily wrong; as much as they're in on this charade all the way to the bank.
Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Prince Bernhard are all associated with the WWF;
Now read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/9246853/How-climate-change-has-got-Worldwide-Fund-for-Nature-bamboozled.html

At the heart of this thing is also Eugenics and a depopulation agenda.
http://steemit.com/documentary/@corbettreport/how-big-oil-controls-the-environmental-movement

Hi Foxy
"Please take it easy and don't take things so much to heart. This is after all only a discussion forum."

Hmmm.... How can I not take all of this to heart?
I don't want to be ruled by foreigners and their weird globalist ideas.
And why should I? We've got everything in this country we need.

They say in regards to free speech that you shouldn't scream fire in a crowded theatre.
I accept that, but what about when the theatre IS REALLY ON FIRE?

I don't say the things I do to specifically insult without any purpose.
I do it deliberately for the purposes of snapping people out of dreamland.
Sometimes I feel like I have to be 'bluntly insulting' so people wake up and see the bigger picture.

It might seem personal, but in truth it's not about any of you.
It's about me, and how I feel about my country slowly going down the toilet.
And in that context I ask again, how can I not take it all to heart?
It's not like there's a whole lot else I can do about it by myself except vent.

200 years of blood sweat and tears building this country just to have our countries politicians give the country away because they could become international politicians after their national career ended.

Tell me did the Anzacs fight for globalism?
Tell me did the Indigenous vote for globalism?

Were we consulted about the issue that we CITIZENS were the owners of this country, and now with all the globalist bureaucracy we are not?

Why because some German parading themselves as English royalty think they own us?

I can't believe Australians became so gullible in a single generation they actually gave the country away themselves.

"Here take it, we don't want it;
We'll rent it instead."

- What a bunch of absolute IDIOTS -

Armchair Critic There is a saying you can't educate an idiot, before I did not believe that but on here I do.

To me it defies rational thinking that someone can so firmly believe something that even when shown something that was stated is wrong they do not even consider maybe or possibly even if only a small doubt would be put into their thinking even as small as say there is a 1%, 2% or even 3% chance that something is wrong we are being told lies.

Fact
Prince Charles on advice from leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper made a statement that it had been "calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world" this statement was made July 2009.

** that is from calculations made by the two leading environmentalists **

** So July 2017 the world was in relatively the same state as July 2009. So that statement was based on faulty science or other errors or a blatant lie **

In any person with half a brain that should put a small doubt into their thinking on the subject in question.

Not on here.

I know the Corbett report usually drop in every few days excellent site.

AC, to answer your concerns about who owns Australia, I'm sorry to have to break it to you like this, but it actually is, without a shadow of doubt and contrary to what the left would like, owned by the Queen.
It was part of her inheritance when she became queen, in that all that is the Commonwealth was either fought for or conquered by those serving under the King/Queen of England at the time.
Australia is no different.
In 1788 it was colonised and claimed by and on behalf of the ruler of England at that time.
Having conquered Australia it now belonged to England and by extension, the ruler of England.
These spoils pass on to the next generation, and that is why the queen 'owns' Australia.
Get used to it.

Foxy,

The the data in the CSIRO article you linked above was derived from the data I showed you earlier. You'll note from the graphs in the article you listed that only one of the scenarios (RCP8.5) shows temperature increases that are anything like dangerous. The others show, as I'd said, low to moderate changes.

RCP8.5 is used by climate change alarmists because it always yields the scariest results and these are the ones that are fed out to the Foxy's of this world to generate support.

But RCP8.5 is so bad that even IPCC is now considering dropping it from their list of approved future scenarios.

But, given that it helps keep the Foxy's of this world in a state of fear, many alarmists groups continue to rely on it.

"As for oil being a renewable? It's the time involved in the process that has kept it from being considered a renewable."

You didn't read the article did you? Oh well best to avoid anything that might upset the narrative. FYG the article discusses some science that suggests that fossil fuels aren't fossil fuels but are created as a result of chemical actions deep underground. Oil under this scenario is constantly being renewed.

Imagine, unlimited unending oil supplies. A very different take on the world.

Hey ALTRAV,

- Thanks for blowing my buzz with that reality check -

Sad but true hey...

All I'm seeing is a bunch of sad old farts whose rightwhinge politics and pathological selfishness means they are completely incapable of accepting basic science. You talk yourself into a frenzy, feeding off each other in raptures of denialism, revelling in ignorance and contrariness.

We know how deeply invested in denialism you have become and how remote the possibility of redemption is. Every time one of your pet theories is shot down you refuse to acknowledge and just move to the next one. It is the flat earth brigade on steroids and is a wonder to behold.

But anyway here is yet another story for you to ignore/argue is a one off/say it has nothing to do with global warming/point ot how many cold days there are in Cairns or whatever lame halfarsed excuse you care to contruct.

“An extreme heatwave in far north Queensland last month is estimated to have killed more than 23,000 spectacled flying foxes, equating to almost one third of the species in Australia. The deaths were from colonies in the Cairns area where the mercury soared above 42 degrees Celsius two days in a row, breaking the city's previous record temperature for November by five degrees.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/heat-wipes-out-one-third-of-flying-fox-species/10632940

Yup that is one third of a species wiped out due to record temperatures.

Absolutely nothing to see here huh. And just look at Hasbeen, after two years of record breaking temperatures up his way he hasn't taken his pool cover off this year, therefore global warming is a sham.

Brilliant fellas, well done.

"All I'm seeing is a bunch of sad old farts whose right whinge politics and pathological selfishness means they are completely incapable of accepting basic science."

- I don't care about 'basic science' -

The climate of the planet is constantly changing, do you think the people who lived prior to the last ice age took up a plate for donations to avoid the ice age?

Human beings if they are to survive need to master their environment.
If that means building a mud hut to stay cool in the sun or protected from the cold and rain and predators at night, that's what we do.

What we don't do, is run around screaming our heads off to make carbon trading elites richer, when Chinese people wear facemasks to breathe in their own cities.

Dear AC,

Mate I am under no illusion that you care about the science, especially when conspiracy theories loom so large in your life.

You sure are a loopy critter on this stuff but you need to be careful, people are being killed because of the crap you are peddling.

“We’re trying to but he’s chasing us around the house,” she answered. “He’s mad about something on the internet about leftist pedophiles and he thinks we’re leftist and he’s calling us pedophiles. And I don’t know what all.”

http://www.complex.com/life/2017/10/far-right-youtuber-fatally-stabs-own-father

mhaze,

Once again I shall attempt to explain that it is the
time involved in the process that has kept oil from being
considered a renewable. It takes thousands of years to
form naturally and can't be replaced as fast as its being
consumed.

Oil is considered a limited resource. Limited because we
can't re-use it. Oil is considered non-renewable because
the main use of it is gasoline and it is a fuel and fuels
burn.

The damage being done to the planet is explained here:

http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/non-renewable-energy/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/16/david-attenborough/backs-huge-apollo-clean-energy-research-plan

Well ALTRAV, if you have to be owned by someone, & I suppose we all do, the Queen would be one of the better ones to be owned by. A hell of a lot better than being owned by the UN or the EU.

On that, are you sure about that. If the EU now own the UK, [& don't want to let their cash cow go], can the queen own us, or through the EU owning the UK, & therefor the queen, does that mean the EU owns Oz.

Then of course the UN want to own the EU, & all the rest of us.

This is all too hard. I think I'll go & have a quick lie down.

mhaze,

Here's the second link again. I made a typo in my
previous post.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/16/david-attenborough-backs-huge-apollo-clean-energy-research-plan

Foxy You asked a question Quote "When did you successfully manage to
point out to me that I was wrong?"

I replied to you with this.
In your blind belief in global warming.
When shown something that was stated is wrong they do not even consider maybe or possibly even if only a small doubt would be put into their thinking even as small as say there is a 1%, 2% or even 3% chance that something is wrong we are being told lies.

Fact
Prince Charles on advice from leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper made a statement that it had been "calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world" this statement was made July 2009.

** that is from calculations made by the two leading environmentalists **

** So July 2017 the world was in relatively the same state as July 2009. So that statement was based on faulty science or other errors or a blatant lie **

In any person that should put a small doubt into their thinking on the subject in question.

Rather than answer you come back with this.
Quote "Philip S.,

No longer read your posts.

Talk to your kindred spirits on this forum.

I'm no longer interested."

WHY did you ask the question to only come back with that childish response?
_______________________________________________________

It is evident that Foxy works on the principal Do as I say not as I do. In plain language they call that person a hypocrite.

mhaze,

Here's another link that may be of interest:

http://www.skepticalscience.com

Hasbeen, not sure about any of that stuff, but it doesn't matter because the Rothschilds control the whole world through the banks, which according to records they own/run 97% of the banks, worldwide.
I've seen the list and it's quite sobering and in some ways frightening.
These things like EU, UN and so on and so forth, are just fronts, to fool people with their special brand of PC BS, but in fact are doing things that have nothing to do with what we are led to believe.
There is so much more to this story but this is not the post to discuss it.

Hey SteeleRedux,

Well I do care about the planet and the people in it, I guess.
- A fair go for everyone and do what's right, you know. -

I just have a different way of looking at things sometimes.
It's not all bad; just probably not all good either.

The key is keeping your feet on the ground, and not go crazy with it all.

Regards the linked article.
I think a part of the problem might be that you had an unemployed 33 year old with anger issues living it up in the parents house on their dollar, and was probably on anti-depressants too.
They should've raised him right and made him take responsibility for himself when he was young and then kicked him the hell out and years ago.

ALTRAV,

There's been quite a bit of slander heaped on
the House of Rothschild over the years. Most
of it not only crackpot theories but they have
dashes of anti-Semitism to liven things up.

The Rothschilds have also been linked to that
missing Malaysian airliner, the 9/11 attacks,
the sinking of the Titanic - and the list goes
on.

As for the Queen "owning" Australia?
So, it's the Queen selling off this country
to the Chinese? Interesting.

SR,

In typical fashion you have gone off half cocked. You obviously read just the first line and simply decided to trash the whole post.

Firstly, you have cited plenty of dodgy and extremely partisan sites in previous threads particularly around Israel.

Secondly, I clearly know far more about genetics than you do. I had a mother that was a research scientist in biology, and grew up with a microscope and spent time as a teenager looking at viruses through an electron microscope, and as such caught you out when you fluffed the mitochondrial DNA.

The type of DNA markers that the Prof was talking about are typically spread around large large population groups and would not differentiate between say English and Italian, but between English and African or Australian.

So to say that the markers are specific to the USA is pure BS. The information suggests that it covers all North America and at least central America. How much further it extends is yet to be tested, but is likely to include the entire continent. Given that EW's native ancestry is so dilute, normal indicators of ethnicity are unreliable, and technically EW's ancestor could have come from anywhere on the continent.

Finally, though these markers are rare in people not from the continental USA, they are not unheard of, and with only a few of these markers, even 100% European ancestry is not ruled out.

So when you have something substantial and can do more than wave vaguely at your narrow interpretation of the prof's comments then we can talk.

Foxy, your the last person I would have thought to go rogue.
FYI, this 'branch' of the RC family began with a mental deviant.
This family has been responsible for the death of thousands if not millions of people, and before you even think about a rebuttal, DON'T.
Instead look into them, just like I have done over the years, and what you will find, (on the record) will disgust you, and if you choose to disagree then I have finally seen your true colours.
As this is off topic, I will cease and hopefully someone will start a thread on this scumbag family, then we can unearth the truth, because they have been very skillful at burying the truth from the very beginning.

Foxy, I'm going to stay off topic for this one, if only to bring you down a notch or two, or at least to force feed some reality back in your life, which you are desperately lacking.
I'll step back now and charge you with the task of punching in or Google'ing, 'Complete List of Banks, Owned or Controlled by the Rothschild Family'.
Be sure to read all the attached material following the list where it describes, in detail the history and antics of this, according to you, 'wonderful' family.
They are the reason people malign the Jews.
This lineage IS by far one of the worst in history.
Now please humour me and check out the site, you will be fascinated and not be disappointed.
It will definitely leave you with questions and I hope it will go a little way to you understanding where some of my angst comes from.

ALTRAV,

There have been so many conspiracy theories on
the Rothschilds. I have read many of them and they
have all been debunked.

I am not interested in reading any more nonsense.
You should read about the IMF and other World Financial
Institutions -
and who really owns and controls the finances of the
World.

And still the climate change mob keep showing what they really are.


Clemson University Climate Change scientist: “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?”

If they can't control us, they would be quite happy to exterminate us, & some people actually think they are interested in saving the planet for humanity.

Fat chance.

Dear Shadow Minister,

These are the professor's exact words; "The facts suggest that you absolutely have Native American ancestry in your pedigree". No ifs or buts there my friend.

And within his report was “The test sample's Native American ancestry falls between First Nations (Canada) and Indigenous Mexican peoples, as would be expected for Native American ancestry deriving from the lower 48 states of the United States.”

So just because your Mum let you look down her microscope you think you are able to come to a different conclusion than a world renown geneticist?

The bloody high of hubris mate. Spectacular.

As to mitochondrial DNA you obviously know far less than even myself, or you were obviously so determined to make your point, that you asserted I had said something completely different to my actual words.

Clueless!

Look I get that you are getting so annoyed at being shown up time and time again but surely the answer lies in doing proper research, properly comprehending what is being put to you, and not making stuff up. Give it a try and you might find you will have a better Christmas.

Dear Hasbeen,

Still no comment about the record temperatures up you way over the last three years? Typical denier behavior mate, ignore the bleeding obvious even if it bites you on the bum.

//No longer read your posts.

Talk to your kindred spirits on this forum.

I'm no longer interested."

WHY did you ask the question to only come back with that childish response?//

Really? You think that's a childish response?

So what does that make your response to people whose opinions you find distasteful?

//Rather than wasting time replying to a troll I have just coded a Toni Lavis filter for firefox v63.0.3.//

Bloody hypocrite.

This also should make the calculations of climate scientist wrong.

China and Russia Have Modified the Atmosphere Above Europe to Test Possible Military Application, Scientists Say.

Moscow and Beijing have reportedly joined forces to carry out heating experiments above Europe and modify an important layer of the atmosphere for a possible military application, according to Chinese scientists.

Five experiments were conducted in June, and one of them created a physical disturbance over an area as large as 49,000 square miles, or roughly half the size of Britain, The South China Morning Post reported Monday. The heating experiment, which took place 310 miles over the small Russian town of Vasilsursk in Eastern Europe, generated an electric spike that contained 10 times “more negatively charged subatomic particles than surrounding regions,” the publication noted.

In a separate experiment at the time, the temperature of thin, ionized gas in high altitude rose up to 212 F due to a particle flow. The electrons were pushed into the sky by an atmospheric heating facility in the Eastern European town, which was created by the former Soviet Union during the Cold War years. After the facility ignited a host of high-power antennas to introduce a considerable amount of microwaves into the high atmosphere—which reached 260 megawatts, the necessary amount of power to light a small city—the Chinese electromagnetic surveillance satellite named Zhangheng-1 gathered data with state-of-the-art sensors, the Post added.

The results were published in the latest edition of China’s journal Earth and Planetary Physics, in which the scientists hailed the results as “satisfactory.” However, other experts believed that such cooperation is rather unusual because “the technology involved is too sensitive,”

While some people may worry about man-made disturbances over our heads, other scientists underscored that the energy released into the ionosphere is not meant to trigger a cataclysmic event across the globe. “ “Whatever they do, it must not cause harm to the people living on this planet.”

** Like the above paragraph since when would the military be concerned about consequences **

Whole article.
http://www.newsweek.com/china-russia-modified-atmosphere-europe-military-application-1262349

Foxy, this is how you project yourself as a mature informed person?
By dismissing something by simply saying you've read ALL the stuff about the Rothschilds and I'm supposed to take your word that you know that it has 'all been debunked'.
By taking this path, you have made a serious error of judgement.
You're 'forever' preaching to us and shoving links in our faces, the few times you are asked to do the same, you cut and run.
You are displaying true to form lefty behaviour, by your 'holier than thou' superiority attitude you have just lowered your standing to that of an extreme lefty.
Shame on you, you will not be taken seriously here-after.
The least you could do is have a look at the site.
BTW there is NO way in hell that you know of any such material debunking these claims, if only because you don't have a clue what the claims are because by your own admission you have not seen the site I mention.
Never mind, other posters will have a look and at least they will be completely informed as opposed to yourself, which now I am beginning to think you've been bluffing this whole time.
Now that explains a lot.

Hey ALTRAV,
These could be interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/user/prepare333/search?query=rothschild

AC, I get that there is always at least one other view about 'everything', but it is sad when someone believes their view is the only or right one.
No-one knows the truth about anything, other than the people involved first hand, and so it is we rely on the best hypothesis on any given topic.
WE research to achieve this, and most times we are faced with conflicting reports or stories about the same topic.
We must be open to ALL possibilities and information, whether it is what you wanted to hear or not.
Most of all you must be open to change or accept that your view or agenda was not the correct one or totally correct one, and be prepared to accept the fact that you were wrong, insert the new findings and modify your stance accordingly, then move on.
This is not some childish competition as it appears some believe it is.
It is a forum.

Foxy,

This is beyond bizarre. I offer up a paper that suggests that oil is not a fossil fuel but a result of ongoing chemical reactions deep underground. Now this isn't a crack-pot theory. It’s been around for decades, is accepted by a very large number of scientists and is, it seems, the accepted theory in the Russia oil industry (which is one of the top three in the world).

But without bothering to read the paper or consider the theory or its implications, you just reject it out-right and consider that I need to be appraised of the current theory than oil is made up of dead dinosaurs.

Now it’s all very well to reject this or that theory, but to do so because it says something you'd prefer wasn't true, is utterly anti-science.

Yet in the very next breathe you preen yourself on how you follow the science and denounce those who don't agree with you about the science as deniers of science. Would you consider yourself a fossil fuel denier? You talk of Galileo and, I'm sure, imagine you would have been on his side. But here you are treating a theory that challenges the accepted notions as though it’s beyond contemplation. Sorry but you're closer to the Vatican than to Galileo.

But we see this with so many of those people who think of themselves as following the science when what they are really doing is following the politics and pretending that they do so because of the science.

Yet when I offer up a few papers that completely reject the so-called consensus, they don't even bother to ponder those papers or in any way address that issue. They simply ignore that science. When I point out that there is good science that the earth's been warmer than now for 3000 of the past 12000 years, do they ponder that or attempt to see how that affects their beliefs. No they ignore the data and carry on as though it doesn't exist and then proclaim their virtue in following the science while doing the opposite.
/cont

/cont

And then we get the likes of SR, who just makes up his own science (it was warming in the middle of the century?...dear oh dear) and then proceeds to call others deniers and flat-earthers.

In fact, if you follow the science, the correct position is to be agnostic. We know, or think we know, that the earth’s warmed a little over the past century or so. But we don’t know how much of that warming is down to human activity. (I read a paper recently that said that termites emit more CO2 than humans and that it appears that termite numbers are increasing. Best to ignore that science?)

But what we most definitely don’t know is the future. As the science improves, the chances of the future being grim, declines. There is a concept called ECS which basically calculates how much warming there’ll be given a doubling in CO2 levels. Almost from the beginning of the scare that number has been falling. Early on models were very bad a handling cloud activity. As they got better, the calculated ECS fell. It continues to fall. It seems to me to be unlikely that we’ll even see a doubling of CO2 levels yet, currently, a lot of scientific research shows that doubling would result in a 1 c warming only. Feedbacks would then kick in but research continues to throw doubt on the severity of that as well.

Research by economists, including those with the IPCC shows that people around 2080 will be about 4 times wealthier than today and have access to technologies that haven’t even been thought of as yet. Should there be a spike in climate problems at that time (ie 2080 -2100) our descendants will be in a vastly better position to address it than we are today. Yet the alarmists continue to think that its preferable to destroy jobs and threaten economic well-being based on problems that don’t currently exist and may never eventuate and will not be resolved by the measures they advocate even if they eventuate.

Please read this days SMH story NSW Liberal Government declares war on it Federal party/government
Then same paper latest story about climate change
Note source for that story
Then come back and remind me those of us who believe the science are fools

Belly,

You'll need to be a lot more specific about which SMH articles you're talking about. Just post the links.

"Then come back and remind me those of us who believe the science are fools"

I'm not criticising you for following the science. I'm criticising you for your attacks on those who don't accept uncritically the science you follow; for calling those that disagree with you flat-earthers and deniers and so on. And then hypocritically decrying the use of the "mindless insult".

So let me ask you this Belly. You say you follow the science. I've posted links to show that 'the science' shows that for large parts of the last 12000 years, temperatures have been higher than now. Do you follow THAT science?

I've posted links to articles that say that higher CO2 levels have little or no effect on the climate. Do you follow THAT science.

I've posted links showing that the CSIRO's data predicts only low to moderate warming over the next 60 years. Do you follow THAT science?

In the past I've posted links showing that models exaggerate the level of predicted warming. Do you follow THAT science?

Or do you deny THAT science.

You see, those who mindlessly call others deniers make the mistake of thinking there's only one 'the science'. But I deny that :)

Belly,

A little punctuation would help readers to decipher your posts :)

MHaze,

Yes, surely it would be sensible for governments to be allocating generous funds to something like the CSIRO to remediate the greenhouse effect. As well, why not mass plantings of vegetation to soak up the vast amounts of CO2 - trees (timber trees, cash crop trees like ti-tree and sandalwood, fruit trees where appropriate), suitable grasses, etc. ?

Come to think of it, is there a formula for working out how much new vegetation would be required to match the amount of CO2 being produced each year ? Or is that just a crazy idea, showing up my obvious ignorance of the whole process ?

While we're at it, [more ignorance], why massive burn-offs across rural and remote Australia - doesn't this put enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere ? Maybe even more than the termites produce ? Of course, burn-offs are necessary to minimise under-storey build-up - which is even more reason to manage vast plantations across the north.

Plantations across the north, forever, would provide employment for Aboriginal people in remote areas, who are crying out for full employment, for life. Spin-offs would include development of Aboriginal expertise in nursery management, plant husbandry, hydrology and irrigation, timber-mills and timber-processing forever, food production, agribusiness and transport.

What's not to like ?

Cheers,

Joe

SR,

Don't lie the quote was:

"the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."

Not only do you have feeble grasp on genetics, but your memory is going as well.

Braindead!

I knew about mitochondrial DNA as teenager, incl the theories as to how it came to be, what it was for, its uses in tracking population movements and the search for a mitochondrial eve, so when you cocked it up it stood out like a sore thumb.

ALTRAV,

I made it quite clear (or so I thought),
that I am not interested in conspiracy
theories about the Rothschilds. Yet you are
still banging on about the link you gave me
to the "jdreport.com."

My preference in websites - lies
in reputable sources of information. I like
to know who the people are behind the
information being given so that I can weigh
up their credibility.

The "jdreport.com." has
hidden its identity. It's even got a
disclaimer as to the accuracy of the content
being given and because of that I suspect that
coming from the Netherlands - it's a "hate
website," not to be taken seriously.

Also I've seen the long, long, list of banks
given earlier on
a different website - and the claim of some of
the bank names listed
that are supposedly owned by the Rothschilds
are completely false - such as the Reserve
Bank of Australia, and the Reserve Bank of
New Zealand to name just a few.

To me, at least it seems that the "jdreport.com"
is anti-Semitic and has a vendetta against the
Rothschilds. That is nothing new. The Rothschilds
conspiracy theories have followed this family
for decades.

If I have gone down in your estimation somehow.
That's unfortunate. However, I shall have to
try to do my best to live with that.

Enjoy your day.

mhaze,

I can't remember calling you a "denier" of any kind.
My attempts were to try to provide you with
information so that you'd understand where I was
coming from and why.

I did appreciate your providing me with so much detail
as to what you believed and of course I respect your
opinion and the efforts you've gone to. I happen
to see things differently. That should not however
make either one of us disgruntled and wish to attack the other.
We are fully functioning adults and hopefully we can
both end up behaving with civility.

Thank You for understanding.

Foxy, OK thanks for responding, I'll keep it short and to the point.
If I am to question this site, I will, but just one point that makes it a little more believable than you suggest, and that is;
Your reference to the Aussy Reserve Bank.
It's not a bank and it's not Ayssy, just like the US Reserve, it too is a private entity which ultimately has a Rothschild at the helm.
So you can see, when I discover an anomaly I am suspicious and therefore look deeper and further, and these are some of the results from these, what you call, 'conspiracy theories'.

All this argy bargy and arguing about the same thing is not going to make one bit of difference to reality. Liberal and Labor and the Greens, apart from small differences in detail, are in lockstep on climate change and unreliable energy.

They are not going to take any notice of a few anonymous posters on OLO or any social media, arguing among themselves. This is not real life, folks. Anyone who thinks people outside the elites and without any power (all of us) can make a difference is seriously deluded. Unless you vote for the Australian Conservatives in the Senate next year (which you won't), you will continue arguing pointlessly until you die or finally wake up to the futility of it all.

Just read this online:

“A report titled Innocenti Report Card 14 produced by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in 2017, ranked Australia 39 out of 41 high- in middle-income countries in achieving quality education.”

Do you really think that Australia has the brains to resist the coming s—tstorm created by our dimwit political class and average voters?

Once, a long time ago, we had an Aussie poster living and working in China contributing here
She I think it was, informed us her students read this forum
You only have to check who is logged in to see many read but never post
It has been said our views here do not matter
Yet politicians have posted here too.
Are our views restricted to this site, or do some of us live them
YES even while kicking and screaming all they way, to some extent even this federal government knows the climate is changing
Maybe room, [not in my view] to claim that change is not man made
But claiming it is not happening?

Belly
Quote "Yet politicians have posted here too." You mean like this.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20086
Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW.

On that thread you will see this comment.
"It appears David Leyonhjelm is not very good at engaging the electorate or voters, I have looked at a number of articles he has posted here then went to the comments I could not find one he had replied too.

He has at a guess around 80 articles" ** If he does post he does not appear to come back to answer questions. **

Quote "Maybe room, [not in my view] to claim that change is not man made But claiming it is not happening?"

I would say you are wrong, I would also say everyone on here does believe in the concept of Climate change but what they disagree with is what extent is attributable to humans as opposed to natural causes.

The UN, IPCC in there terms of reference are only allowed to look at man made causes which are estimated as only a fraction of overall effects.

When there predictions are proven wrong like here.
Fact
Prince Charles on advice from leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper made a statement that it had been "calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world" this statement was made July 2009.

** that is from calculations made by the two leading environmentalists **

** So July 2017 the world was in relatively the same state as July 2009. So that statement was based on faulty science or other errors or a blatant lie **

In any person that should put a small doubt into their thinking on the subject in question.

** Also too many can't see thing in an out of the box way.
I recently posted this story above.

This also should make the calculations of climate scientist wrong.

China and Russia Have Modified the Atmosphere Above Europe to Test Possible Military Application, Scientists Say.

These experiments plus the ones conducted by the US military would have to be effecting the temperature readings somewhere.

ALTRAV,

For your information:

The Reserve Bank of Australia is a body corporate
wholly owned by the Commonwealth of Australia.
It derives its functions and powers from the
Reserve Bank Act 1959.

In Rothschild's day, before banking regulations and
antitrust laws existed, it was indeed possible for
small groups to gain controlling interests in
enough financial institutions that it could be
argued that they "controlled" a nation's money
supply. Today that is no longer the case.

The claim that the Rothschilds own half the world's
wealth and the notion that anyone could "control
the world's finances" is ludicrous.

There is no longer any such thing as a monolithic House
of Rothschild - that theory is more than 100 years old.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes mate I did high school genetics too.

We both know that when I raised mitochondrial DNA as an “aside” solely in the context of showing that DNA was not the sole arbiter of heredity. I recognised your lack of comprehension and tried to assist but to no avail.

I have gone back over my posts and at no point did I get a single thing wrong. Of course if you wanted to plainly state your case then I am prepared to listen but you certainly haven't yet.

You also claimed; “Don't lie the quote was: "the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago." “

That is just one of the other quotes not that mine were incorrect or inaccurate you clown. Have I got you that tied up in knots that you have to resort to this kind of bulldust? Either get better at putting your case or get over it and stop. There really is no need for this kind of underhanded crap.

Dear mhaze,

Still banging on are we? Here you go.

In 1938 Guy Stewart Callendar an English engineer looked at the temperature rises sine the turn of the century and compared them to a rise in CO2. He predicted a doubling of CO2 would result in a 2C rise in temperature. His work spurred a lot of research into the greenhouse effect and its implications for future global temperatures.

There was indeed a dropping of daily maximum temperatures during the 50s through to the 70s however there nighttime minimums continued to increase. The explanation of course turned out to be solar dimming caused by the increase in aerosol pollutants as the result of increased manufacturing. These caused less sunlight reaching the earth therefore lower daily maximums but did not impact the nighttime temperatures Once better pollution controls were instituted the masking diminished and the underlying daytime warming was evident.

And another couple.

"Salmon may lose the ability to smell danger as carbon emissions rise University of Washington". Note the MAY in all these bits of garbage.

Here is another, "Southwest forest trees may grow much slower in the 21st century".

This one they ignore the greening of the planet, [even the Sahara is greening around the edges], due to the increase in CO2, or the huge growth of flora that supported the dinosaurs, when CO2 was double today, & the planet was wetter.

Interestingly none of the warmest have commented on all these way out claims. Of course it is hard to get in a comment before some real science shoots this rot down.

There is NO carbon being emitted - it is carbon dioxide.

The following link might help:

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

Hasbeen,

It would have been helpful before your pocking fun at
the salmon you would have given us the big picture
of ocean acidification and the fact that this was
changing the water's chemistry - therefore the
possibility of what could happen to salmon is indeed
real.

Why didn't you give us the link - so that we could
make up our own minds - or doesn't that suit your
agenda?

Here's the link:

http://www.washington.edu/news/2018/12/18/salmon-may-lose-the-ability-to-smell-danger-as-carbon-emissions-rise/

And here's another link you conveniently left out:

http://phys.org/news/2018-12-southwest-forest-trees-slow-21st.html

cont'd ...

Apologies for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://phys.org/news/2018-12-southwest-forest-trees-slower-21st.html

SR,
Said “Still banging on are we? “

For those that don’t know SR, this is his way of admitting that he monumentally screwed up and would now like everyone to never mention it again.

An admission of error isn’t in SR’s lexicon.

Screwed up. Well he claimed that “The initial impetus for global temperature research was the fact that solar cycles had predicted a cooling planet yet midway through the last century it was instead it was found to be warming”. In fact there wasn’t a warming but a cooling (as he now sort of admits) just as the “solar cycles had predicted”. Perhaps that tells you something? Solar cycles predict cooling…there is a cooling. But SR then decides the solar cycles have nothing to do with it.
As is his want he continues to get it wrong. In fact the decline in temperatures started in the mid 1940’s and ended in the mid 1970s which is why there was so much angst around a mini ice age during the early 1970s.
Hilariously SR is happy to assert that others are “a pack of buffoons. There is not a scientific bone in any of you” yet makes these monumental errors of fact and then blusters about his superior understanding of the issue based upon his erroneous facts.

No wonder he wants me to stop talking about it.

Dear mhaze,

Good grief mate. Why do you continue to exhibit such poor comprehension skills. I expressly referred to the middle of the last century, not the latter half which you are now banging on about.

Okay a little history lesson for you then.

Glacial advances over a long period had given credence to the thought another ice age was coming prompting expeditions like this one in 1923;

“Captain Donald B. MacMillan, who will sail from here June 16 on the little schooner Bowdoin to resume his arctic explorations, announced today that one purpose of the expedition is to determine whether there is beginning another ice age, as the advance of glaciers in the last seventy years would indicate.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1923/05/28/archives/macmillan-to-seek-signs-of-new-ice-age-his-expedition-equipped-for.html

Callendar's work was based on temperature increases since the start of the century and was an explanation of why the world's temperature was increasing when it was thought it should have been cooling.

A lot of research into the impact of CO2 on temperature was generated from his efforts.

For instance Kaplan in 1952 showed that adding more CO2 to the upper atmosphere must inevitably change the balance of radiation. It was physicist Plass in 1956 who worked on calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmoshere. From that he detailed how doubling the CO2 levels would see a 3-4C temperature rise.

The one I particularly liked was Suess' work in 1955. As a chemist he found that the newer the wood in trees grown over the last century the higher the ratio of plain carbon compared to carbon-14 which indicated an increase in atmospheric fossil carbon.

All this work was being done in the 50s.

Sure global maximum daytime temperatures were to decline from the mid 40s to the 70s but the cat was out of the bag. Recognition of the role of CO2 on global temperatures had been flagged and actively was being researched.

I have happily apologised for errors on this forum before but don't think I have ever needed to you. I think it is patently clear why that is the case.

SR

Yeah because 1950 wasn't the middle of the century.

What a bozo.

Dear Steele,

mhaze is behaving like you're a chocolate
ice - cream and he doesn't have a spoon.

I think he likes you.

SR,

Try not to be such a weasel, firstly you deliberately misquote someone then you try to bollocks your way out of your previous cock up.

You are worst than that lying old trout Gillian Triggs.

Shadow Minister,

Still full of compliments, we see.

How about taking a break? It is
Christmas.

Foxy,

You're 'right-er' than you think....I'm allergic to chocolate.

Loudmouth,

If you're concerned about the level of CO2 (I'm not) then, yes, growing more foliage plants is a partial solution as is not cutting down/burning foliage.Indeed in the early days of Australia's CO2 fetishism that was how we met some of our CO2 'commitments' - by stopping farmers clearing their own land. That is the government effectively expropriated their land, without compensation, and forced them to leave it untouched to refoliate. Most Australians were fine with that since someone else was paying for their CO2 alarmism which I've mentioned earlier.

We could also start growing more trees etc and that would absorb some or a lot of CO2. But only up to a point. New growth forests absorb CO2 but old growth forests either are neutral or, worse, emit more CO2 than they absorb. We used to hear about the Amazon being the lungs of the world.But no longer because research shows that it puts out more CO2 (through decomposition) than it absorbs.
So growing new forests is short-term only.

SR,

Evidence that CO2 absorbed heat was around long before the middle of last century. But its entirely beyond the point. I don't think anyone disputes it. But the question is how much heat. You say a doubling of CO2 will lead to 2C temperature increases. Well that's on the high side of current research.

But:
1. I don't think we'll actually get t a doubling.

2. That increase in temperatures is logarithmic ie the last ton (or whatever) of CO2 absorbs less heat than the previous ton etc. So, since we're already half way to that doubling, we've already experienced much more than the half of your purported increase due to doubling.

3. There is a point when CO2 reaches saturation level. It only absorbs heat at certain wave-lengths. Once all heat at those wave-lengths is being absorbed, all further CO2 is effectively harmless. Note also that water vapour also absorbs at some of the same wave-lengths so that saturation levels may be reached much earlier than previously supposed.

mhaze,

The only thing I am allergic to is mean-
spiritedness.

I'd have thought you would have developed an immunity to such an allergy by now (grin)

We could post on this subject for about a decade
I all probability every thread about it if put together would with ease be the longest ever
Maybe not
But we started posting the science, listing countrys who publicly agree with it
Just maybe if not now soon a majority of the people in the western world want action on climate change
Yet we who believe cop the anger of the other side, just for having an opinion.

mhaze,

Yes - you'd think so.

To me humans are the most extraordinary creatures,
and a big part of me still wants to reach an
even greater understanding about who we are. Not
because I need to know more necessarily, but
because I am drawn to the process of discovery.
If someone asks what makes me happiest, it is
never anything I can quantify like a house or a
possession or something I can touch. It's the
spirit of the human being, which can fill me with
more joy than anything in the world.

And that's what I've learned on my journey, that
my spirit is uplifted by these encounters.
Yes, I have met some bad people along the way.
But I have also met some amazing souls, and their
light fills me.

What is your substitute for chocolate - wine,
sherry, vodka, caviar, pavlovas, glaced hams,
cherries, plums, liquer - so much to choose from...

Dear Shadow Mnister,

Hell mate I do get sick of having to repeatedly clean up after you.

You accused me of “deliberately misquoting” the professor when I reported him using these words: "The facts suggest that you absolutely have Native American ancestry in your pedigree"

You then went on to say I tried to “bollocks your way out of your previous cock up. And that “You are worst than that lying old trout Gillian Triggs.”

I had little idea what you were prattling on about. The professor's quote was in all the news reports.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-16/elizabeth-warren-mocked-by-trump-as-pocahontas-releases-dna-test/10379596

What I hadn't counted on was you being so bloody thick. You were failing to find it in the report yet if you go to my post you will see I used the quote first then referenced the report for a different quote.

You really do need to try and keep up young chap. I really don't have the time and am fast losing the inclination to keep helping you sort things out in this fashion. Better effort in the future hey kiddo.

Foxy,

You fell for the bait again, I wondered whether you would act according to form and ignore SR's ad hominem and finger wag at me. I was not disappointed.

SR

What you quoted was said by a reporter commenting on the issue, not the prof. You escape the accusation of venality on the basis of incompetence.

Have you worked out what mitochondria are yet?

Shadow Minister,

Coming from a bloke who's
been using the same, old, same old, rusted on,
well-outworn, boring, creepy, sleazy, tactics
on the forum for years. The same old pigeon,
crapping all over the place and now
trying to fly off, join the flock, and declare
victory. I can't deny you that if it makes you
happy.

Dear Shadow Mnister,

Gawd you lot are snowflakes. You call someone a lying old trout and get pulled up on it but when someone refers to you only as thick you think there is some equivalence.

Well mate there isn't. Stop being so triggered all the time.

Next you gave up this lame piece; “What you quoted was said by a reporter commenting on the issue, not the prof. You escape the accusation of venality on the basis of incompetence.”

The following was in the link.

“The analysis was first reported by The Boston Globe and posted on the newspaper's website along with a video”

It took all of three seconds to google that video and here it is with the professor saying the exact bloody words I originally quoted!

http://youtu.be/RHzbdZuVyAM

This is of course what the reporter was quoting from. And you have the gall to refer to someone's competence?

And still bleating about mDNA? You have been challenged repeatedly to say where I was wrong yet you continue to fail to do so.

Anyway all that aside I have been looking over the thread to see how we have managed to get ourselves yet again slanging off at each other to this degree, especially as I had undertaken to take each thread as it comes. On reflection taking the umbrage that I did over you saying I had “no moral authority” was probably excessive. Therefore, also in the spirit of the season, I am offering an apology. My fault this time. I'm sheathing the sword until the new year. Then of course it is back on with gusto.

Have a good Christmas mate.

Belly Quote "listing countrys who publicly agree with it"

Foxy posted a few links that were useless as the questions were biased.

2 did not even include what questions were asked.

Most importantly the American one polled 1,000 people to represent 150 Million or so people, 1 person for every 150,000 people anyone who believes the results needs help.

Quote "Yet we who believe cop the anger of the other side, just for having an opinion."

Rubbish you and foxy cop the flack simply because you believe in the GW 100% even though predictions by climate scientist of things that would definitely happen in the future failed to materialize.

Even to a person with half a brain these failures would put a slight doubt into there thinking, not with you and Foxy.

Even the FACT that the IPCC terms of reference allow them ONLY to look at man made causes, that also should make any rationally thinking person question what is the truth.

Philip S.,

Your speaking about "rational thinking" people
and then, your inability to grasp explanations given?
well, what can one say except that this is
keeping you falsely true.

A times onlookers must be confused just what bought us together here and what it is all about
I know I am, why the mud, heat, insults,are we children
MOST of us can if we wish talk without insulting each other
Hope every one has a great Christmas, truly do every one
And know that feeling, the one we control barely when some one we can not stand turns up for Christmas?
We mostly try that little bit harder to not let it get to us
Maybe we can bring some of that here

Dear Belly, and Everyone,

Wishing You All the Joys of the Christmas Season.
Enjoy Every Moment. And Peace, Good Health, Happiness,
and Prosperity in the New Year 2019!

And to ALTRAV - a Great Big Hug!

Foxy,

"What is your substitute for chocolate - wine,...."

Coffee. Wine is my substitute for water. (a couple of possible meanings there)

mhaze,

I love a good brew.

Buy I have to limit my intake unfortunately.

Still, there are other substitutes, as you have
pointed out. (smile).

Foxy thank you my wishes returned to every poster may the new year bring a better world for us all
no guessing what my resolution is it shines brightly every time I fail to ignore trolling

Foxy, I am old fashioned and a bit of a traditionalist, so I'll say Merry Christmas, and a happy new year, and not the PC version, 'Happy Holidays', groan.
I think it sends the wrong message.
Anyway Foxy, my love, I think I have finally figured you out, (for the better).
I could not understand why you appeal to me yet your comments annoy me.
I realised that your demeanor is sweet and child like and that's what makes you so endearing, yet it also explains your failure to see the world for what it is and not what you describe, or want, it to be.
I can't give a worthwhile description of this latter point but it has to do with you wanting to see things in a positive light, and rejecting life's negatives.
Anyway, I know I don't have to wish you a merry Christmas, because I know you will have one regardless, but I want to just the same.

ALTRAV,

buon Natale

felice anno nuovo

I'm more of a Festivus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus ) advocate myself although my family are more traditional. Nonetheless I always insist on erecting an an aluminium pole among the Christmas frivolity.

Since 25/12 is really a celebration of Sol Invictus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus) in the northern hemisphere I also try to get the family to celebrate southern hemisphere Sol Invictus on 22/6 (or perhaps 21/6). But there are few takers for such a radical idea.

SR,

I only call liars "lying old trouts". The fact that you are unable to provide a link to prove the provenance of your "quote" shows how venal you are.

Now you are trying to weasel your way out by calling anyone that does not swallow your lies a snowflake. This coming from the most sensitive snowflake on the site.

Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 December 2018 10:42:07 AM

The only thing I am allergic to is mean-
spiritedness.

Answer- This view seems to be based on the idea that people are naturally 'good'- a "Locke Liberalist" assumption- perhaps this view can be correlated with the feminine persuasion- perhaps because men have traditionally been the protectors or perhaps there is a deeper endocrinal or physical cause.

Statistically a person that you meet in the world is perhaps unlikely to care about what is 'good' for you.

The argument whether people are naturally good has been going for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. In countries such as Britain, and other close Christian countries perhaps there is a greater level of commonality- and hence 'goodness' - the further from our influence the less we can assume 'goodness'.

We cannot make everyone 'good' nor should we interfere in their communities- they have their own version of goodness that may be incompatible with ours.

"No fate but what we make."

Hope you all had a Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year..