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Thanks for the link on Warren Foxy but you are hopelessly, laughingly out of date which makes your comment that "you're somewhat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