Why is the Morrison government spending $4 million on a feasibility study into a coal fired power station at Collinsville Queensland. An insane waste of taxpayer money, economically such an undertaking in a free market is unrealistic. There is no possibility that such a project would attract the necessary private investment to ever fly. Why spend $4 million, the answer is simple, to appease a radical misguided coal loving section of the National Party.

Presently the coal industry is a very important component for the well being of Australia, it accounts for 52,000 jobs and is worth $67 billion to the economy. But what of its future, all the signs, and all the advice, indicate coal has an extremely uncertain long term future in Australia. Action is needed now to facilitate a transition away from coal to more sustainable industries that can provide long term job opportunities for tomorrows generation. Carrying on with silly feasibility studies into what will prove to be a dead horse is ridiculous, even if it does placate the likes of Joyce, Canavan and Christensen in the short term.

Paul you come up with a scheme that will employ 600 people in a remote town in QLD. Obviously you prefer they move to the coast or go no welfare and become a second class community.

I want to see how hot we can make the planet so lets keep burning coal, oil and gas like there's no tomorrow.

Just saw on TV that Antarctica has just recorded an abnormally high temperature and that its ice shelves and glaciers are being melted by a warmer Southern Ocean.

When all the ice is eventually melted in Antarctica we will be able to migrate to the South Pole instead of going to Mars. Tony Abbott can lead the first colonists.

Josephus,
I have asked him et al such questions over time also. They never come up with any ideas other than primitive sarcasm !
If the study comes up with cleaner coal burning then all good but considering that they'll only engage academic "experts" it'll be a waste of Dollars for sure !
Coal burning is by far less polluting than producing frivolous commodities & frivolous overuse of communication which are all petroleum based !
The money would be better spent on creating a Non Military National Service ! At least a NS would ensure more common sense than Paul1405 et al are capable of !

Part of the cost the relaxing of regulations on coal magnates is the reemergence of black lung.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/black-lung-a-potentially-fatal-disease-that-australia-eradicated-decades-ago-has-reemerged/news-story/2fcc634d0261e88f4c6463d39f6a84aa

Queensland is by far the worst offender and lives are being lost as a result. The mining companies are resisting even a 10c levy per tonne of coal to go to dealing with the medical costs of victims.

It is a dirty exploitative industry and unless mines can be made safe they should go.

Paul, long after you & I have departed this earth, coal & it's hand maidens, gas & oil will still be producing the majority of the electricity generated world wide.

There are only so many sights suitable for hydro, & neither of the other renewables are capable, even at ridiculously exorbitant cost, of producing more than a smidgen of our required power.

This black/brown horse will still be galloping long after the stupidity of the green movement is merely an unpleasant memory. It may not be as prevalent as it is currently if those ratbag greens would get over their unreasoning fear of nuclear, but its use will out live the greeny rabble by decades, even centuries.

Queensland is by far the worst offender and lives are being lost as a result.
SteeleRedux,
Were you to REALLY check you'd probably find that insipid bureaucrat parasites are indirectly/directly responsible for more lives lost.
Are you aware that many suicides are committed because of the idiotic & insensitive policies & rules & Laws by such bureaucrats ?

SteeleRedux, have you not heard of Work Place Safety, No worker, works in dust or smoke today. All transmission is with water, and workers live in air conditioned compartments.
This report is not conclusive, and it is done by the ABC which is against Coal:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/dozens-of-new-black-lung-cases-qld-advocates-say/10851482

You mean those 'radical misguided coal loving' VOTERS

How dare they have a right to vote Paul?

Like I don't have to live with the negative and detrimental consequences you idiots voting for Labor and the Greens cause right?

Isn't it free market capitalism?
Well in that case for the next 12 months I'd like to ONLY buy power that has been created through coal, just to spite you.
I don't want no wind or solar, NO, only COAL
It's my money I decide how it should be spent.

You see now we have 'demand for coal use'
Unless your saying I have no right to decide how my moneys spent;
Stop winging and shut-up.

Where can I buy a big bag of coal so I can burn it just for the hell of it?

My approach to coal is different to most. Have you heard the one about the coal the pea and the straw?

Well in the end, the coal fell into the river and drowned. It was a hot coal, so it fizzled out before it drowned.
The reason it fell into the river was its tenuous journey walking on the straw, which offered itself as a means to cross the river safely to the pea and the coal.

Unfortunately for them all, the pea created a disturbance which was enough to slow the hot coal on his crossing, burning the straw, which also fell into the river and drowned.

What of the pea, you may ask?
The pea was sewn up by a travelling tailor who happened along, after the pea split its sides laughing at the death of the straw and the coal. It became a black eyed pea, since the tailor was out of all cotton except black.

So maybe we should grow indigenous black eyed peas, and not mine for coal, since coal is dead, along with the straw that broke the camels back.

Hope this all makes sense!

Dan?

"Hope this all makes sense!"

Well kind of, I'm just not sure where the camel came from.

There is a little bit of poetic licence drawing an association between the straw, which by tradition, breaks a camels back, and a straw which actually had its own back broken by a hot coal.

Some people are inclined to believe that coal is actually the straw which will break the back of civilisation surviving climate change or not!

It's pushing it a bit. Both the latter belief, and the poetic license extending the position of the straw, to one of a back breaker of camels. But there you have it!

Dan

Certainly a waste of money doing a 'feasibility study'. Just get on with mining the coal. Far more honest and productive work than the bureacrats and Greens who love shuffling paper, stopping progress and get paid big salaries via the tax payer. Sooner or later they will destroy the hand that feeds their greedy little virtue signalling bodies.

A couple of years ago i used to walk along the rail-track and pick up enough coal for the next fortnight.
Why 4 million for coal to support a community, is that the only option or is more thought needed. Seems to me that gets those people off the list by throwing away 4 million.
Our govt is in extreme disaster territory and will do anything to clear some space. Morrison and china have a lot in common.

Riely,

I want to test how hot we can make the planet so let's start burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow!

That way we can also test if it is really AGW that is behind the heating of the planet and its consequential climate change.

Obviously MrO that engineering you claim to have done back in the far distant past had as little math in it as your fairy floss socialist stuff you claim to have done recently.

If it had any math you would know that CO2 is quite innocent, & can not ever do the things you & the evil UN claim for it.

Do try to grow up some time, to prove you are not some twit undergrad playing silly games.

Thinking on the bushfires and subsequent rains, it seems to me that nature responds quickly to balance out what goes on on the planet.
If there's bushfires, nature responds with rains.

With that in mind it seems more logical to me that other bigger changes happening on the planet are more likely due to forces outside the planet.

So I still think the pecking order is this:

1. Solar activity
2. Earth axis and orbit
3 (Distant 3) Humans

Thinking on Northern Africa and the Sahara.
This has shown to be completely swamped by seawater several thousand years ago.
Did humans cause it?

What about Doggerland off the coast of England, that sank.
Did humans cause that?

Wasn't Sri Lanka once a part of India?
Did humans cause that to break off?

Wasn't Indonesia once connected to to the main Asian continent?
Did humans cause that to break off?

And at the end of the day....
What if it starts raining fire 300 days out of 365 starting tomorrow?

- We adapt or die, that's what we do -

So I don't care for any of this scaremongering climate bs.

Give me practical idea to do things better, and NOT dilemmas to argue over and policies designed to enslave us.

Armchair Critic,

As a sociologist I can tell you that the reason you think that way is because you are a devoutly religious man and you have the fear of God in you.

Your particular world view is a religious view not a scientific view so you look for answers that are not based on scientific theories and premises.

Hasbeen,

I could tell you what levels of math I did towards my engineering degree but you would not understand what I was talking about.

I'm religious. Lol
- Now that's the funniest damn thing I've heard all week.

I've repeatedly shown opposition to both Sharia Law (Islam) and Noahide Law (Judaism), and voiced my opposition to any kind of theocracy.
I've also criticised Christianity on numerous occasions for the flaws I see in their beliefs and religion.
They're willing to slow walk the planet off a cliff on a basis of willful ignorance in the hope Jesus might return in their lifetimes.

I believe in ethics over and above religion and scripture.
With ethics, I can discern the Pro's and Con's of all religions.
I can look at any religion with an open mind and take in both the good and bad aspects of that belief system.

Speaking of which it's you that's arguably more religious than me.
It doesn't necessarily have to include a god to be a religion.
People who trade the stock market, money is their religion;
They're like drug addicts.
Research has shown that for them making money is like taking a hit of cocaine.
And people like yourself who never shut up about the climate, well that's your religion.

It's the creed you live by that governs all you primary thoughts and beliefs.

- You're the religious one, not me -

Me, I believe in secular ethics.
There's 4 things you need to become wise, and religion isn't one of them.

1. Truth
2. Ethics
3. Ability to separate arguments that hold merit from those that don't.
4. Ability to see the bigger picture in things.

As well as a good knowledge of all things in general.

I have my own creed and religion isn't a part of it.

1. Stay on top of things
2. Make the most of life's opportunities
3. Don't allow others to get the best of you.

Sorry, but religion just isn't in there.
I'm agnostic.

You missed one other little thing Armchair Critic that humans are not responsible, the Himalayas. We did not push them up& they have a much greater effect on the climate systems of the planet than some minor trace element like CO2 could ever have, no matter what it's percentage of the atmosphere.

I am getting more than a little sick of the ratbag element that can actually believe that a trace gas can be responsible for everything bad in the universe.

Paul,

The dead horse that got flogged was brown eye Bob with his ludicrous anti coal caravan. He did more for the liberals than anyone else.

The greenies have gifted us with renewables, high power prices and a network that tetters on the edge of collapse every time we have a hot day.

Hey Hasbeen,

Re: CO2

I found this way back in, well maybe 2014.
Right there on the CSIRO website, and they haven't taken it down.
What's that tell you?

03 Jul 2013
Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2

http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

"Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research."

So CO2 is greening the planet...
- But it won't stop these fools saying the worlds coming to an end in 12 years, they've got a bigger agenda.

It's all a scam, and this lie started with the Club of Rome.

http://www.infowars.com/group-that-admitted-manufacturing-global-warming-threat-still-pushes-same-hoax/

"Rising carbon dioxide emissions will cause a global average temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius by 2052 and a 2.8 degree rise by 2080, as governments and markets are unlikely to do enough against climate change, the Club of Rome think tank said," reports Reuters.

Read this too.
http://www.infowars.com/club-of-rome-founder-proposed-global-matrix-of-manufactured-consent/

- If you read it, their real aim is global population reduction.

And it's no secret that Royals like Prince Charles and Prince Philip and elites like Bill Gates support this view.

We've got a member of the Club of Rome who regularly posts on the forum, Mr Keith Suter.
Here's an abc piece by Mr Suter on the topic.
Maybe we should all ask him what's going on?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/rome/default.htm

[Cont.]

January 24, 2014
"IN Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming"
http://climatism.blog/2014/01/24/in-searching-for-a-new-enemy-to-unite-us-we-came-up-with-the-threat-of-global-warming/

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

As a side note:

ORDO AB CHAO

- is Latin for "Order Out of Chaos or Order from Disorder."
This term was invented by Freemasons and is the actual motto of the 33rd Degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

What's Freemasonry all about?
Read about 'Albert Pike's 3 World Wars'.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Albert-Pike-The-3-World-Wars-20130628

What are those wars all about?
- To bring forth the Messianic Age.

And it's at this point that you should all go look at what I recently discussed with Yuyutsu.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20726&page=0#365681

- You're all too busy arguing over climate change to look and see the bigger picture of what this craps really all about. -

Armchair Critic,

What is the big picture?

New World Order

New World Order
Armchair Critic,
Islam & Christianity have been trying to pry the reigns of power from each other for thousand or more years & sanity has failed to conquer both as yet !

Armchair Critic,

Can you please explain this New World Order to us?

Armchair Critic,
As far as "New World Order" let the deluded search it out for themselves. They will not accept it from you!

Hey Mr Opinion,

"Can you please explain this New World Order to us?"

- Not as well as I'd like.

Best place to start would be on US money. 'Novus Ordo Seclorum'

James Warburg, son of Paul Warburg (who started the US Federal Reserve) and nephew of Max Warburg, (who funded Hitlers rise)
- Once famously said:

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

At the conclusion of the second world war, secret societies pushed for the creation of the United Nations with the excuse that further wars could be prevented. Obviously that was not the reason as wars have continued in every decade ever since. The real reason of the United Nations was so a world government could be brought about gradually via national socialism through the implementation of population reduction and the instituting of three trans-national unions. The European Union (Council of Europe convened in 1949), The North American Union (Bilderberg Group convened in 1954) and the Asian Union (Dictatorships in China, Korea, Vietnam and Japan) The African and South American Unions would be the next step in a pool of five unions which would unite in a world government, world religion, and world police force. John D. Rockefeller donated land in New York City to be the headquarters of the U.N.

http://tinyurl.com/upas3sz

Hey Josephus,
"As far as 'New World Order' let the deluded search it out for themselves. They will not accept it from you!"

Yeah, I know.

I can lead them to water, but I can't force them to drink.
(I'm not the type of person who would wish to force them to anyway)

If I've got to put up with their incessant fighting in circles
(I really hate arguing over issues for which there is no clear answer, it's somewhat pointless)
- Then I feel motivated to show them an alternative reason for all this stupid BS.

People gotta look a little deeper.

Armchair Critic,

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I suggest you go to your source of all your knowledge the Bible and see if it says anything about New World Order.

Hey Mr Opinion,

Well you've just proven yourself a complete and utter retard.
You must be a mental-case, there's no other logical explanation.

"You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I suggest you go to your source of all your knowledge the Bible and see if it says anything about New World Order."

You already accused me of being religious you stupid brainless moron
- And I already refuted your stupid brainless assumptions.
See here.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9075&page=0#299622

And you didn't only falsely accuse me of being religious, No;
- You've been doing it to others as well.
Look here numbnut, you did it to ALTRAV as well just a few days ago and obviously by his response he's told you off about it before as well.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20728&page=0#365703

But to really top it off, I even openly made fun of you for doing it
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20728&page=0#365703

And you still keep doing it.

You'd have to be mentally challenged to do this wouldn't you?
Even actual mentally retarded people wouldn't be that dumb.
I'm probably likely disrespecting them by comparing them to you, because that's how dense you are.

It's like you stepped in a pile of dog shite.
Then keep stepping in it over and over just to prove you can.

ASSUME means make an ASS out of U and ME
Stop doing it!

Really, you're just wasting other peoples time with your climate religion brain farts and advertising what a complete crackpot you are.
Judging by your own responses your brain isn't capable of thinking properly, I'm not in any way concerned if you were trying to make me look stupid.

You're a cakewalk.

You'd have to have the brains of a jellyfish...
- No other reasonable explanation.

Here's the website for the African Union
http://au.int/
Here's a page for the North American Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

Here's your google page for New World Order of the US banknotes
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=novus+ordo+seclorum

You can look up and check the rest yourself, but remember I've already added links to all the stuff I've said.

You're just a little muppet lost in your climate religion quandry.

And just to make you look even more stupid, (well it's not in the bible) but the Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI also initiated a New Order.

http://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/the-strange-birth-of-the-novus-ordo/

This is kind of interesting in that this same Pope started the changes that would lead to recognition of Israel.
http://jcpa.org/the-vaticans-path-toward-official-recognition-of-israel/

Now prior to this there's some speculation regarding the chosen Pope in 1958.
https://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/
Instead St John XXIII was elected, and he opened the Second Vatican Council which eventually lead to the 'New Order' mentioned above under the following Pope.

Oh Great, found another victim.
Looking on the 'Morrison failing the pub test' thread I see you've been accusing Shadow Minister of being religious when he's stated he's an athiest.

Also in one of your threads there you accused mhaze, ttbn, individual, Hasbeen, Loudmouth and Bazz of being religious zealots.

Can you see a pattern forming here?
That's 9 people you've accused by my count, and your probably wrong more often than you're right.

Mr Opinion's gone too far, he's off his chops.
It's time for someone to go back on the medication.

AC I would say that it is only runner and I who claim to be zealous Christians and several here have some Christian values even if not considering themselves religious. However the most zealous believers here are those predicting the end of the Earth because we burn natural carbons. They ignorantly want us to return to the caves where we can chip a bit off the cave wall and burn it to cook the kangaroo over an open fire.

Electricity cannot be housed or distributed without burning fossil fuels to manufacture the components. Manufacturing requires high temperature flames, which is beyond the capacity of the resources of electricity. Work out how much electricity is required to turn iron ore into a slab of metal or rail lines for the Melbourne to Brisbane. Or calculate how much gas is required to produce the glass from sand on five acres of glass in solar panels. You could supply a town with the same gas for some time.

Hey Josephus,
You and runner, yeah that's what I was thinking.
I'm not sure if a couple of the others mentioned above may have Christian beliefs as well, but just not as devout as you and runner come across.

Natural gas the least expensive source of energy. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/natural-gas-is-crushing-wind-and-solar-power?fbclid=IwAR0iVQBCu7KFxodRcwE3vYp2VPs7VzjIjY3AVTd9cMVmFftq6elKUSwRr-Q

Armchair Critic,

A lot of you people are religious. Some of you like Josephus and runner are open and honest about it. Others like you, Hasbeen and Shadow Minister want to conceal it because you want to be seen as having a scientific rational view of the world. As a sociologist I was able to pick it up straightaway. You deny your belief in God in order to cover up your lies.

I'll give you a chance to prove you are an atheist. Demonstrate to us that you do not believe in God. I asked Shadow Minister to do it and he refused - obviously he didn't want to upset God and ruin his chances of getting into heaven.

Mr 0,

You are an outright liar and an intellectual pygmy who hasn't got a scientific bone in his body.

Given your disparagement of others, perhaps you can prove that you are not a christian, and at the same time you can prove that you are not a pedophile, a muslim, or lithuanian turkey farmer?

You are clearly a christian in hiding because any religion is not fashionable in the arty farty crowd that you flip burgers with.

Josephus a zealous person is a zealot, or could call them a fanatic. Are you a religious fanatic Josephus? runner portrays himself as one. Are you mainstream or fundo?

AC, Mr O cannot accept people at their word, which indicates he cannot be taken at his claims, as he knows the mantra and uses it. It being to undermine the image of others that they doubt themselves and their word. He is nothing more than a Marxist Troll. For the record God hates deceivers and liars, as they are mischief makers and discordant socialists. His pseudo social science degree is in creating social discord, a degree paid for by the Chinese Communist Party.

Paul, look at the things I have written over the years, it is these that define who I am. If you consider them adhering to a strong faith, then I am zealous. However the term zealot, could also mean one who is willing to be violent about the things they believe, which I am not. If you wish to change minds they must voluntarily accept the conclusions of your argument, to enforce violence to make the person change, you have lost the point of the argument.

Shadow Minister,

You have one of the foulest mouths I have ever come across.

Mr 0,

You have one of the dullest minds I have ever come across.

You hurl infantile insults then throw a hissy fit when the exact same tactics are used against you.

Grow up.

Shadow Minister,

At least I'm highly educated which is something you cannot lay claim to being.

You are just a vulgar and ignorant person.

Mr 0,

While I am glad that you have a hobby studying obscure and largely irrelevant topics, I don't consider you "highly educated" more likely Highly delusional and imbued with undue arrogance.

If you had a useful hobby such as knitting, at least you could yourself make a scarf instead of a fool.

Dear Mr Opinion,

"As a sociologist I was able to pick it up straightaway."

What exactly tipped you off?
I wonder if you were able to pick up on the part where I openly said I was agnostic not an atheist you idiot?
What that means is I won't deny the existence of god, but I think it's highly unlikely there is a god.

"I'll give you a chance to prove you are an atheist."

"Oh, you're going to give me a chance are you?"
Oh please, please just give me a chance!!

Ping-ding with your silly games, I don't have to prove anything to you.
I already told you, I have no confidence in your ability to think clearly;
So why on earth would I give a crap what you think?
Why would I waste my time on your jellyfish brain?

Don't you think I have anything else better to do with my day?

Hey Josephus,
"Mr O cannot accept people at their word, which indicates he cannot be taken at his claims, as he knows the mantra and uses it."

With comments like that, I'd have to argue that you'd have made a far better sociologist than him, had you decided to go that way.
Is what you're saying that 'He thinks everyone else is false, phoney and a fraud, because he's actually reflecting him own character traits'?

"For the record God hates deceivers and liars"
Well I can't speak for God, but I myself care not for liars and deceivers.

"His pseudo social science degree is in creating social discord, a degree paid for by the Chinese Communist Party."
- Yeah, that's a good one.

Thinking on it, part of me thinks studying Sociology at University is a bit of a waste of time.
I just don't see how one is going to get a good understanding of human beings just from a University demographic.
Those people aren't normal, so how does one learn what is normal from these people?
His pansy like complaints about foul language (I didn't even see any) show he's either too precious or insulated from / unfamiliar with the type of people who would use foul language, which tells me he's only ever dealt with a demographic of people like himself and doesn't have a broad understanding of people in general.

His worse trait is making assumptions, often false.
If he understood anything about people, he'd know not to do that.
All that's bound to do is piss others off, with the result he's backing himself into a corner with those people, by his actions.
He's obviously not as smart as he thinks or claims.

If he possessed half a brain he know that in order to learn something, all he need do is ask and find out.

People who are actually smart, don't need to boast or get confirmation from others.

Who does he think he is Sigmund Freud?

Armchair Critic & Shadow Minister,

Why are you so jealous of people who are highly educated?

It's obvious to everyone and I am assuming it is a simple case of sour grapes on your part.

And you're not alone. Hasbeen, mhaze, Bazz, Loudmouth, Alison Jane, individual, along with all the other usual suspects display the same behaviour.

We can't all be highly educated. Some of us (YOU) have to be on the bottom of the heap in order for there to be a HIGH and a LOW.

Mr 0,

I have a number of friends that I consider highly educated, two brothers in my class were particularly smart, one got a Rhodes scholarship and is now an Oxford Don, the other won a scholarship to Cambridge and was until recently the Dean of medicine at a major UK university, and a family friend who got a Phd at Cambridge and now heads an aerospace research facility in Germany, while I only have 3 degrees and am only the technical director of a conglomerate.

On the other hand, you have a minor degree in engineering, three lucky packet arts qualifications that I wouldn't wipe my arse with, a dreary job and no respect. I regard you with pity not envy.

Shadow Minister,

I'm glad you and your friends have vocational degrees.

I prefer scholarly degrees over vocational degrees.

Mr 0,

I prefer degrees that are worth more than the paper they are printed on.

Your "scholarly" are training for your vocation of flipping burgers for people with real qualifications.

Mr 0,
>I prefer scholarly degrees over vocational degrees.
Why?
ISTM non vocational degrees are for those who don't know what they want to do with their lives. What am I missing?

Shadow Minister and Aidan,

I did a vocational degree viz., engineering, in order to earn a livelihood and I did my scholarly degrees simply because I wanted to be smart as well.

Now I have the best of both worlds and don't have to go through life as a mindless drone knowing nothing about all of the Arts things like history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc.

Obviously Mr O has learned nothing of the application in reality of history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc.
I have researched all of those fields myself and recognise that applied to human relations in its humble form surpasses pure knowledge. Knowledge means nothing unless applied in reality.
He is just leaves him a egotistical moron.

>...and I did my scholarly degrees simply because I wanted to be smart as well.
This I don't get. Do you think being smart depends on doing degrees?

Just on Mr O.

I've adopted a policy of utterly ignoring him on the basis that he is an utter fraud in terms of his claims about being credientialed.

A small anecdote...A little while back one thread devolved into a discussion about the Athenian constitution. Mr O asserted with full confidence that the Athenian leadership was chosen by lot. Its the sort of error someone would make if they based their knowledge on some reader's digest style history or perhaps a misunderstanding of the history channel.

Anyway it was utterly wrong and completely bonkers. While some inconsequential positions were chosen by lot nothing approaching leadership was.

So I pointed out the error and offered a few facts that demonstrated the error.

Mr O's response wasn't to defend his claims with data. It wasn't to admit error.

Instead he suddenly proclaimed that he had academic credentials in ancient Greece and therefore anything he said about Athens was correct. He'd created these supposed credentials out of thin air as a means to defend the indefensible.

I assume all his other claims are equally invalid. He's simply someone who is incapable of maintaining a logic argument and seeks to gain advantage by claiming special knowledge. But every time he gets locked down to actual testable data he's shown to be wrong. So he makes wild untestable claims and prances around as though he's got great insight.

As another example, he claims to be an environmental sociologist. But if you look up the functions of that profession, you'll find it requires a very large degree of and understanding of population statistics. Yet he's the person who reject all ABS data as second-hand tripe and relies on walking around various suburbs estimating Chinese populations in those regions. Its all rather pathetic.

So I ignore him even as he tries to provoke a response. I also somewhat pity him.

If you want to engage, do so. But do it with your eyes wide open and don't fall for his claimed expertise shtick.

Aidan,

Yes, I think having Arts degrees encompassing history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc., makes a person smart.

Josephus,

How much research have you done into the Arts things like history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc?

Mr O, I have a library of hundred of books dealing with each of those subjects plus weekly papers dealing with archaeology, society and justice, morals and philosophy. My research goes back to pre history, and unrecorded historical facts developed by archaeology. My time of research covers 65 years of my life and writings. From my research I could give you question for which you have never researched.
All of that is of no value unless you have wisdom on how to apply your knowledge to benefit others and society

Mr 0,
Why do you think your smartness depends on formal qualifications?

Josephus,

It's great to see that you are so enthusiastic about all the Arts things like history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc.

What level do you rate your knowledge? BA or MA?