Comments on: Guide for commenting http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/ Tackling tribal groupthink Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:22:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: KinkyKeith http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-944251 KinkyKeith Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:58:58 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-944251 Hi Pam We are not ignoring real pollution here. Paradoxically that is being done by the people who cry loudest about CO2 pollution but ignore chemical pollution of nature which is especially rife in non western countries. Hi Pam

We are not ignoring real pollution here.

Paradoxically that is being done by the people who cry loudest about CO2 pollution but ignore chemical pollution of nature which is especially rife in non western countries.

Report this

00

]]> By: Iluka http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-944195 Iluka Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:18:29 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-944195 Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal (29 January 2012). Princeton physics professor William Happer, confirms satellite date shows NO warming since 2012, and why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. Link attached below. http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-global-warming-hoax/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal (29 January 2012). Princeton physics professor William Happer, confirms satellite date shows NO warming since 2012, and why a large number of scientists don’t believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. Link attached below.

http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-global-warming-hoax/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html

Report this

00

]]> By: Fred Love http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-787923 Fred Love Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:27:18 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-787923 No-one seems to have yet picked up that NOAA (<a href="http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml" rel="nofollow">Tides and Currents</a>) has "disappeared" Fort Denison, Newcastle, Freemantle and Auckland following the publication of the Watson paper on Sea Levels. Australia is now "represented" only by Bundaberg and Townsville from mid 1960's. No-one seems to have yet picked up that NOAA (Tides and Currents) has “disappeared” Fort Denison, Newcastle, Freemantle and Auckland following the publication of the Watson paper on Sea Levels. Australia is now “represented” only by Bundaberg and Townsville from mid 1960′s.

Report this

10

]]> By: Rereke Whakaaro http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-562760 Rereke Whakaaro Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:44:11 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-562760 Yep Yep

Report this

00

]]> By: Rereke Whakaaro http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-562750 Rereke Whakaaro Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:40:13 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-562750 Ooh, Shiny! Ooh, Shiny!

Report this

00

]]> By: Rereke Whakaaro http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-562746 Rereke Whakaaro Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:39:15 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-562746 But wait ... I have just spotted the little "Reply" button ... But wait … I have just spotted the little “Reply” button …

Report this

00

]]> By: Rereke Whakaaro http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-562743 Rereke Whakaaro Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:38:20 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-562743 Andrew McRae: #43 <blockquote>I suspect that the “tab” feature does not work for mere mortals.</blockquote> It's never worked for me - so no change there then. Also, I am doomed to monocrome, unless these orange and blue words actually work (they didn't used to either). And we don't seem to have nested comments ... you can't trust what is written on the box, can you? Andrew McRae: #43

I suspect that the “tab” feature does not work for mere mortals.

It’s never worked for me – so no change there then.

Also, I am doomed to monocrome, unless these orange and blue words actually work (they didn’t used to either).

And we don’t seem to have nested comments … you can’t trust what is written on the box, can you?

Report this

00

]]> By: Rereke Whakaaro http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-562717 Rereke Whakaaro Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:27:28 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-562717 Pam: #37 <blockquote>... when someone bolsters their arguments by claiming people who are “green” are all just communists with gaining power in mind then they abruptly lose credibility in my eyes.</blockquote> And quite right too. The other epithet is "Watermelon" on the bases that, “They are green on the outside and red on the inside". There is a lot of name calling in science these days. Well, at least in climate science. Those who question, “The science is settled”, political line are often called "Deniers", implying a connection with the holocaust. “Sceptics”, is a much more acceptable label, since it is descriptive. The sceptics try to be polite, and refer to their adversaries as "warmists", which at least has a cosy feel to it. So we live in a Johnathan Swift type of existence where two factions are arguing, not over which end of an egg to crack, but whether or not the temperature will rise to a level that is intolerable to organisms that have an inate ability to evolve. The Green connection is really an extension of an established fact that a large number of scientists who worked on the IPCC 2001 and 2007 Assessment Reports were at the same time sitting on the Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel, which was formed and sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. An obvious conflict of interest that has only recently come to light, but one that calls the whole IPCC process into doubt. But the claim that warmists are all communists is not credible. There is no doubt that some are in it for the money, and that is definitely a capitalist trait. On this site we have Capitalists, and ex-Communists, Marxists, Libertarians, and the odd Tory (well all Tory’s are a bit odd, don’t you think). No, the debate is not along political lines. It is more concerned with rational truth, and the right for people to be honestly informed so that they can make up their own minds. Pam: #37

… when someone bolsters their arguments by claiming people who are “green” are all just communists with gaining power in mind then they abruptly lose credibility in my eyes.

And quite right too. The other epithet is “Watermelon” on the bases that, “They are green on the outside and red on the inside”.

There is a lot of name calling in science these days. Well, at least in climate science. Those who question, “The science is settled”, political line are often called “Deniers”, implying a connection with the holocaust. “Sceptics”, is a much more acceptable label, since it is descriptive. The sceptics try to be polite, and refer to their adversaries as “warmists”, which at least has a cosy feel to it. So we live in a Johnathan Swift type of existence where two factions are arguing, not over which end of an egg to crack, but whether or not the temperature will rise to a level that is intolerable to organisms that have an inate ability to evolve.

The Green connection is really an extension of an established fact that a large number of scientists who worked on the IPCC 2001 and 2007 Assessment Reports were at the same time sitting on the Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel, which was formed and sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. An obvious conflict of interest that has only recently come to light, but one that calls the whole IPCC process into doubt.

But the claim that warmists are all communists is not credible. There is no doubt that some are in it for the money, and that is definitely a capitalist trait. On this site we have Capitalists, and ex-Communists, Marxists, Libertarians, and the odd Tory (well all Tory’s are a bit odd, don’t you think).

No, the debate is not along political lines. It is more concerned with rational truth, and the right for people to be honestly informed so that they can make up their own minds.

Report this

00

]]> By: Andrew McRae http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-489295 Andrew McRae Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:18:14 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-489295 I suspect that the "tab" feature does not work for mere mortals. If I am wrong then this sentence will be indented. Probably can't cheat by using LI tags either. Well only one way to find out. Sorry for the testing. I suspect that the “tab” feature does not work for mere mortals.
If I am wrong then this sentence will be indented.
Probably can’t cheat by using LI tags either.
Well only one way to find out.
Sorry for the testing.

Report this

00

]]> By: Don Anderson http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/guide-for-commenting/#comment-439279 Don Anderson Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:59:38 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=1040#comment-439279 Hi Jo, You are doing an absolutely fantastic job, keep up the good work. Without doubt the majority of Australians have had enough of the Gillard government. All the very best to you and your excellent work. Hi Jo,
You are doing an absolutely fantastic job, keep up the good work. Without doubt the majority of Australians have had enough of the Gillard government. All the very best to you and your excellent work.

Report this

10

]]>