JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Vote to get Gillard to answer questions that matter

“Hangout with the Prime Minister

There are only hours to go before the three winning questions that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard must answer are decided. Andrew Bolt noticed that the author of one question got US voters involved. (From BOLT: It seems the author has got US Internet forums to help.  Also here: not-so-pointless-poll-on-australian-chaplains / aggregator | AtheistAus | pzmyers. “Should blog readers fight fire with fire? It does seem odd having US readers demand answers from an Australian PM that they’ll almost certainly won’t hear about a program that doesn’t affect them in the slightest.”)

Those who log in can register 8 votes. But it closes very soon: Voting ends on July 19th at 5 PM.

At the moment:

Q1

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.7/10 (46 votes cast)
Vote to get Gillard to answer questions that matter, 7.7 out of 10 based on 46 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cc4ggne

141 comments to Vote to get Gillard to answer questions that matter

  • #
    Wendy

    I voted as many times as possible for question 5. While I am from the US, my husband is from Perth and since we intend on moving back to Perth in a couple years I felt I had every right to vote as it will/does affect us.

    I probably should have posted this on one of my corvette forums just to balance out GETUP’s attempts at skewing the results. ;)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      NP Wendy, i once voted for Ron Paul on some website so its OK to vote for stuff here in Australia. :-)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      My mate Sparty has been doing some thinking on Bishop Hill: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/7/18/extreme-weather.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true

      ‘Richard Betts’ claim [6.41 pm] that lower TOA IR in the CO2 absorption band implies greater CO2-AGW is a logical fallacy. The following is an attempt to devise the real science. Implicit is that ‘back radiation’ can do no thermodynamic work.

      Because of its simple band structure, above ~200 ppmV in a long optical path at ambient temperature CO2 is in the ‘self-absorption’ mode. It’s because the ~95% of inactivated CO2 molecules absorb thermal IR. IR from the Earth’s surface in that band competes for these inactivated molecules so lower atmosphere DOWN emissivity increases as you get nearer the Earth’s surface and the temperature gradient changes to compensate.

      The additional DOWN flux competes for the emission sites on the surface, reducing its emissivity in that wavelength band. So, the real origin of the GHE is lower IR flux in GHG bands, more in the ‘atmospheric window’. The reduction of TOA flux in a particular band is because there was less to start with.

      The sequitur is that once self-absorption occurs in a GHG, its contribution to the GHE self limits. This inversion of present thinking will I suspect be controversial. There can be no GHG-AGW, never, nix, zilch. Taking account of the ~400% increase in IR assumed in the models, it’s time we stopped this charade. GIGO proves nothing.’

      **Betts is the Met. Office’s science PR man. I have seen blog posts by some of its meteorologists and modellers indicating serious discontent with the official line. The Met. Office is also coming under scrutiny for its comparative failure to predict weather compared with Piers Corbyn, for example. Its ex WWF CEO is lobbying government for a £40+ million new supercomputer so it can make more accurate forecasts when the models are plain wrong. Talk about a failed gambler doubling his betts [:o)].

      Gillard is treading the same path as John Howard whose task was to make GS Australia [of which he was CEO] very rich by carbon trading. As CO2-AGW cannot occur, the whole justification of this new carbon dioxide commodity is coming under attack. It’s time to tell your politicians that they are corrupt to the core. We are doing the same in the UK.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ferdinand

    With this kind of event the loudest will also shout the most – generally about issues of minimal significance.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I am very disappointed that so many Australians are putting up with this Carbon Tax crap.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      I am very disappointed that so many Australians are putting up with this Carbon Tax crap.

      I think it could have something to do with the fact most Australians are now paying less income tax.

      Seeing their income tax go down on their pay packet is more interesting that a tax burden that they don’t directly pay.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Adam,

        Finally I agree with you:

        most Australians are now paying less income tax

        More Australians are unemploymed now than over last two decades!
        Of course the working population pays less Tax – there’s less wage earners out there!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    John Harris

    Dear Jo,

    Oddly enough, it may be just old age, a lack of acuity that comes with old age or may-hap, my imagination.
    Although I could swear that votes for some candidates and the opinions thereof, regardless of their comment mass, seem to not actuality count.

    I am sure I am somewhat mistaken, however, it would be nice if I was proven wrong and would appear to suffer from a mild version of ill attention and mental acuity.
    Failing that, I would be given no choice but to hazard the opinion that OurSay has technical problems of some sort.

    One that affects comments that are negative of their stance. Whatever that may be.
    However, being one who has taught Turing compete theory and it’s related concepts, I doubt this could be so.
    Well, I trust that I doubt this could be so.

    Perhaps you could prove me wrong. As I am always welcome to be proved as such, be it to a greater or lesser degree.

    Although Computability theory is much like Chaos theory, in that there are no guarantees.
    However, it is generally correct in principle.
    Principle however, is often lacking in many theories, especially those that lack substance.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Computability theory didn’t reckon with rigged Internet polls eh ?
      Remember these events are staged entirely to show the PM in a good light, selecting questions well in advance while fostering the illusion of proletarian involvement.
      I bow to one who has wrestled with such concepts. But as Higgs (he of the Boson) said not so long ago, I prefer to leave the Mathe to the younger minds now.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mark D.

    JO! Really? links to PZ Meyers??????

    I don’t care how important the voting is, Meyers doesn’t deserve more traffic from here.

    I could suggest a few things he does deserve…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crosspatch

    When are the next national elections in Australia?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I’m sorry – what is the point of this?

    I thought the australian people had allready made their views clear – does anyone really think that asking these questions is going to somehow make her change her ways?

    JuLiar has allready made it completely clear that she doesn’t give a flying shit about what the people vote for


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PJP

    The question on temperature decrease due to carbon tax is poorly phrased.
    It would be better to ask to the nearest WHOLE degree (Celsius) will the temperature be reduced.

    I would give good money to see the expression on her face as she responds with … “zero”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    What’s the point? Gillard will dodge ANY question she doesn’t like. If she makes a show of answering, you can bet she will LIE. Why would anyone listen to a proven liar?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dave N

      I agree, and fully expect her to trot out the ol’ “Australia is doing the right thing..” (or similar) mantra for question 3. Having said that, hopefully they’ll make this as public as possible, ensuring that her dodging ways sink her even further in the polls.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    AndyG55

    I think you will find that the gay movement has mobilised its American chapter to push their question to the top.

    This issue is one that should be decided by the whole of society, referendum or whatever.

    I suspect the answer would be a resounding “No”, but I might be wrong.

    The Carbon tax issue will be decided at the next election. :-)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ahh.. I see that there is one who does not like the idea of it going to a referendum.. I wonder why !!! :-)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      This issue is one that should be decided by the whole of society, referendum or whatever.

      Handing out (or taking away) human rights via a vote is morally reprehensible.

      I suspect the answer would be a resounding “No”, but I might be wrong.

      Well considering about 60% of Australians, including 50% of those who self identify as “Christian”, support same-sex marriage you are more than likely wrong.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Snotrocket

        You provoke a good philosophical question AS: Regardless of how you “hand out” or “take away” human rights, who – as in WHO – decides what is a ‘human right’? (As a basis for discussion, how many people decided what the US Constitution should contain? Or, who decided the content of the ECHR? – not me.)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Heywood

    Unfortunately I think GetUp have hijacked the process, along with some big American advocacy groups.

    I’ll put money on the fact that the question about temperature will not make the cut.

    Not that she would answer it directly anyway. She has been asked that question many times but just waffles on about “doing our fair share” and the other usual crap.

    Roll on the next election…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      The question about temperature is just plain stupid anyway. And you are right in thinking that she would refuse to provide the sort of answer you want.

      I’d imagine something like, “Its not about what our effort does. There is no way of separating the effect we have from the rest of the world. Its about the whole world acting to prevent dangerous warming. We need to play our part, and with the carbon tax that is exactly what we are doing. It would be totally irresponsible of us to do nothing and leave future generations a world that is worse than the one we inherited”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bob Massey

        Pardon me John, I thought that was the whole purpose for the Tax to reduce the temperature.

        What you have stated John is that we should throw lots of money at the UN so we can show the world how take absolute irresponsible action on a problem that has not been proven and waste the cheap resources we have to aid the 3rd world to emit more CO2. That’s sounds pretty sane to me NOT !!!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        justjoshin

        What proof has anyone offered that warmer temperatures will make the world worse. Throughout all history, life has flourished when temperatures have risen, and life has struggled when temperatures have fallen.

        It seems irresponsible to deny future generations a balmy climate and attempt to restore temperatures to ice age conditions.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    michael hammer

    interesting, I try to register and it tells me that an account with that email address is already registered – try loging in instead. Well maybe I did register some days ago and forgot so I try logging in and go to the forgot password option only to be told, no account with that email address is registered. What a great way to prevent feedback – maybe they dont really want it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    L.

    Sorry, these are by and large rubbish questions, all easily answered by ‘fluff’ responses.

    Any question on the C/Tax will be fobbed of with 97% of climate scientists agree or the consensus is, or NASA says blah, blah, blah. Now, we here largely don’t agree, but we won’t be given a response to any answer, so the PM will be given a free pass simply by giving the standard party line.

    The gay marriage questions is somewhat better, but I would reword it as the opening sentence comes off as an insult IMO.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Let me be clear as to why I’m firmly committed to not clarifying further why I won’t be visiting the oursay site. I would like to state here very clearly that I would direct you to previous clear statements I’ve already made, clearly, very clearly, that you should ask Mr. Rabbit about his constant negativity on this and every other subject. On previous occasions, I have already explained my position on this, and I will be standing firm. I can’t be any clearer. We now need to move forward with clarity.

    Next question?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Yes

      Abbott is a disappointment.

      Very clearly he got past Turnbull because the public hated turnbulls appraoch to the AGW mess.

      Now Abbott is not living up to his obligation to can the tax on C.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Keith…just joking! I’ll be voting Coalition – in Lyne, no less. (I promise I’ll leave irony to the hipsters in future.)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Mo

          Gotcha.

          It’s amazing what the brain stores up ready to pop out at the slightest provocation.

          In this case Abbotts main thing for me is that he wont totally dismiss the C myth.

          But, my hope is that it’s just politics and he will be ruthless when he gets in.

          KK

          On re reading that the true meaning came out. Sounded a bit like How Green is My Cactus.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Brian of Moorabbin

          I think you needed to use a more nasally voice with your first post mosomoso… and replacing any instance of the letter ‘t’ with a ‘d’ instead.. ;)


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Brian, I think I’ve already dealt with the nasal diphthong and slurred consonant issues, and my position is very clear on that.

            Regarding other issues, we now see door handles on supermarket freezers, so I think the mums and dads know that a carbon price is now touching their lives in very tangible and positive ways. We have reduced the tax on lower income earners, whom we see as invaluable voting fodder, and we expect to reduce all incomes in the near future. Our position is very clear on all that.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Capn Jack Walker

      “Aaargh, now we have been over this before and this has been dealt with.”

      Puts fingers in ears and sings a little ditty, “la la la tra la, Tony Abbot is the blame for the world warming and if you vote him in, yar will be roasting in hell.”

      Aye she be a liar woman for shure, naive little little thing she be. (That ALP be having an arse like a barge a blowing smoke and hot air everywhere)


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Owen Morgan

    It’s none of my business, since I’m British, but I’d love to see Julia Gillard have to answer question 3 (and if it annoys you that a Pom puts his nose in, just remember where Julia’s from).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    As I am not from Aussie I should keep my nose out, but I would have thought that someone should have posted the one word question “Why?” :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    I wood have asked the wooden headed troll to explain how and why we are so much better off , after she and her mates did krudd over ……..answer that one and stay fashionable ! , it would be akin to opening the closet door and being crushed buy skeletons , priceless .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Well there’s a ‘Stop Diktator Obama’ contest (from infowars.com) in the US right now so wheres the Oz “Stop diktator Juliar’? Any takers? Juliar..remember Juli(ias) Ceasar..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    macha

    I don’t understand why EITHER of teh political parties have not committed to an industry that would be new to Australia – that is Coal to Liquid (CTL) Gas/fuel. It would mean we send less coal overseas and reduce our own ever increasing dependence on importing fossil fuels. The balance of payments and employement alone would be a huge boon on the east coast – which has suffered far more economically ( employment, etc) than here the mining-based West.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    The three most popular answers will be engaved on a tombstone and not far removed from the cryptic and meaningless answer of ’42′.

    The contemporaneous cultural descent into emptiness is almost complete.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    What’s a “US Internet Forum”? the internet is right in front of me, it’s all around me man!

    PZ is an international blog. The man is a legend. The chaplaincy program is a shocker.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      PZ is a legend? Let me tell you about the students that have organized to have him removed.

      On the other hand the international support (no conspiracy right?) will keep him in place even if.

      No surprise to me that you support the commie atheist pinko [snip - homosexual is a more acceptable word - Mod] though.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jesus saves

        No surprise to me that you support the commie atheist pinko [snipped] though.

        Not homophobic are we? Do you really think that is appropriate language? So much for moderation on this site.

        —————————————————————————–
        [Moderators are volunteers and are not available 24 hours a day - you do have an opportunity to click on 'Report' which will place the comment to be moderated when we can - Mod]

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I think this site is very moderate considering your assumed nom de plume.

          It will obviously cause offense.

          Not Islamic Extremist are we?


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Chris

        Well? Go on. Tell us about the students who want him removed. Don’t forget to add why you think it makes any difference to the topic at hand.

        His blog is exceedingly popular, not just because of his anti-religion opinions, but because he can write well. His posts on biology mechanisms and processes are fascinating, and easy to follow even for someone like me with not formal education in biology.

        Nice work on the insults. It really makes it easy for others to fully understand the value of your post.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mattb

        yeah Mark D why the need to call him a fag? And wow you’re not an atheist? Hmm I guess next time you claim you are in to evidence I’ll try and remember that.

        And go on tell me about the students?

        ——————————————————
        Agreed – please keep it clean and polite. If you see a comment which is off topic, defamatory, offensive please click on ‘Report This’ and the moderators can check it to edit, approve or delete. Thanks for your assistance – Mod


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Adam Smith

        No surprise to me that you support the commie atheist pinko [snip - homosexual is a more acceptable word - Mod] though.

        Um, why is it ok to call P Z Myers a “homosexual”, when he has a wife!

        I thought this blog was interested in evidence and facts!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Thanks Mod, my sensitivity training is scheduled for next week.

        In the meantime, I’ll refer you all to these references:

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

        http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/daniels-charlie/uneasy-rider-10929.html

        The lyrics that I was trying (badly) to quote for some humor value.

        I do note that one bigoted quote seems to bring out the other bigots however.

        Yes Mattb, I am not an atheist and as to evidence, there are a few dusty books that provide it. If you ask around, you’ll even find real people with first hand experiences. However, I guess that you’ll deny that these things are evidence. Heck, you’re such a proponent of the precautionary principle I should think you’d use that to justify going to church regularly.

        Lets be clear though: I very much like the notion of PZ types working on the soft minds of young people. NOT! One could say that he epitomizes what is wrong with the world. He represents all that I stand against. It is safe to say that I probably wouldn’t get along well with anyone that thinks highly of PZ.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Chris

          Mark D. – you keep using that word ‘evidence’. I do not think it means what you think it means.

          Dusty old books are not evidence. Personal anectodes are not evidence. Justifying going to church using the precautionary principle is just another packaging of Pascal’s wager – a fallacy.

          You are free to believe whatever you like, just as PZ and others are free to believe as they do. You are free to espouse your beliefs, just as they are. PZ has his faults, but if you truly believe that he epitomises what is wrong with the world, then I suspect that either your vision is clouded or you’re willfully blind.

          He managed to impart complex ideas easily – which makes him ideal as a teacher. Whatever his personal views, whatever he writes on his blog, his teaching biology is only improving the world.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Chris says:

            Mark D. – you keep using that word ‘evidence’. I do not think it means what you think it means.

            Dusty old books are not evidence. Personal anectodes are not evidence.

            Well you are very confused Chris, eyewitness accounts are very much empirical evidence. the compilation of such accounts into a book wouldn’t change that fact.

            I don’t know what “anectodes” are so I won’t comment on that………

            Maybe you are among the “willfully blind”…….


            Report this

            00

      • #
        MattB

        to the mod… “[snip - homosexual is a more acceptable word - Mod] “… look maybe the actual issue here is the man’s sexuality is irrelevant… even if he was gay and didn’t instead have a regularly referred to “Trophy Wife”. Rather than suggest more appropriate wording for sexuality discrimination maybe it would be better to just snip all such abuse.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    massive fall in the carbon price today. read all as there are too many Euro signs which i don’t have on my keyboard:

    18 July: UK Financial Times: Pilita Clark/Jack Farchy: Carbon prices tumble to record low
    Prices for UN-backed carbon credits sank to a record low in morning trading on Wednesday after doubts emerged about European Commission plans to prop up the bloc’s ailing emissions trading market…
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/22951a04-d0f8-11e1-8957-00144feabdc0.html#axzz212LIxfYv


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Reuters in a panic. already publishing update #3 and no doubt more spin to come:

    18 July: Reuters: Nina Chestney: UPDATE 3-EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices
    (Additional reporting by Barbara Lewis in Brussels; editing by Keiron Henderson)
    A delay until September of keenly awaited details of the European Commission’s plans to remove emissions permits from Europe’s carbon market sent carbon prices sharply lower on Wednesday…
    Market participants scrambled to unwind long positions and Deutsche Bank cut its EU carbon price forecast for the third quarter to 6-8 euros from 6-10…
    “The macro-economic outlook does not look bright (..) I’m not surprised to see this downward correction which will likely be even worse once more permits are auctioned later this year,” said Matteo Mazzoni, analyst at Italy’s Nomisma Energia.
    “Nobody really needs (permits) and to sell them now you need to have a pretty attractive spread.
    ***I’m still quite sceptical the market has a future at all,” he added…
    Numerous sources have said nine of the 27 EU commissioners had raised objections to backloading, which is why steps to guarantee its legality were deemed necessary…
    Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry…
    ***Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme…
    Estimates vary on the amount of permits which should be removed, ranging from 400 million to as much as 2.6 billion…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/market-carbon-idUSL6E8IIE3V20120718

    and the above follows what looks like bribes for some to get on board the carbon gravy train:

    16 July: Warsaw Business Journal: Polish power sector to get free CO2 emissions permits after 2013
    The European Commission has given its green light for Poland to provide its power firms with free carbon allowances after the next phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme starts in 2013…
    A decision is still pending regarding Hungary, but the EC already estimates that close to 673 million allowances will be allocated for free to power plants in Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania between 2013 and 2019. The number of allowances is set to be reduced each year and reach zero in 2020.
    “The temporary free allocation of allowances represents a major derogation from … EU ETS legislation. … For this reason, the European Parliament and Council made temporary free allocation subject to several conditions,” the EC said in a statement.
    Among these conditions are that free allocations must stop in 2019 at the latest and be limited to no more than 70 percent of emissions for domestic electricity supply in 2013. The value of the free allowances must also be channeled into investments in retrofitting and upgrading national energy infrastructure, including new power plants and diversification of the energy mix and sources of supply, and into clean technologies.
    http://www.wbj.pl/article-59804-polish-power-sector-to-get-free-co2-emissions-permits-after-2013.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I did some digging earlier on regarding Our?say with a comment in an earlier thread.

    I’m not saying that people like that can’t be objective and operate OurSay in a transparent manner (especially give Eyal’s preachings on corporate transparency via Futureye). I would like to see them demonstrate it, instead of tweeting @huffpo overseas to get more votes on Austr[a]lia’s OurSay.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Ok so with 90 minutes remaining here is the state of play (questions listed as per Jo above)

    Q1 with 12,497 votes

    Q2 with 10,589 votes

    Q4 with 10,411 votes

    Q3 running a distant fifth with 8,244 votes

    I suggest the potential ratings for the political extravaganza have just fallen through the floor.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Bah, they should have judged the winners based on how many COMMENTS the question generated.
      People most want to see the PM’s opinion about the most controversial question.

      Ah well these polls are all a sideshow. It is designed to prop up the popular fantasy that the PM’s personal opinion matters even the slightest bit to the bankster puppetmasters and the Faceless Men.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bulldust

    ***NEWSFLASH***

    Police close the ClimateGate investigations, fail to find leakers/hackers (you choose):

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/18/1733205/police-close-climategate-investigation

    They apparent;ly “cleared” anyone at UEA from involvement with the “crime.”


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Finished reading the Nature blog entry and the Norfolk Police statement at:

      While no criminal proceedings will be instigated, the investigation has concluded that the data breach was the result of a ‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’.

      and

      “There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
      Norfolk Police:
      http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx

      So the police could not determine who the “hacker” but this is Nature’s spin:

      The investigation has also cleared anyone working at or associated with UEA from involvement in the crime.
      Nature blog:
      http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/police-close-climategate-investigation.html

      The police have no evidence is very different to they have “cleared” UEA employees. The fact that they don’t know who it was, by definition means they cannot rule out UEA employees. Logic. FAIL. Win for spin….


      Report this

      00

      • #
        brc

        Yes it’s a joke.

        We have no idea who it was, but it definitely wasn’t any of these people.

        Um, if you don’t know who it was, then you can’t rule out anyone.

        The last piece of whitewashing is completed, and climategate goes down the memory hole.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mattb

        no evidence = cleared. what is so controversial about that?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bulldust

          By your reasoning everyone in the world living or dead is innocent of the “heinous crime” that was deubbed ClimateGate. Therefore no one did it … it never happened … /JediHandWave and down the memory hole.

          With so many people who fail basic logic is it any wonder that CAGW is so persistent?

          ^ That’s rhetorical.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Joe V.

          “no evidence = cleared. what is so controversial about that?

          I bet CO2 wishes he worked at CRU.

          Perhaps the Norfolk Police would have given CO2 a fairer go than the IPCC did.

          Now what about the malfeasance in a publicly funded office, for which there is more than ample evidence ?

          Exonerating the CRU seems to have become part of the language for any investigations around this whole sorry episode of human history.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bulldust

            I think the logic gap most are failing to bridge is that “not finding evidence” to implicate anyone with UEA is equivalent to being cleared by police. It says nothing of:

            1) How hard police tried to find the evidence they did not find (about anyone);
            2) How competent the police are at finding such evidence, even if they tried really, really hard (the sentence about the complexity of chasing down web sources smacks of a lack of competence to deal with such a crime);
            3) Whether the police have any suspects at all, or people of greater interest than others.

            I could probably go on … the police basically said they found nothing to implicate anyone, and the set {Anyone} happens to include the set {People associated and/or working for UEA}. It does not equate to ruling out people from the latter set, which Nature was quick to do, based on a lack of evidence.

            Hey, come to think of it, that is just like the IPCC feedback assumptions… don’t know why we skeptics bother, because you can’t reason with illogical people.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bulldust

            Just to conclude my logic is exact, here it is from the police themselves in an abridged Q&A posted at WUWT:

            Whilst – because we have not found the perpetrators – we cannot say categorically that no-one at the UEA is involved, there is no evidence to suggest that there was. The nature and sophistication of the attack does not suggest that it was anyone at the UEA.
            Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/19/media-questions-and-answers-from-the-norfolk-police-regarding-the-closing-of-climategate/

            Thanks for playing MattB …


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            So the Norfolk police haven’t cleared you either Bulldust. or Jo for that matter? or me?


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        The fact that they don’t know who it was, by definition means they cannot rule out UEA employees.

        “Mr brc you are not allowed to leave town until this investigation is completed.”

        “When will that be?”

        “Could be years.”

        “But I have flights booked for this weekend!”

        “Sorry, you need to remain available until we find the culprit.”

        “But I already told you I didn’t do it! I have an alibi! I have my wife as a witness and pictures to prove I was nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time that it happened!”

        “Sorry sir, we can’t eliminate you until we know who actually committed the crime.”

        “But that’s fallacious reasoning because my evidence proves I am outside your suspect pool of 7 billion people.”

        “Sorry sir, it’s the rules, it’s right here in this police handbook called ‘The Complete Dummy’s Guide To Logic’ by Professor Bulldust….”


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Bulldust

      Ironic… I just noticed the Nature cover for the current magazine with the title “Go for a spin.”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    O/T but could be a question for JuLIAR,

    Tasmanian State Government move to control woodheater emissions!”

    You have to modify either your heater or chimney within 21 days if it smokes for more than 10 minutes!

    And then, after something ominously termed “education and informal warnings” a heavy-booted (and possibly fuming) smoke inspector will kick in your door and hit you with a $1300 fine!

    Electricity & Gas prices up in Tasmania – now you can’t even burn wood!!

    Looks like MattyB’s suggestion of Jumpers is the only solution for Tasmanian.

    Hope little Bobby Brown is nice and warm! NOT! :(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    18 July: Las Vegas Review-Journal: Hubble Smith: Amonix closes North Las Vegas solar plant after 14 months, heavy federal subsidies
    The Amonix solar manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, heavily financed under an Obama administration energy initiative, has closed its 214,000-square-foot facility 14 months after it opened…
    A designer and manufacturer of concentrated photovoltaic solar power systems, Amonix received $6 million in federal tax credits and a $15.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to build the plant in North Las Vegas…
    http://www.lvrj.com/business/amonix-closes-north-las-vegas-solar-plant-after-14-months-heavy-federal-subsidies-162901626.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Adam Smith

    TEST

    —————————————————–
    [Occasionally your comments have been 'reported' presumably for being 'off topic' they go into a pending bin till a moderator can clear them. There is nothing there at present. - Mod]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    It should also be added that PZ Meyers thinks online polls are absurd and that they deserve what they get, but is happy to take advantage of them. Has anyone actually asked for help? I mean why would Gillard want a question about her rediculous position re: gay marriage any more than a question about carbon?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      cohenite

      PZ Meyers “cultivates an interest in cephalopods” and is a confrontalionalist”.

      Anyway, he’s against ID and creationism, so good for him; but I’m feeling a bit confrontalionalist myself so I ask Mattb why Gillard’s position about gay marriage is “rediculous”.

      My position is it’s an oxymoron.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gnome

        I agree with you Cohenite, but on entirely different grounds. If Julia wants a conscience vote she MUST expose her conscientious views on this matter before the election so the electors can decide if she can represent them (in the House of Representatives).

        As to the matter itself, I can’t understand either side of the argument, so she would be safe from me, voting either way.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          cohenite

          Well Mattb is probably out in his glad-rags so rather then wait; if marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman then gay marriages are by definition contradictory.

          If the issue is equivalent rights between different forms of relationships that can be achieved without constraining terminology. Rights are based on legal force; if gays have equivalent relationship rights to married couples then the terminology applying to those various relationship forms is irrelevant.

          Given that I can only think of 2 reasons why gays are so adamant about achieving the term ‘marriage’ for their relationships.

          The first is to usurp what they perceive as a dominant relationship description with its connotations of social imprimateur and exclusivity; and secondly to give some back to the society, particularly the churches, which stuck it to them for so long.

          I think this is counterproductive; if gays have the same legal status why don’t they call their relationships something different? Lesbians could call their unions fish; so they could say, “Beryl and me have just got fished”.

          Gays could call their relationships trombones; so they could say, “Claude and me just got tromboned”.

          Or something similar. Vive la différence.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Adam Smith

            Well Mattb is probably out in his glad-rags so rather then wait; if marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman then gay marriages are by definition contradictory.

            What an incredible statement! This is like a textbook example of a circular argument!

            You are saying because there is an existing legal definition in the Marriage Act defining marriage, then that is what marriage is and can only ever be! What a bizarre way to think about laws and their relationship to social custom!

            If that was the principle that operated on, then how would it be possible to change any law, or end any social custom!?

            If the issue is equivalent rights between different forms of relationships that can be achieved without constraining terminology. Rights are based on legal force;

            This is an incredibly strange way to conceive of rights. Many in this forum seem to have a perpetual fear or distrust of the state. But fo you to say that “rights are based on legal force” implies that people only have rights because the government says they have them, which implies that the government could revoke those rights on a whim.

            A classical liberal conception of rights is that they we are born with them. For example, people can only be detained if the government presents a very good reason to justify limiting a person’s freedom to move around as they please.

            But you seem to think rights exist only because the state says they do. But if that is true, then it must follow that the state could wash all those rights away at some point in the future and that would be morally justifiable. That is just crazy!

            if gays have equivalent relationship rights to married couples then the terminology applying to those various relationship forms is irrelevant.

            This is a silly way to think about the issue. Consenting adults are born with a right to marry, the state should not interfere with their choice of who they want to marry.

            Given that I can only think of 2 reasons why gays are so adamant about achieving the term ‘marriage’ for their relationships.

            Well this is hilarious because now you seem to be implying that your judgement of a couple’s relationship is more important than what the relationship means to that couple! So much for letting people freely get on with their lives, you now seem to want to interfere all over the place.

            The first is to usurp what they perceive as a dominant relationship description with its connotations of social imprimateur and exclusivity; and secondly to give some back to the society, particularly the churches, which stuck it to them for so long.

            Well you seem to have your history confused, because to get married in Australia you simply sign an Australian Government marriage certificate. You can have all the religious ceremonies you like, but if you don’t sign the certificate you aren’t married.

            And if you are actually interested in figures, most people in Australia are either single or defacto. Only about 40% are married.

            I think this is counterproductive; if gays have the same legal status why don’t they call their relationships something different? Lesbians could call their unions fish; so they could say, “Beryl and me have just got fished”.

            Because if they don’t get an Australian Government marriage certificate they aren’t married!

            Gays could call their relationships trombones; so they could say, “Claude and me just got tromboned”.

            HAHAHHAHAHAHAHH was this meant to be funny?

            Because really it is the sort of silly nonsense that gets passed off as rational argument in this debate, but it doesn’t make much sense and is based on an assumption that a person outside of a relationship should be able to tell people want counts as important in that relationship.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Adam

            Earlier you stated:

            Um, why is it ok to call P Z Myers a “homosexual”, when he has a wife!

            Then you turn around and state:

            Well this is hilarious because now you seem to be implying that your judgement of a couple’s relationship is more important than what the relationship means to that couple!

            What sex is PZ Myers wife then?
            You’re using circular arguements on yourself!
            Two Rule Adam Smith!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            That is close to Mr Rabbit’s view. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool-over-his-eyes Catholic, but he’s also a poli aware that not all voters are as backwards looking as himself. Thus his carefully-worded opinion on Q&A (last year??) was that he can support a civil union of some kind but he wants to protect the word “marriage” as meaning the union of a man and woman.

            It is funny the way we fight over the meaning of symbols.

            Just from a communication efficiency point of view I think a new term that describes the legal union of same-sex couples would be better than overloading the word “marriage”.

            From a software developer’s point of view I probably should favour having new official terminology for the two “missing” combinations because the amount of upgrade work that would be needed across the country to update HR and Employee systems to comply with the new standard would keep contract programmers in short supply for over 12 months. ;)
            Oh no, did I just become a member of The Regulating Class?? See how easy it is!

            From an ethical perspective, calling same-sex couples “marriages” is safest so that it is not possible for bigots to discriminate against gays simply by knowing what “kind” of union the person is in. Knowing somebody is “married” will no longer be a sign of heterosexuality.

            It’s a tricky one. Get Edward de Bono to use ALL THE HATS.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Adam says..

            Consenting adults are born with a right to marry, the state should not interfere with their choice of who they want to marry.

            Fair ’nuff, but I have a question for you.
            Where do we draw the line? To be clear, I’ll give some examples and you can tell me where the line should be drawn.

            Adam and Eve want to marry.
            Adam also wants to marry Mary.
            Eve wants to marry Steve as well.
            Adam also wants to marry Steve.
            Eve wants to marry Ellen De Generes.
            Steve wants to marry Butch.
            Butch wants to marry Adam.

            You get the picture. Draw me the line please Adam.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Dr Smith and his almanac full of distilled wit and wisdom is back.

            But fo you to say that “rights are based on legal force” implies that people only have rights because the government says they have them, which implies that the government could revoke those rights on a whim.

            NO, that is not what I say; but effective rights can only exist due to legal force. Can you give me an example of a right which exists without legal force?

            And there is no implication that a “government could revoke those rights on a whim”. At least in our system which is based on the seperation of powers, transparency and due process. Of course that does not stop inherently despotic governments like the current Green/ALP government from attempting to fetter the individual rights basis of our society; for example the Finkelstein approach to the media.

            More generally, your sense of the historical basis and its religious context, of marriage, is woeful and, as usual, self-serving.

            And this:

            but it doesn’t make much sense and is based on an assumption that a person outside of a relationship should be able to tell people want counts as important in that relationship.

            No, not what is important, but what is legal. I suspect you are young.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Having worked in my wife’s psychiatrist practice as an office manager, receptionist, drug/alchol history screener, and initial patient interviewer, as well as assisting in some rather verbally abusive spousal sessions as a peace keeper, for a decade.

            I have come to the opinion that pair bonding via marriage commitment, helps to stabilize family units, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and gives needed support to single parents by virtue of stated long term commitment to help raise children who might not ever have parental role models of both sexes anyway.

            In the USA “married filing jointly” status for taxes is an incentive as well. I personally support the concept of committed pair bonding being extended to those who value the concept, but it is not for short term use by the “flavor of the month” type relationships any way.

            In the past decades gays got married to people of the other sex they did not like to sleep with then paling around with nights out with the boys or girls, so were never home with the children, making for poor parental role models.

            (Puns intended)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            Adam Smith,
            So how would you feel about a father of your (same gender) partner who pointed a shotgun at you and told you to get married or get shot, the scene behind the old term ‘shotgun marriage’? Some institutions, like the shotgun marriage, worked so well that only deeply disturbed people would want to see them change. Like traditional marriage, female to male.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Cohers I think a bit of googling will inform you that “Claude and me just got tromboned” is already a phrase…


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Many good posts here. I’ll weigh in if I may, Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage IS a religious event (a sacrament if Christian). Denial of this is ridiculous. Governments usurped the issue (requiring licenses etc.) to take advantage (tax) of the rite. If anyone wants to claim separation of church and state, marriage should be the first to go. (oddly no one seems to be calling for that)

          One could argue that there should not be a tax advantage for being married. I say OK but I like that there is a tax advantage for having children.

          I agree wholly with Baa on the matter of drawing the line. Clearly, there is a slippery slope here. If you debase the meaning of marriage then you might as well throw out all laws regarding the number and genders of cohabiting adults. (Maybe a couple sheep to boot)

          I find it fascinating to watch leftists struggle with the obvious moral questions they create and cannot find an answer for. My wife and I were married for religious reasons. Our children receive the benefits of this as a matter of faith. I don’t expect non-believers to understand my faith but I take some offense that they believe same sex marriage is equal to what my wife and I have.

          On a broader view, these challenges to the moral fiber of civilization aren’t happening randomly. Cohenite you are onto it where you say

          to give some back to the society, particularly the churches, which stuck it to them for so long.

          except I fear that the overall goal is to dismantle religion as we know it.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MattB

            Mark D – gay marriage existed before Christianity did.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            “I take some offense that they believe same sex marriage is equal to what my wife and I have.”

            why?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            MattB declares:

            Mark D – gay marriage existed before Christianity did.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

            OK, and I’m also certain that you’d support Pederasty as described in the link above.

            Disgusting really.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Jaymez

              I read the wikipedia reference and to me it appears the ‘same sex marriage’ it is referring to is described even in that article as quite different from the ‘normal’ hetero-sexual marriage. Usually between an older man of high social standing and a young boy with his father’s permission. It was considered a mentoring role as well as a sexual component and usually ended when the boy turned 17. It also often happened within a ‘normal’ marriage. There was also no mention of lesbian marriages.

              However going to history to justify any form of relationship, tradition or behaviour is hardly appropriate otherwise we would be doing so to justify slavery, paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, arranged marriages, male and female circumcision, the king sleeping with the bride on the wedding night, dowry, cannibalism, etc etc.

              Personally I think two or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes. I also believe that if we have laws that benefit two people who live together in some way, then they should be extended to anyone who wants to nominate their ‘life partner’ without any need for any ceremony civil or religious.


              Report this

              00

          • #
            Mark D.

            MattB quoting me asks:

            “I take some offense that they believe same sex marriage is equal to what my wife and I have.”

            why?

            Why do I take offense?
            Why do they believe what they believe?
            Why is a marriage Faithfully consecrated as a sacrament different to one that probably cannot be?

            From the link you provided:

            The teachings of the Talmud and Torah, and the Bible, were seen as specifically prohibiting the practices [same sex unions] as contrary to nature and the will of the Creator, and a moral shortcoming.

            You apparently are unable to respect the value of those teachings because of your arrogantly proclaimed belief in atheism and ridicule of Believers. Because of that, it won’t do any good for you if I explain the why’s.

            I wonder about your view of a life without values, how you define basics like good and bad, what limits you establish for human behavior, how did you decide these things?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            I define them just like you do Mark D. Based upon what I reckon is the right thing to do. Don’t dish out claptrap that your hatred of homosexuals has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

            I mean you are actually saying my own marriage is not equal to your own? And you call ME arrogant? When I see you in hell at least I’ll know I was prepared for it lol.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Why do you think I hate homosexuals? You must have a reading disorder. What claptrap Mattb?
            Have I said that homosexuals can’t love? NO
            Have I said that they should be prevented by law from shacking up? NO
            >
            I have a dear dear aunt who lived with another woman for 30 or more years. Till her partner died. You’ll never find a more devout Christian than my aunt and I love her dearly. Your claim that I hate homosexuals is false. To hate anyone would go against the teachings of Christ. I don’t like what they do. Am I perfect? Far from it.

            I don’t demand laws that protect and foster my imperfections either.

            I don’t know what kind of marriage you have. I didn’t question your emotional relationship with your wife. But no, how could it be equal when you don’t have the added element that Faith provides to mine?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Hey you’re the one who used the word fag in a derogatory manner (referring to a bloke who’s not even gay). Why don’t you ask your dear dear aunt if she thinks that is particularly Christian… or is the kind of reference used by people with a high tolerance of homosexuals?

            One could argue you demand laws that preserve your imperfect view of the world.

            your last sentence takes the cake. your marriage >> my marriage because you believe in the tooth fairy? puhleeze.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            Who invented marriage?

            As far as I understood it, almost all cultures had some form of social contract establishing kinship.

            Pretty easy topic to solve once you take away disgust and religion.

            Reasons for: It adds value to the lives of those who want to be married to someone of the same gender.

            Reasons against: None?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Bwa hahahahah, Ask my aunt to give support to your argument when you don’t believe in the source of the value?????? Idiot.

            One could argue you demand laws that preserve your imperfect view of the world.

            What a twisted perception that is. I demand laws that work towards creating and sustaining a better world. I recognize that civilization needs moral boundaries or it rapidly declines.

            You, like all Leftists cannot bring themselves to ever admit that. Where do you draw the line on behavior? You never answered my comment on pederasty. So I’ll go on thinking you believe that’s OOOOKKKKK with you. (maybe you have an “uncle” that came to be your mentor huh?)

            Mattb what a bigoted hypocrite you are! What derogatory things have you said here about the good people of Tasmania or of Alabama? You more than disrespect all religions by calling God the “tooth faerie” Then you have the gall to get pissy with me? I didn’t say anything ABOUT fags, just used the word. Free speech you know? No boundaries!
            Got anything to say hypocrite?

            **************************************************************
            Tristan, God invented marriage in the days of Eden. You may prefer not to believe that so you could fall back on something else. It doesn’t matter though, you can recognize that it helps with creating a secure place to raise children. Children were necessary to survive and be happy in life before governments thought up “social services” and abortion was made legal. (I could go on and on but what’s the use)

            Both of you need to recognize that forcing people with higher moral standards to live with people they feel are amoral WILL result in conflict. This series of posts should be proof enough.

            One thing is for sure, I ENJOY my days making Leftists miserable, and you two are squirming.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Oh yeah – squirmy wormy here…

            Just who is forcing anyone to live with people they feel are amoral? Your arguments are just rubbish piled on rubbish.

            I say this: “One could argue you demand laws that preserve your imperfect view of the world.”

            You reply with: “What a twisted perception that is. I demand laws that work towards creating and sustaining a better world.”

            After saying: “Am I perfect? Far from it.”

            So me saying what you admit is somehow a “twisted perception”?

            Look I was bought up a Christian, attended Christian school, have Christian parents, and may Christian friends, pretty much all of whom would wonder where in the teachings of Jesus Christ you get your bigoted ideas from? Now I personally don’t believe in God and I don’t believe that JC was his son, but I actaully find that the Gospels are pretty consistent with my world view. Your approach, or at least how you present here, appears at odds with anything I consider to be a reasonable interpretation of Christianity.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            So basically I’m calling you out as choosing a conservative interpretation of Christianity in order to support your personal opinions. Now you may not be more right than me, but don’t try and pretend “faith” or “Christianity” has anything to do with it.

            What exactly would bill and ben popping to a civil ceremony and becoming “married” do to your life? I mean bill and mary can already get married and it has nothing to do with god. They don’t pretend it is a scrament. It does not debase religious marriage in any way.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            For the record I love Tasmania and Tasmanians.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Ahhhh That explains your pain.

            I think you should re read my posts in order.

            And thank you for finally revealing the source of your moral foundation.

            Give my best to your parents.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            They are probably a tad liberal for your liking.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            One thing about saving things (a pass time of mine)

            Mattb:

            To tasmanian men, if your wives or mothers are offended please apologise on my behalf. For many of you that will mean only one apology *boom tish*.

            Followed by:

            That really would be better as wives or sisters.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/is-it-possible-our-new-chief-scientist-has-doubts-about-climate-science/#comment-273420

            Or this:

            Keith it was ABC Tasmania… you’d have had to let them know what an iPod was too, or an internal commbustion engine, or incest.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/is-it-possible-our-new-chief-scientist-has-doubts-about-climate-science/#comment-273286

            I’ll probably save this current exchange for a later day too.

            Still, give my best to your parents, and BTW, do you accuse them of believing that God is instead only the tooth faerie?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Ahh so making jokes at the expense of Tasmanians is a sign I don’t like them? I thought you were an Aussie Mark D?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .

            I thought you were an Aussie Mark D?

            How do you explain an Australian MattyB?
            If you make jokes of Tasmanians, NSW’s, WA’s or Cane Toads? – is it a fail?


            Report this

            00

  • #
    pat

    say it ain’t so:

    19 July: Courier Mail: Ipswich flood victims fear Wivenhoe Dam levels too high as Queensland Government keeps level near 100 per cent
    Jane Chudleigh, Ipswich News From: Quest Newspapers
    As of Monday, the dam was 97.6 per cent full. Minister for Energy and Water Supply Mark McArdle received a brief on the dam situation on Friday, and has decided at this stage no flood releases will be required.
    Bundamba resident Dianne Dimitrov led the protest against the former State Government which resulted in Wivenhoe being reduced to 75 per cent ahead of last year’s predicted wet season.
    “Surely after what has gone on, they have learnt a lesson from that, and I really want to have faith and believe they would never let it happen again,” she said…
    In a statement, the Department of Energy and Water Supply said the current long range outlook from the weather bureau did not indicate a need to make pre-releases to draw the dam down for the coming wet season.
    An El Nino, associated with an increased likelihood of drier than average conditions is forecast for 2012-13.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/ipswich/ipswich-flood-victims-fear-wivenhoe-dam-levels-too-high-as-queensland-government-keeps-level-near-100-per-cent/story-fn8m0yo2-1226429675019

    in the comments, some seem to believe the 97.6 percent figure doesn’t include the flood mitigaton part. there’s a pic of wivenhoe which looks completely full, yet no date on that.

    talk about sloppy MSM, even when it involves something as potentially serious as another manmade flood. btw why is this only in the local paper’s print version?

    perhaps there won’t be more heavy rains, but the 75% level was decided on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    what a wonderful time for a carbon dioxide tax! notice it’s only published in the local print newspaper. you can add to the losses the 32 builders that have quit the Gold Coast in the past few years (haven’t got time to relocate that story), and keep in mind that literally thousands of tradies have left the Coast over the same period:

    18 July: Jobs vanish as Coast businesses close up
    Laura Nelson, Sun Community Newspapers
    A GROWING number of small businesses in the northern corridor are hanging on by a thread as they battle to avoid following a downward statewide trend identified by the Chamber of Commerce and Industries Queensland.
    According to the CCIQ, there has been a 1.1 per cent drop in the number of operating employers over the past two years.
    Gold Coast North Chamber of Commerce secretary Gary Mays said 40 members had gone out of business in the past three years as the recession bit deep…
    “The Gold Coast fits perfectly into the CCIQ scenario and if you look at The Yellow Pages from 2009 and 2010, a lot of the same businesses aren’t in it any more.
    “Three years ago, it was two books but now there is only one…
    http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/07/18/432205_gold-coast-news.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    I do not care about the carbon market!
    I just want an election so that I may cast vote to the politician who promises to prosecute the AGW scammers. Prosecuting those who directly or indirectly used commonwealth funding to knowingly spread disinformation would be a bonus (it would certainly thin the trolls on this blog).


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      I just want an election so that I may cast vote to the politician who promises to prosecute the AGW scammers.

      While I agree entirely with your sentiment you realise our choice at the moment is exactly zero.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Another question you won’t see answered in this theatrical event, or even asked by any voter, is this one:
    Why is it that the only time the government removes red tape is when they want to make it quicker and easier for ASIO to intercept your computer’s internet communications?
    Why now, as opposed to any other time in the last 8 years of widespread broadband access?
    Why the rush with the sudden deadline on public comment?
    And if a “cybercrime” doesn’t leave physical evidence anywhere other than in communications, is it still a real crime with real harm?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    I can’t go to YouTube without seeing a picture of the PM at the top of the page.
    It disgusts me because I’ve seen the carnage of her policies on the rocks of Christmas Island and the lists of the men, women and children missing at sea.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’d like to ask the PM if she was young and naive when she said there’d be no carbon tax. Of course, I know what she’ll say.

    “I’ve dealt with this issue previously – when lecturing some kind of institute with Whitlam or Evatt in its name, as I recall – and it’s now time to move on and move forward. When it was revealed that there were insufficient handles on the doors of supermarket freezers, we had to take decisive action on carbon. I’ve always been very clear about that, and my position remains firm. The mums and dads out there want clarity and business wants certainty, and this is what we are delivering. Next question.”

    Really guys, I’d rather go swimming in molasses than ask Julia Gillard a question.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Really guys, I’d rather go swimming in molasses than ask Julia Gillard a question.

      Same here, and that frightens me. Before I got an answer, I’d have to get out of the molasses three times to take a leak!

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Yep, at 11:25am she’s running true to form, blathering forth with strings of clichés we have heard, ad nauseam.

      What a total waste of space this woman really is.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Martin

    This a complete fast because Gillard won’t answer the questions she’ll answer like a side stepping politician, I’d like to know about the funds taken y her form the AWU members when she was with Slater and Gordon its all over Facebook and the Net i the last 48 hours how about we raise THAT question and really watch her sqirm.. don’t know about it head to the pickering post its all there ad serious stuff http://pickeringpost.com/news/serious-questions-for-gillardbr-still-no-answers/139


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Wayne, s. Job

      The plot thickens, Rudd and his Missus are not short of a quid, the unions dudded Rudd and now a law firm has paid for the return of witnesses that fled the country in fear of the unions!!!

      Hmmmm The coming period of time may be some what trouble some for many promoted beyond their skill levels.

      Thank you Martin, this gives a glimmer of hope to my bruised sensibilities.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    Here is a bit of irony.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-dislike-can-be-turned-around/story-fn7j19iv-1226433413607

    Selected quotes:

    “To some extent there’s a kneejerk dislike of the laws, but if you spend 30 seconds to explain it then support strengthens,” Mr Connor said.

    Really so after 12 months of explaining all you need is another 30 seconds?

    Climate Institute chief John Connor, who will release the full report in Canberra, said it was a reflection of the “quality of the political debate” that voters were not properly informed of the merits of carbon pricing.

    Which is why when Gillard had the perfect opportunity to further explain the merits of the carbon tax she failed to answer the question in any way shape or form. This is her version of explaining to the Australian people, in other words she treats us with contempt all the more highlighted by bought and paid for studies like this one.


    Report this

    00