Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Domestic Politics


cadete
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, NewConvert said:

 that is what the majority of Australians believe.

I actually don't think that climate change denial is even close to a majority position tbh but its always painted that way because it's politically better for the leftist parties.

Of course there's the odd crazy, but imo most conservatives tend to think climate change is real, even if they think there is a fair bit of number fudging and conflating going on, but its incredibly complicated and there is resistance to action because there doesn't seem to be any great solutions that arent economically reckless.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The role of the PM is to be a leader. We all know that decisions are made in a party backroom and the PM sings to the party tune. ScoMo running and hiding when the country is in crisis is a terrible look for him and the Liberal party. The NSW libs will get obliterated at the next election if Labor can produce a leader with a minuscule amount of charisma and smarts.

We really need a legitimate 3rd party like the Democrats of old to essentially "keep the bastards honest". It's amazing in this day and age that the only new parties that are getting the most traction are run by political morons like Hanson, Palmer and Katter. If a party formed tomorrow with Hugh Jackman as the leader and candidates in every seat he'd probably be the new PM at the next election such is the disenchantment with the current mob in Canberra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bt50 said:

I actually don't think that climate change denial is even close to a majority position tbh but its always painted that way because it's politically better for the leftist parties.

Of course there's the odd crazy, but imo most conservatives tend to think climate change is real, even if they think there is a fair bit of number fudging and conflating going on, but its incredibly complicated and there is resistance to action because there doesn't seem to be any great solutions that arent economically reckless.

But to do nothing is economic suicide. I have been involved in this issue since the 1980s when I was working in industry. The actions that need to be taken were obvious then and they are obvious now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

But to do nothing is economic suicide. I have been involved in this issue since the 1980s when I was working in industry. The actions that need to be taken were obvious then and they are obvious now.

With due respect, what are the said actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bt50 said:

I actually don't think that climate change denial is even close to a majority position tbh but its always painted that way because it's politically better for the leftist parties.

Of course there's the odd crazy, but imo most conservatives tend to think climate change is real, even if they think there is a fair bit of number fudging and conflating going on, but its incredibly complicated and there is resistance to action because there doesn't seem to be any great solutions that arent economically reckless.

Similar types of decisions are made by business every week - the ones that get it right remain in business whilst those that get it wrong end up diminished or extinguished. As an example when projects get started they should be adequately staffed however often this is not the case. So the argument is if we hire someone then we are increasing our costs but when the project is in strife then management says lets hire someone which is actually more expensive as the project is underway and the already stretched resources cannot induct them properly - and once liquidated damages kick in then the whole project is screwed. So the good companies ensure that they get this right fro the get go.

In this instance transitioning those communities has a cost which needs to be paid through taxes. Not raising money through taxes because it is deem to be economically reckless then we get the situation we are in now. Drought relief is getting expensive, uneconomical farms and towns are kept hanging on, the loss of property and lives, the financial stress leading to marital breakdown and higher suicide rates which all begins to add up. I believe that the government has boasted that they have spent $8B this decade alone in farm and rural assistance. I won't mention some of the really dodgy schemes our taxes have been paying.  But I will mention that since we have the private generating electricity, they have been reluctant to invest in additional plants because of policy uncertainty. Which means that when the power goes off industry stops - is that economically reckless or not?

Indeed a simple commitment not to allow any further coal mines would be enough for industry to head in a different direction.

Finally The Economist reported in 2006 that hurricane Katrina which hit the USA and Central America in 2005 had caused insurance premiums to rise by1.5% across the whole world. Industries require insurance to operate and if their costs are rising because of climate change wouldn't this be seen as economically reckless?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 21/12/2019 at 8:27 AM, mus-28 said:

The role of the PM is to be a leader. We all know that decisions are made in a party backroom and the PM sings to the party tune. ScoMo running and hiding when the country is in crisis is a terrible look for him and the Liberal party. The NSW libs will get obliterated at the next election if Labor can produce a leader with a minuscule amount of charisma and smarts.

We really need a legitimate 3rd party like the Democrats of old to essentially "keep the bastards honest". It's amazing in this day and age that the only new parties that are getting the most traction are run by political morons like Hanson, Palmer and Katter. If a party formed tomorrow with Hugh Jackman as the leader and candidates in every seat he'd probably be the new PM at the next election such is the disenchantment with the current mob in Canberra.

Agree, that's why I will be voting one nation. Hear me out, they are defending the farmers and Murray darling system, the major parties want to make money from it and sell water rights to overseas, the greens water magement has made it hard for farmers to manage their lands.

They want to reduce immigration, 457 visas is a scam for business, skill shortage is a scam, there are not enough jobs as it is, it's just a government scam to boost GDP.

I don't like the two major parties, they are two sides of a coin.

What's this with story time with a drag queen creeping into our country? I'm sorry but I see it as wrong, I only see them as strong enough to say no.

They seem to stand for the everyday Aussie, not the elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/01/2020 at 7:00 PM, moops said:

Agree, that's why I will be voting one nation. Hear me out, they are defending the farmers and Murray darling system, the major parties want to make money from it and sell water rights to overseas, the greens water magement has made it hard for farmers to manage their lands.

They want to reduce immigration, 457 visas is a scam for business, skill shortage is a scam, there are not enough jobs as it is, it's just a government scam to boost GDP.

I don't like the two major parties, they are two sides of a coin.

What's this with story time with a drag queen creeping into our country? I'm sorry but I see it as wrong, I only see them as strong enough to say no.

They seem to stand for the everyday Aussie, not the elite.

I wasn't going to reply to this but its been bugging me. First up, I see Hanson as just one of the worst scammers in my life. She has said so many things with the sole purpose of gaining TV time promoting herself as a champion of the underdog however in her parliamentary career she has become a multi-millionaire.

Secondly, I don't buy the idea that all farmers are struggling. In 1983 the Ash Wednesday fires took a heavy toll and we were out collecting money for farmers affected. In 1985 I met the son of one these farmers (who was 2.5 years younger than me) and of course he had been boarding at Scotch College. So much for struggle street. In 1990 a cyclone hit Queensland and the poor sugar cane farmers livelihood was destroyed. Bob Hawke cried another river. Coincidentally a mate of mine had months earlier booked a holiday with his girlfriend just in the region affected. Coming from rural Victoria himself he knew how bad things could get. So he gave them a call to see whether he wasn't going to a burden and was reassured that he wasn't and should come up. When he got there the sugar cane was upright and presumed that the cyclone had missed the area. Oh no the cyclone had gone right through but they used the occasion to get $30M out of the Feds (ie the taxpayers) and what a hoot that was. Then in about 1992 the big issue (and still a big issue) was salination. There is footage of farms with "snow like" soil which is just pure salt - the skills the farmer to create a salt pan on his land were staggering. Of course this meant that the land productivity was decreasing annually and his debts mounted annually, he couldn't sell because there was no buyer that would pay him the money he needed to get out of debt. Come on down taxpayer and cough up. So now the idea that farmers know how to manage the land is crap. Ultimately they are business owners and like any business there are going to be some brilliant people in it, lots of average, and lots of crap businesses. Oh, I almost forgot, Howard introduced a rather generous investment fund where farmers can invest their good time money and then use it on occasions like today. For the 2017/2018 financial year that stood at over $8B, so how come they are not using this money?

As far as the Greens are concerned, they have only been in power sharing deals in the ACT and Tasmania. So how come they seem to be blamed for legislation which at best they would have had an input.

Protecting the Murray-Darling? For the last 20 years there has been a commission dedicated to manage the river system composed of scientists, economists and farmer representatives. Their work has been trashed at every opportunity. By whom? By farmers of course. The water flows south from Queensland down to SA/Vic. So the Queenslanders take copious amounts (see Cubbie Station) and then NSW farmers who notoriously break any deal they make - about 15 years ago they managed to unite the Vic ALP, Vic Coalition and the VFF in opposing Howard's attempt to forgive them. Farmers downstream get a worse and worse deal. Actually whatever deal is struck is broken by the farmers upstream. So what is Hanson's position on the Murray-Darling Commission? She has voted at every opportunity to emasculate the work and the commission itself. You cannot talk of saving the river system and the farmers without giving due consideration to those downstream.

As far as making money from it is concerned, water has always produced money. This is the natural output of adding water to a planted seed. The only difference is that as a consumer I pay for the produce and the farmers paid very little for the cost of water. Once you take into consideration all the farmers and communities across the length of the river system then they do have to pay more as will I.

The unfortunate thing is that the best solution is for some decent rain over a number of years. Anyone born this century would have grown up knowing that Australia is in drought, they would not know otherwise. Unfortunately we cannot make it rain.

Fully agree with you on the 457 visa scam. Unfortunately the public at large is convinced that a growing GDP and lower taxes is the panacea for all that ails. GDP growth is a very imperfect measurement (along with just about anything that economics produces). People clamor for lower taxes because pay rises are so low and the best way they can increase their pay packet is by decreasing taxes. Lower taxes, apart from reducing the quality and availability of services, prevent from society paying for adjusting to the changing conditions. The government can buy out farmers in marginal land and pay for resuscitating the land, we can have better firefighting capabilities, we can rebuild towns to improve fireproofing but hey farmers don't like paying taxes.

Over the years I have always heard that the Greens' economic policies are with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. In practice it is the rural communities that are with the fairies, they want everything and not pay for anything.

As far as saying that both political parties are the same that would be your opinion. But driving an economy is like driving a road train in the freeway (and if you have ever been in the outback you would know) you can only make subtle changes and it takes time to change direction. I don't think that sudden changes won't have dire consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2020 at 6:58 AM, NewConvert said:

I wasn't going to reply to this but its been bugging me. First up, I see Hanson as just one of the worst scammers in my life. She has said so many things with the sole purpose of gaining TV time promoting herself as a champion of the underdog however in her parliamentary career she has become a multi-millionaire.

Secondly, I don't buy the idea that all farmers are struggling. In 1983 the Ash Wednesday fires took a heavy toll and we were out collecting money for farmers affected. In 1985 I met the son of one these farmers (who was 2.5 years younger than me) and of course he had been boarding at Scotch College. So much for struggle street. In 1990 a cyclone hit Queensland and the poor sugar cane farmers livelihood was destroyed. Bob Hawke cried another river. Coincidentally a mate of mine had months earlier booked a holiday with his girlfriend just in the region affected. Coming from rural Victoria himself he knew how bad things could get. So he gave them a call to see whether he wasn't going to a burden and was reassured that he wasn't and should come up. When he got there the sugar cane was upright and presumed that the cyclone had missed the area. Oh no the cyclone had gone right through but they used the occasion to get $30M out of the Feds (ie the taxpayers) and what a hoot that was. Then in about 1992 the big issue (and still a big issue) was salination. There is footage of farms with "snow like" soil which is just pure salt - the skills the farmer to create a salt pan on his land were staggering. Of course this meant that the land productivity was decreasing annually and his debts mounted annually, he couldn't sell because there was no buyer that would pay him the money he needed to get out of debt. Come on down taxpayer and cough up. So now the idea that farmers know how to manage the land is crap. Ultimately they are business owners and like any business there are going to be some brilliant people in it, lots of average, and lots of crap businesses. Oh, I almost forgot, Howard introduced a rather generous investment fund where farmers can invest their good time money and then use it on occasions like today. For the 2017/2018 financial year that stood at over $8B, so how come they are not using this money?

As far as the Greens are concerned, they have only been in power sharing deals in the ACT and Tasmania. So how come they seem to be blamed for legislation which at best they would have had an input.

Protecting the Murray-Darling? For the last 20 years there has been a commission dedicated to manage the river system composed of scientists, economists and farmer representatives. Their work has been trashed at every opportunity. By whom? By farmers of course. The water flows south from Queensland down to SA/Vic. So the Queenslanders take copious amounts (see Cubbie Station) and then NSW farmers who notoriously break any deal they make - about 15 years ago they managed to unite the Vic ALP, Vic Coalition and the VFF in opposing Howard's attempt to forgive them. Farmers downstream get a worse and worse deal. Actually whatever deal is struck is broken by the farmers upstream. So what is Hanson's position on the Murray-Darling Commission? She has voted at every opportunity to emasculate the work and the commission itself. You cannot talk of saving the river system and the farmers without giving due consideration to those downstream.

As far as making money from it is concerned, water has always produced money. This is the natural output of adding water to a planted seed. The only difference is that as a consumer I pay for the produce and the farmers paid very little for the cost of water. Once you take into consideration all the farmers and communities across the length of the river system then they do have to pay more as will I.

The unfortunate thing is that the best solution is for some decent rain over a number of years. Anyone born this century would have grown up knowing that Australia is in drought, they would not know otherwise. Unfortunately we cannot make it rain.

Fully agree with you on the 457 visa scam. Unfortunately the public at large is convinced that a growing GDP and lower taxes is the panacea for all that ails. GDP growth is a very imperfect measurement (along with just about anything that economics produces). People clamor for lower taxes because pay rises are so low and the best way they can increase their pay packet is by decreasing taxes. Lower taxes, apart from reducing the quality and availability of services, prevent from society paying for adjusting to the changing conditions. The government can buy out farmers in marginal land and pay for resuscitating the land, we can have better firefighting capabilities, we can rebuild towns to improve fireproofing but hey farmers don't like paying taxes.

Over the years I have always heard that the Greens' economic policies are with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. In practice it is the rural communities that are with the fairies, they want everything and not pay for anything.

As far as saying that both political parties are the same that would be your opinion. But driving an economy is like driving a road train in the freeway (and if you have ever been in the outback you would know) you can only make subtle changes and it takes time to change direction. I don't think that sudden changes won't have dire consequences.

Great post.

I really don't like politics, it has alway's been for the rich, not the everydayman. That said there has been a slew of social politics that is very distasteful, ultimately this is having a big effect on my thinking.

Agree Hanson is in it for herself in the long run, but at least she wants to promote Australian business instead of the corporation new world order stuff the both the Liberals, labour and greens are pushing, albeit in different ways (to much to go into, it should be a separate discussion).

Your story about the rural guy is correct and is the same with these fires, I went to Moe for holiday and took a trip up to the Gypsland area.

I am sure there will be many people crying for aid when they don't deserve it, I don't really like it personally. I was in Belgrave sth during ash Wednesday and nobody I knew got any help, they just had to get on with things.

"Their work has been trashed at every opportunity. By whom? By farmers of course." from what I have heard it's the complete opposite

"As far as making money from it is concerned," This is a flowing river water, it's not treated, sure it's managed through the dam, but that's half the problem and that problem stems from American cotton farmers.

Agree it's about rain, though it's also a knock on effect. There was a study done in the late 90's (I had a brief look and couldn't see it, this was interesting though https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/08-044.pdf) that measured increased rainfall where native trees covered a large area compared to introduced species, they didn't go into the why, only the measurements. The way it's being managed is unnatural for the environment.

But when we talk about QLD/Syd their environment is a lot different to ours and the land management is different, you understand that farmers cannot dig a dam on their own property? (probably a whole other discussion).

"Lower taxes, apart from reducing the quality and availability of services, prevent from society paying for adjusting to the changing conditions". Not if our wealth was growing, with so much outsourcing, foreign ownership, and free trade agreements, we only have the mining and agricultural sector and the government seem intent on killing our Ag sector. If we are not pulling in foreign money and growing our wealth, all we are is a shop, slowly bleeding ourselves dry.

"The government can buy out farmers in marginal land and pay for resuscitating the land." Better yet, make a few million selling it to China.

"we can have better firefighting capabilities, we can rebuild towns to improve fireproofing". What equipment do we not have that we should have? How do you propose to rebuild towns to be fire proof? The main reasons for the fires has been land management and I solely put the blame on the greens, they have a large say and have a larger say in Labour policies. They changed their policies in November whilst the fires started to rage, they did not support hazard reduction burns, they advocated and won policies that dissalowed important land management for an animals home, ironic isn't it?

"farmers don't like paying taxes." They love the 457 visas and the international working holiday/study visas as well, most farmers wealth is in assets.

"Greens' economic policies". I wouldn't know what they are, they are to busy talking about bringing every third world country immigrant into Australia that they can, LGBTQI+ rights, telling us that firefighters come home and beat up their wives and destroying infrastructure by going totally renewable, the tech just isn't there, but happily ignore nuclear.

"As far as saying that both political parties are the same that would be your opinion". Yes.

"you can only make subtle changes and it takes time to change direction". No one wants to make the long term subtle changes, or the hard stance changes for that matter since the eighties and they were getting dodgy then, I was barely out of nappies during this time. The two major parties are in it for the short term, make a quick buck, they couldn't care less about Australians future and they each take turns expecting it. The greens I have no idea, but they seem intent on bringing in the new world order open borders, climate change religion at any cost.

 

Edited by moops
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Fires not due to climate change: expert

 

16x9_medium

A bushfire burns in Springwood, NSW. (AAP)

Linking NSW's bushfires to climate change is 'nonsense', a leading expert says.

UPDATEDUPDATED 14/11/2019

This article was originally published on 21/10/13.

UPDATE 14/11/19: 

Speaking earlier this week, Mr Packham confirmed his position on what is causing the current severe bushfire conditions. Addressing the matter on Sky News, he said fuel loads remain the core issue.

 

"The most important (factor) is the dryness of the fuel, which comes from the hot dry weather," he said.

"It's not behind the lot of it, it's behind all of it. The theory is as solid as the universal theory of gravitation."

SBS has attempted to contact Mr Packham on whether he holds the same views he expressed in the original 2013 article refuting links between climate change and bushfires at that time.

 

 

Linking the bushfire disaster in NSW to climate change is "an absolute nonsense" and reducing fuel loads in the Australian bush is urgently needed, a leading scientist says.

Retired Monash University researcher David Packham says global warming is a gradual process which doesn't explain major bushfires.

Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt has been accused of playing politics by linking the NSW bushfires to the new federal government's climate change policies.

But Mr Packham says there is no link.

"It's an absolute nonsense," he told AAP.

"The very best interpretation is (it's) misguided by them not understanding how bushfires actually do work in Australia.

"If there is any global warming, the global warming is so slow and so small that the bushfire event is totally overrun by the fuel state."

Mr Packham has previously accused "latte conservationists" of having too much influence on forest management.

He says fuel loads are now the heaviest they have been since human occupation of the continent and Aboriginal methods need to be adopted.

Flying over the Blue Mountains in recent years had been "frightening", he said.

"There's been this determination over the last 10 to 20 years to not treat our country in the same way the indigenous people treated it for 30,000 years," Mr Packham said.

"The concept has been every fire is a bad fire.

"In the Australian context you need fire to keep the bush healthy and safe."

Mr Packham said Western Australia had successfully reduced fuel for decades and up to 20 per cent of bushland should be burned annually.

"If we got to 10 per cent then our area burnt would drop by 90 per cent and our intensity would drop by at least that and undoubtedly more," he said.

He said major fires had occurred every 10 to 20 years since records began in 1915.

Mr Packham called for an end to playing politics with bushfires and instead called for leadership based on scientific evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mus-28 said:

I'd rather watch 3 hours of Jason Hoffman attempting to football than anything that come of of Malcolm Roberts mouth.

Your choice. I am pretty neutral to all politicians however he does bring up many points and he seems to be the only one looking at the real science at its source and it's clear that the greens are running to hide from all forms of debate; they have a habit of doing that when truth is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, playmaker said:

Your choice. I am pretty neutral to all politicians however he does bring up many points and he seems to be the only one looking at the real science at its source and it's clear that the greens are running to hide from all forms of debate; they have a habit of doing that when truth is involved.

The only problem with listening to people like him without scratching the surface more is that they add one and two teogether to get 1 million.

This is the bloke that thought the Commonwealth of Australia was a listed corporation on the US stock exchange purely because you could trade Aus Govt bonds as ADRs.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, malloy said:

The only problem with listening to people like him without scratching the surface more is that they add one and two teogether to get 1 million.

That holds true for all politicians, hence the wise thing to do is to investigate in depth what facts they are bringing forth to debate to implement policy.

Personally I have been investigating the global warming aka climate change since the Al Gore fake propaganda and it's refreshing that we have politicians questioning the narrative and presenting real science which is unraveling the mainstream deluded view which is being pushed by far left politicians to implement policies which are unnecessarily burdening Australia's prosperity. 

What I find very interesting on this topic is that not one of the Greens or far left Labour party politicians are bringing facts or real science to support their view so to have a healthy debate but rather are UN aka IPCC echo chambers with no real scientific backing.

The issue is that the science is far from settled but rather the science against the mainstream narrative is far more solid.

But you are right in saying that we all should be going beyond the political speeches, but rather we should investigate for ourselves what is truth. But this applies to all sides of politics and media information where we should investigate all things with no biass so to develop an opinion based on the solid foundation of truth rather than adopting opinions from mainstream propaganda.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boris to scrap BBC taxpayer funding via govt - BBC to charge subscription fee direct to viewers who want it

Monday, 17 February 2020

In the UK the BBC is funded by a government enforced so called licence fee.

That's currently set at £154.50 ($300 AUD) per household per year generating £3.69bn for the BBC last year ($7.16 bn AUD).

Boris will scrap the government intervention and the BBC will be free to charge a direct subscription fee to users who want to pay for the service!

Magnificent work.

Why should governments be in the media business when there are so many free market alternatives?

Scott Morrison we hope you're listening and learning.

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-02-17 at 5.44.28 am

Downing Street has turned on the BBC — vowing to scrap the television licence fee and make viewers pay a subscription. The national broadcaster could also be compelled to downsize and sell off most of its radio stations.

In a plan that would change the face of British broadcasting, senior aides to Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted on Sunday AEDT that they were “not bluffing” about changing the BBC’s funding model and “pruning” its reach into people’s homes.

The blueprint being drawn up in government will scrap the ­licence fee and replace it with a subscription model; force the BBC to sell off the vast majority of its 61 radio stations but safeguard Radio 3 and Radio 4; reduce the number of the corporation’s national television channels from 10; scale back the BBC website; invest more in the World Service and ban BBC stars from cashing in with lucrative second jobs.

Set at £154.50 a year, the licence fee generated £3.69bn for the BBC last year.

The plan marks a further escalation of hostilities between No 10 and the corporation following speeches last week by BBC chairman David Clementi, who launched an outspoken defence of the licence fee.

 

Hopefully Morrison follows this example as the ABC and SBS is a total joke.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HeartFc said:

Ye thats a brillant bozza. Morrison doesn't have the balls to do that to the ABC so we can forget about it. 

Morrison hasn't the balls to take on anyone with vested interest. Neither has anyone else in this country. Wherever we look we are so far behind the cutting edge it is no longer funny or even quaint.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Morrison hasn't the balls to take on anyone with vested interest. Neither has anyone else in this country. Wherever we look we are so far behind the cutting edge it is no longer funny or even quaint.

It doesn't help that vested interests are often disguised as taking on vested interests for the greater good.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, malloy said:

My comment could probably go into several threads, especially TTIM.

I'm totally bored and sick of all the blather about women's sport, comparisons with men's sport, demands for equality, so called women's sports personalities (indeed all so-called personalities, however they like to identify themselves), etc. etc.

There are far more important things in current Australian society that we need to be focussing on.

Edited by jw1739
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

My comment could probably go into several threads, especially TTIM.

I'm totally bored and sick of all the blather about women's sport, comparisons with men's sport, demands for equality, so called women's sports personalities (indeed all so-called personalities, however they like to identify themselves), etc. etc.

There are far more important things in current Australian society that we need to be focussing on.

Same here.

At the end of the day men's Sport is just more entertaining to watch then women's because men are more athletic.

Simples

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, playmaker said:

Another facts-based rebuke in our parliament of the climate change propaganda being spewed by the greens and far left Marxist. 9 mins.

Worth a listen to.

 

I watched it. I disagree with him. Nothing he says changes anything about climate change and the people he quotes are mostly discredited.

But now it’s my turn to offer some reading material. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the NASA website :droy: 
 
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
 
Sorry but NASA is full of shit just like the rest of these government funded bodies. John Cook's 97% crappy study has been throughly debunked and no serious scientist uses that line because its utterly embarrassing. The data used has proven to be deliberately manipulated and created as a tool to win over the masses.
 
The 97% was put together by lumping a number scientific papers which indeed endorsed anthropogenic global warming. The problem is, some of papers authors claimed human impact but did not quantify it, others claim anthropogenic global warming was a concern but had no position on the cause, in fact only handful of the papers specifically quantified the human impact to be over 50% ie "the main cause". Most of the papers does not go into detail in regards to cause and its long or short term impact. 
 
Here's a perfect example of how a statement can be turned into propaganda very easily. Say I'm asked my opinion on male domestic violence... I make the statement that male domestic violence is a horrible thing and it needs to be stopped. 1 female killed a week is 1 too many. I also add that an Australian female is 6 times more likely to die on our roads and puts into perspective that Australia has a very low Female death rate due to domestic violence compared to the rest of that world...
 
Manipulation: HeartFc agrees that male domestic violence is a horrible thing and needs to be stopped. (no nuances mentioned, just a blanket statement which can be fit into headline and tacked onto some random percentage of agreement or disagree. 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/02/2020 at 12:41 AM, HeartFc said:
From the NASA website :droy: 
 
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
 
Sorry but NASA is full of shit just like the rest of these government funded bodies. John Cook's 97% crappy study has been throughly debunked and no serious scientist uses that line because its utterly embarrassing. The data used has proven to be deliberately manipulated and created as a tool to win over the masses.
 
The 97% was put together by lumping a number scientific papers which indeed endorsed anthropogenic global warming. The problem is, some of papers authors claimed human impact but did not quantify it, others claim anthropogenic global warming was a concern but had no position on the cause, in fact only handful of the papers specifically quantified the human impact to be over 50% ie "the main cause". Most of the papers does not go into detail in regards to cause and its long or short term impact. 
 
Here's a perfect example of how a statement can be turned into propaganda very easily. Say I'm asked my opinion on male domestic violence... I make the statement that male domestic violence is a horrible thing and it needs to be stopped. 1 female killed a week is 1 too many. I also add that an Australian female is 6 times more likely to die on our roads and puts into perspective that Australia has a very low Female death rate due to domestic violence compared to the rest of that world...
 
Manipulation: HeartFc agrees that male domestic violence is a horrible thing and needs to be stopped. (no nuances mentioned, just a blanket statement which can be fit into headline and tacked onto some random percentage of agreement or disagree. 

Mann's Hockey stick theory, which was the premise of the NASA UNIPCC Al Gore propaganda all those years ago has been debunked over and over again. Actually at the time it was questioned because scientists from around the world acquired data that didn't support it, an when Mann was asked for his data that supported his theory he refused. Up until this day no scientist has had access to that data.

And yet this big propaganda machine based on fake data and pushed into every part of our lives by the fake science religion headed by UNIPCC and spewing out of the mouths of the Marxist Greens and Labour party. Even more frightening is the indoctrination of our children through lying propaganda set by the Marxist education department who is instilling fear into our children with no truth to what is taught whatsoever.

It is also a fact that this 97% consensus thing is totally fake because of the 1500 scientists that were asked if they support the Mann-based fake science only about 57 were said to have responded (again questionable truth) and out of that 57 there was a 97% conconsensus. So the whole consensus thing is bogus.

But again, to everyone reading this,  don't believe anything I say but rather understand that it is NOT settled science, do your own research with NO Bias, and find the truth yourself.

A great quote to remember when being presented and challenged with new information, 

'There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.'

 

 

Edited by playmaker
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/02/2020 at 7:19 AM, jw1739 said:

Straw man - or perhaps straw woman?

And you don't help your argument by wild generalisations such as "Sorry but NASA is full of shit just like the rest of these government funded bodies." 

Strawman? I didnt misrepresent NASA's argument, I simply gave my opinion and thoroughly justified the label by presenting my evidence. Further, my "generalisation" in the regards to the 'full of shit' statement is specifically aimed at the "97%" fake stat, my whole post is about it, I even bolded it for effect. Literally every single governing body supports the John Cook study so I reckon a 100% consensus on a fake stat justifies my statement. I never said all their science is bullshit, you quite ironically just strawmaned me by not reading my post throughly enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lima agreement.

https://www.australianconservativecoalition.com/the-lima-declaration

Then we have Gough Whitlam and John Howard with his free trading agreements extrapolate on this and drive manufacturing out of Australia, with a greater erode and casualisation of the workforce in Australia.

You get all these virtue signalling leftie greens and 'Labour' electives who cry about the underprivileged and poor, while taking away their opportunity for employment and making their lives better. Instead advocating for better social security, rather than policies trading agreements which grow employment.

Do you think shazza and Bazza born to drug parents have a good education and will be employed as investment bankers?

No, their opportunity is through low skilled employment, 457 visas don't help either, have a look who qualifies, it's a joke.

The two major parties are hand in glove, the greens are lunatics, the only option I see is either fat bastard or one nation and I like what I see from one nation.

Now with corona (covid19) virus, we see that putting all our eggs in Chinas basket isn't the smartest thing to do.

Edited by moops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parliament want to make spending cash over 10k illegal.

I buy everything cash, if I don't have the money I don't buy it, a house is the only exception.

I think this is wrong, both on a personal level because I should be able to use my money however I like and for business 10K is pocket change, so the government want to make it worse for business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, moops said:

Parliament want to make spending cash over 10k illegal.

I buy everything cash, if I don't have the money I don't buy it, a house is the only exception.

I think this is wrong, both on a personal level because I should be able to use my money however I like and for business 10K is pocket change, so the government want to have more control and use this as a stepping stone to obliterating cash all together. Followed by all transaction being made by card, followed by rfid chips being inserted into people. Game over. 

Ftfy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...