Rita Panahi has a shot at Robbo

[Ophiomorpha]

I read your post, then took some words out for it to make sense;

I was thinking in the shower this morning, Rita might feel dirty..... how nasty having your barrow pushed

Lance and Jen may be King and Queen of the board, but you sir are the poet laureate of the HTB.

 

[Mertun Hordy]

I'd like to take Rita on a morning seakayak ride with some Yothu Yindi (good mates) on iphone speaker and show her my Karl Marx impersonations.

 

[rapido]

Holy shit. I'm thankful I was blissfully unaware of the existence of this creature.

She's right about Robbo, though.

Broken clock and all that.

 

[Mertun Hordy]

The AFL community as a whole can all be grateful a true intellectual heavyweight and arbiter of social morality like Clementine Ford hasn't interjected herself into this saga for clickbait attention.

James Hird would have had to check his privilege long ago.

But seriously outside of being an opinionated windbag willing to take cash for whatever objectionable opinion she can get paid for, Rita on her own right is a pretty impressive woman and a far better human than most Essendon supporters posting on here near on 24/7 claiming the dole and pretending to run international businesses or working in fields outside of McDonalds, she should have stayed in the banking sector.

 

[Laphroaig]

Holy shit. I'm thankful I was blissfully unaware of the existence of this creature.

She's right about Robbo, though.

Broken clock and all that.

It's a pity that there are not more credible voices than her and Bolt injecting some moderation into the climate change discussion though. It has indeed become an out of control bushfire to the point where much of the hysterical public commentary is quite ludicrous. And anyone who questions any statement which comes with the words "climate change" in it is labelled a "denier'. Even when they they state clearly I do not question that climate change is a real and serious problem . Question ANYTHING, and you're a nutjob. And if you're a climate scientist, your funding application had better be full of bigger and better doom than the last one.

Which is not constructive.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's a pity that there are not more credible voices than her and Bolt injecting some moderation into the climate change discussion though. It has indeed become an out of control bushfire to the point where much of the hysterical public commentary is quite ludicrous. And anyone who questions any statement which comes with the words "climate change" in it is labelled a "denier'. Even when they they state clearly I do not question that climate change is a real and serious problem . Question ANYTHING, and you're a nutjob. And if you're a climate scientist, your funding application had better be full of bigger and better doom than the last one.

Which is not constructive.

That was 2012.

Rita's key points.....

1. Climate Commission links every weather event to AGW. Correct.
2. She wishes they would look more objectively. OK.
3. Public losing confidence in the science due to the hysteria. Absolutely true.

The Professor.......

1. No politicisation of Climate Science. Utter bullshit.
2. No scaremongering. Utter bullshit.
3. Looks forward to Climate Commission closing down. Utter bullshit.

It was stupid of Channel 7 putting a scientist up against a social commentator on this issue. Probably deliberately stupid. But even so, history has shown RP to be right since this went to air and the Professor wrong. Had Bob Carter gone up against him, it would have been embarrassing.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

But seriously outside of being an opinionated windbag willing to take cash for whatever objectionable opinion she can get paid for, Rita on her own right is a pretty impressive woman and a far better human than most Essendon supporters posting on here near on 24/7 claiming the dole and pretending to run international businesses or working in fields outside of McDonalds, she should have stayed in the banking sector.

massive call!!
awaiting EFC replies, popcorn gif, etc.

 

[ferrisb]

I just fell off my chair.

You going to execute the chair factory workers?

 

[gavaniacono]

It's a pity that there are not more credible voices than her and Bolt injecting some moderation into the climate change discussion though. It has indeed become an out of control bushfire to the point where much of the hysterical public commentary is quite ludicrous. And anyone who questions any statement which comes with the words "climate change" in it is labelled a "denier'. Even when they they state clearly I do not question that climate change is a real and serious problem . Question ANYTHING, and you're a nutjob. And if you're a climate scientist, your funding application had better be full of bigger and better doom than the last one.

Which is not constructive.

Try Jonova, whatsupwiththat websites.

 

[gavaniacono]

That was 2012.

Rita's key points.....

1. Climate Commission links every weather event to AGW. Correct.
2. She wishes they would look more objectively. OK.
3. Public losing confidence in the science due to the hysteria. Absolutely true.

The Professor.......

1. No politicisation of Climate Science. Utter bullshit.
2. No scaremongering. Utter bullshit.
3. Looks forward to Climate Commission closing down. Utter bullshit.

It was stupid of Channel 7 putting a scientist up against a social commentator on this issue. Probably deliberately stupid. But even so, history has shown RP to be right since this went to air and the Professor wrong. Had Bob Carter gone up against him, it would have been embarrassing.

Now that's interesting. You would struggle to see any debate these days in the media with the issue mostly shut down. The 18 year pause seems to be coming to an end with the current El Nino effect, so that's sure to be a "hot" topic for the mass media now. As is the "massaging" of historical thermometer records to make the past cooler, though the massaging is not mentioned whilst the "low" past temps are. In frustration I'm turning my attention to the nonnpiliticized integrity based AFL.

 

[Satan]

Now that's interesting. You would struggle to see any debate these days in the media with the issue mostly shut down. The 18 year pause seems to be coming to an end with the current El Nino effect, so that's sure to be a "hot" topic for the mass media now. As is the "massaging" of historical thermometer records to make the past cooler, though the massaging is not mentioned whilst the "low" past temps are. In frustration I'm turning my attention to the nonnpiliticized integrity based AFL.

By the time this question is resloved hopefully the tigers have won a final


Inb4 retort about melbourne making finals

 

[gavaniacono]

By the time this question is resloved hopefully the tigers have won a final


Inb4 retort about melbourne making finals

The Tigers have been down so long, I've become quite comfortably satisfied with mediocrity, and ALWAYS book holidays in September.

 

[Satan]

The Tigers have been down so long, I've become quite comfortably satisfied with mediocrity, and ALWAYS book holidays in September.

Shame a few essendon supporters are not as honest as you about your club

 

[gavaniacono]

Shame a few essendon supporters are not as honest as you about your club

well thank you Satan.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

That was 2012.

Rita's key points.....

1. Climate Commission links every weather event to AGW. Correct. Completely incorrect actually
2. She wishes they would look more objectively. OK. Doubt merchant tactics
3. Public losing confidence in the science due to the hysteria. Absolutely true. Source? That's your opinion and certainly not quantifiable, or even really justifiable

The Professor.......

1. No politicisation of Climate Science. Utter bullshit. He didn't claim that at all. He said the CC exists to get it's message out, which is implicit acceptance of a kind of politicisation
2. No scaremongering. Utter bullshit. See above
3. Looks forward to Climate Commission closing down. Utter bullshit. How do you figure that one then eh?

It was stupid of Channel 7 putting a scientist up against a social commentator on this issue. Probably deliberately stupid. But even so, history has shown RP to be right since this went to air and the Professor wrong. It most certainly has not Had Bob Carter gone up against him, it would have been embarrassing.

responses in bold. You're talking out your ass

 

[Laphroaig]

Now that's interesting. You would struggle to see any debate these days in the media with the issue mostly shut down. The 18 year pause seems to be coming to an end with the current El Nino effect, so that's sure to be a "hot" topic for the mass media now. As is the "massaging" of historical thermometer records to make the past cooler, though the massaging is not mentioned whilst the "low" past temps are. In frustration I'm turning my attention to the nonnpiliticized integrity based AFL.

Couple of examples.

If you do a Google on "Michael Crichton climate change" you'll find the viciousness of the attacks on him by the high priests of climate change after his death to be quite astounding. Because he dared to highlight some of the shortcomings and dishonesty of the climate change debate in his 2004 novel.

Closer to home, I recently did a summary of a wide range of available data and forward projections for a Victorian region. Unsurprisingly the client wanted a climate change section. When it came to sea levels the best available projections showed a statistically feasible range of -4 inches to +8 inches. Which is another way of saying we have absolutely NFI what sea levels will do in the next 25 years. So I reported that sea level forecasts were not sufficiently refined for useful conclusions to be drawn. The client rewrote that section to read that sea levels in the region WILL rise by 8 inches, presenting major challenges to coastal communities.

Madness.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Couple of examples.

If you do a Google on "Michael Crichton climate change" you'll find the viciousness of the attacks on him by the high priests of climate change after his death to be quite astounding. Because he dared to highlight some of the shortcomings and dishonesty of the climate change debate in his 2004 novel.

Closer to home, I recently did a summary of a wide range of available data and forward projections for a Victorian region. Unsurprisingly the client wanted a climate change section. When it came to sea levels the best available projections showed a statistically feasible range of -4 inches to +8 inches. Which is another way of saying we have absolutely NFI what sea levels will do in the next 25 years. So I reported that sea level forecasts were not sufficiently refined for useful conclusions to be drawn. The client rewrote that section to read that sea levels in the region WILL rise by 8 inches, presenting major challenges to coastal communities.

Madness.

So when do we get to see the 60m rise that covers the nullarbor plain again?

 

[Laphroaig]

So when do we get to see the 60m rise that covers the nullarbor plain again?

Could be quite a while given that Tuvalu is still afloat.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Could be quite a while given that Tuvalu is still afloat.

Also didn't antarctica grow after they said it was shrinking? must be those northerners causing the probs

 

[gavaniacono]

Couple of examples.

If you do a Google on "Michael Crichton climate change" you'll find the viciousness of the attacks on him by the high priests of climate change after his death to be quite astounding. Because he dared to highlight some of the shortcomings and dishonesty of the climate change debate in his 2004 novel.

Closer to home, I recently did a summary of a wide range of available data and forward projections for a Victorian region. Unsurprisingly the client wanted a climate change section. When it came to sea levels the best available projections showed a statistically feasible range of -4 inches to +8 inches. Which is another way of saying we have absolutely NFI what sea levels will do in the next 25 years. So I reported that sea level forecasts were not sufficiently refined for useful conclusions to be drawn. The client rewrote that section to read that sea levels in the region WILL rise by 8 inches, presenting major challenges to coastal communities.

Madness.

The whole debate has been polarised with the extremes only seeking evidence that supports their already determined positions, and those opinions expressed with high pitched shrill (A description also befitting of much of the debate around the "34 banned drug cheat scandal"). A couple of sober moderate skeptiks I find worthwhile are Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson.

 

[gavaniacono]

Also didn't antarctica grow after they said it was shrinking? must be those northerners causing the probs

Thats true abt the Antarctic growth. Whilst the artic shrinks. Making a mockery of the sense of global averages. They also discovered that some sections of the Antarctic that were reducing in size were likely caused by rising under sea thermals, and not CO2.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

responses in bold. You're talking out your ass

Ok. We're going there.

Pick your topic.

1. The temperature data.
2. Anthropogenic contribution.
3. Accepting 1. and 2. to be accurate, the proposed responses.
4. The treatment of those who have questioned the so called consensus.

**Rule 1: Once a subject has been selected, that is the subject. No diverting off to the others.
**Rule 2: You don't call me a right wing nut job denier and I won't call you a Communist masquerading as an environmental catastrophist.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Couple of examples.

If you do a Google on "Michael Crichton climate change" you'll find the viciousness of the attacks on him by the high priests of climate change after his death to be quite astounding. Because he dared to highlight some of the shortcomings and dishonesty of the climate change debate in his 2004 novel.

Closer to home, I recently did a summary of a wide range of available data and forward projections for a Victorian region. Unsurprisingly the client wanted a climate change section. When it came to sea levels the best available projections showed a statistically feasible range of -4 inches to +8 inches. Which is another way of saying we have absolutely NFI what sea levels will do in the next 25 years. So I reported that sea level forecasts were not sufficiently refined for useful conclusions to be drawn. The client rewrote that section to read that sea levels in the region WILL rise by 8 inches, presenting major challenges to coastal communities.

Madness.

don't you see the irony of taking this stance and then using the term "high priests of climate change"? In your previous post you claimed it is "not constructive" to use terms such as "denier" yet I don't see how using this terms is even slightly different, do you?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Ok. We're going there.

Pick your topic.

1. The temperature data.
2. Anthropogenic contribution.
3. Accepting 1. and 2. to be accurate, the proposed responses.
4. The treatment of those who have questioned the so called consensus.

**Rule 1: Once a subject has been selected, that is the subject. No diverting off to the others.
**Rule 2: You don't call me a right wing nut job denier and I won't call you a Communist masquerading as an environmental catastrophist.

I'm not going there at all, it's not the board for it nor do I have the time or the inclination frankly. You can feel free to address my criticism of your post though, if you like

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

One more thing......

1. No politicisation of Climate Science. Utter bullshit. He didn't claim that at all. He said the CC exists to get it's message out, which is implicit acceptance of a kind of politicisation

Quote: No Climate Scientist is politicising this issue.