Whats a greater threat to Australia Climate Change deniers or terrorists?

[Admiral Byng]

and yet still silence on the TPP, arguably the biggest threat our 114 year old democracy has potentially seen.

Probably some truth in this.

I can just imagine big tobacco or the gun-lobby lining up to have a crack at getting around our local laws using some loophole in the TPP.

 

[CountryRace]

Probably some truth in this.

I can just imagine big tobacco or the gun-lobby lining up to have a crack at getting around our local laws using some loophole in the TPP.

some?

big business, big pharmaceuticals and big tobacco > terrorists

 

[MrCharisma]

Isn't challenging "accepted science"..... science?
.

Well, writing an opinion piece isn't science. Researching and writing peer reviewed papers is. The deniers can only seem to do the former.

 

[Father Jack]

challenging accepted science using science is science.

 

[Xsess]

Please present the Xsess theory on why gravity is rubbish.

Gravity is an example of "accepted science" - there's no debate over its veracity. Which was why I was bemused when Gillard declared climate change science "settled" when clearly its not.

Well, writing an opinion piece isn't science. Researching and writing peer reviewed papers is. The deniers can only seem to do the former.

That's untrue. There's a significant body of scientists holding alternate views, with damn good arguments both for AND against (which is why I haven't made my mind up). I also happen to do a hell of a lot of environmental modelling at work and have come to the belief that the more complex an environmental process is... the less accurate the model can be. Nature is far more complex than man can ever predict it to be. At best models can provide broad trends, nothing more. Moreover these scientists who reckon their model demonstrates a definative climate change trends are full of s**t - when you consider science cant definatively predict the weather one day to the next. Even worse are the boffins who steadfastly refuse to believe the flaws in their models - even calibrating real field data to fit the model.

 

[Contra Mundum]

...or a government grant or lucrative contract paid for by a socialist government pushing a wealth redistribution scam?

 

[WA ROO]

I was going to say "the AFL interchange cap" but after much analysis, it's clearly cyclists.

Vegans >>>>Cyclists

 

[MrCharisma]

That's untrue. There's a significant body of scientists holding alternate views, with damn good arguments both for AND against (which is why I haven't made my mind up). I also happen to do a hell of a lot of environmental modelling at work and have come to the belief that the more complex an environmental process is... the less accurate the model can be. Nature is far more complex than man can ever predict it to be. At best models can provide broad trends, nothing more. Moreover these scientists who reckon their model demonstrates a definative climate change trends are full of s**t - when you consider science cant definatively predict the weather one day to the next.

Lol, thank you for your opinion. Next...

 

[Xsess]

Ok I believe in climate change.

Why are we talking about taxes? Lets have a real debate about over-population and nuclear energy.

 

[MrCharisma]

Is this you challenging the science? impressive.

 

[Mofra]

Vegans >>>>Cyclists

I clearly stand corrected.

Or at least that what the MSM wants me to believe and I've joined the ranks of the sheeple.

 

[Xsess]

Is this you challenging the science? impressive.

I'm not challenging the science I dont fully understand it. Not that its relevent to the two seperate issues, 1) whether you believe in climate change and 2) if so what you can do about it. Right now climate change proponents are too closely aligned with the "redistriubution a taxes" political agenda crowd for my liking. The same political dolts who wont talk about overpopulation or nuclear energy which is a HUGE disconnect in this whole dialogue. I smell a rat.

 

[Father Jack]

The science is settled, but there are a few dissenters, in much the same way that there are dissenters about evolution.

 

[pazza]

I think the deniers are slanting the debate somewhat, but, that doesn't mean they are a threat to the nation. Nor do I think terrorism is as a bigger threat than is being made out.

The greatest threat to Australia is - those who perpetuate family violence.

 

[madmug]

I'm not challenging the science I dont fully understand it. Not that its relevent to the two seperate issues, 1) whether you believe in climate change and 2) if so what you can do about it. Right now climate change proponents are too closely aligned with the "redistriubution a taxes" political agenda crowd for my liking. The same political dolts who wont talk about overpopulation or nuclear energy which is a HUGE disconnect in this whole dialogue. I smell a rat.

I dont pretend to know all the science either. Weather & climate are very complex. I do note in the field of risk analysis, the Insurance Industry have made their views known by taking the science seriously. They are far more advanced in their attitude & approach to the dangers posed by such serious & generally accepted changes to climate, than the recalcitrant extreme right wing political types. So one may argue 'opinion' all one likes. Risk analysis is where the multi billion/trillion dollar Insurance industry puts its faith, & a lot of our financial future security.

In so far a Nuclear industry goes, personally I do see a role for it along with developing the technology of renewable energy sources. Coal must be phased out over an appropriate timespan. Also public transport needs much more investment. Here on our island all our power is renewable, with a gas fired station in reserve for any emergency.

These & other issues have taken a back seat due to Abbotts love affair with Terrorism. He is clearly more comfortable trying to scare people than show any uplifting leadership in many other important issues, except Knighthoods maybe. He is clearly a leader in that area

Terrorism is a self inflicted wound, but I understand that it must be addressed sensibly. I favour working with the muslim community. They too become victims of this extreme behavior from the nutters who swallow the Jihad rubbish. BUT, Continually thumping ones chest just causes fear & division. It only benefits the Nutters & some stupid self centred politicians & maybe some Bureaucrats getting plumb Asio & 'internal security' type jobs with huge budgets.

 

[pazza]

I think madmug is spot on in regards to the Muslim community. Really, Abbott should be in Western Sydney, meeting with the Grand Mufti and local Muslim clerics and work together with them on a strategy to at least attempt to ensure young Muslims aren't enticed to Syria and Iraq. Better than scaring people.

Being consultative in the community is much more effective than political grandstanding.

 

[Maggie5]

I wonder how many of those 400? currently on the watch list are as a direct result of the Muslim community contacting the security departments?

 

[Xsess]

I think madmug is spot on in regards to the Muslim community.

Madmug throws a good angle into the climate change debate through his insurance risk assessment observation. But I disagree with him on terrorism (sorry dude I still do appreciate your well reasoned post). According to the 2011 census Muslims represent 2.3% of the population and lets not beat around the bush.. 100% of the terrorism problem in Australia comes from that group. Fact is, Tony Abbott is right to validate middle Australia’s concerns with Islamist extremism and the integration (or lack of) of certain cultures. The left can squeal all they like, but the quiet majority have just nodded in agreement with the PM. Islam needs to reform not everyone else.

 

[romeoh]

I dont pretend to know all the science either. Weather & climate are very complex. I do note in the field of risk analysis, the Insurance Industry have made their views known by taking the science seriously. They are far more advanced in their attitude & approach to the dangers posed by such serious & generally accepted changes to climate, than the recalcitrant extreme right wing political types. So one may argue 'opinion' all one likes. Risk analysis is where the multi billion/trillion dollar Insurance industry puts its faith, & a lot of our financial future security.

In so far a Nuclear industry goes, personally I do see a role for it along with developing the technology of renewable energy sources. Coal must be phased out over an appropriate timespan. Also public transport needs much more investment. Here on our island all our power is renewable, with a gas fired station in reserve for any emergency.

These & other issues have taken a back seat due to Abbotts love affair with Terrorism. He is clearly more comfortable trying to scare people than show any uplifting leadership in many other important issues, except Knighthoods maybe. He is clearly a leader in that area

Terrorism is a self inflicted wound, but I understand that it must be addressed sensibly. I favour working with the muslim community. They too become victims of this extreme behavior from the nutters who swallow the Jihad rubbish. BUT, Continually thumping ones chest just causes fear & division. It only benefits the Nutters & some stupid self centred politicians & maybe some Bureaucrats getting plumb Asio & 'internal security' type jobs with huge budgets.

Agree pretty depressing to read this thread in fact-the levels of ignorance re climate change and terrorism are a bit scary and Tone's not helping.

 

[romeoh]

Madmug throws a good angle into the climate change debate through his insurance risk assessment observation. But I disagree with him on the terrorism angle (sorry dude I still do appreciate your well reasoned post). According to the 2011 census Muslims represent 2.3% of the population and lets not beat around the bush.. 100% of the terrorism problem in Australia comes from that group. Fact is, Tony Abbott is right to validate middle Australia’s concerns with Islamist extremism and the integration (or lack of) of certain cultures. The left can squeal all they like, but the quiet majority have just nodded in agreement with the PM. Islam needs to reform not everyone else.

Could you please itemize these 'problems' and their impact on our society? Specific examples please.

 

[pazza]

Madmug throws a good angle into the climate change debate through his insurance risk assessment observation. But I disagree with him on the terrorism angle (sorry dude I still do appreciate your well reasoned post). According to the 2011 census Muslims represent 2.3% of the population and lets not beat around the bush.. 100% of the terrorism problem in Australia comes from that group. Fact is, Tony Abbott is right to validate middle Australia’s concerns with Islamist extremism and the integration (or lack of) of certain cultures. The left can squeal all they like, but the quiet majority have just nodded in agreement with the PM. Islam needs to reform not everyone else.

In all honesty..no Islam doesn't need to reform.

Lets take a trip to Broadmeadows. Plenty of integrating into the local community well up there. Same in Lakemba in NSW.

The trouble with Abbott's approach is the same as other leaders throughout the world. They would rather get up on their collective high horses instead of actively engaging their communities in order to control problems as they arise. Abbott needs to see the Grand Mufti and other Muslim leaders as soon as possible. That is what real leaders do. Consult.

 

[Mofra]

Agree pretty depressing to read this thread in fact-the levels of ignorance re climate change and terrorism are a bit scary and Tone's not helping.

Some of it is summed up in the first paragraph here:

http://the-daily.buzz/scientist-exposed/?ts_pid=2

As the debate over the existence of climate change shifted from “We don’t know,” to “Okay, most of the science says it exists, but we gotta hear both sides,” nobody has been more important to the fragile climate denialism side than scientists like Wei-Hock Soon. As data massed in support of man-made climate change, the work of Soon, a Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist, was coveted by oil companies because he offered alternative explanations that seemingly absolved the energy sector of any wrong doing.
Soon argued that it wasn’t human activities like, say, carbon emissions, that are leading to a greenhouse effect; the Earth’s rising temperature is instead a result of energy fluctuations in the sun. Blaming the sun rather than SUV’s and coal factories had a certain appeal to industries which relied on SUVs and coal for profits. If that all sounds very convenient, well, it turns out that it is.
According to newly released documents obtained by Greenpeace, Soon’s “research” was less about truthseeking and more a pay-by-the-data-point mercenary number of jobs that were, for all intents-and-purposes, commissioned by the oil industry to keep the debate over the existence of climate change intentionally muddy. The parties didn’t even try to hide it.

 

[Todman]

Some of it is summed up in the first paragraph here:

http://the-daily.buzz/scientist-exposed/?ts_pid=2

And Greenpeace is not a bias source?

 

[AM]

The science is settled, but there are a few dissenters, in much the same way that there are dissenters about evolution.

I take it you mean members of the Flat Earth Society?

The President of which is>

 

[Father Jack]

And Greenpeace is not a bias source?

How would that change the content of the documents? Did they edit them?