Civil war breaking out in the Federal Coalition govt

[moistie]

I like the idea of environmentalists being a religion.

When and where do we get our special protections?

It would be great for environmentalists to not pay tax.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Lebbo73]

So did you have a think about my offer?

You’re being naive, deceptive or probably flat out lying. We both know that climate scientists who deny man made climate change or who acknowledge humans have very limited influence on the climate are punted from any positions where they can be heard. What chance do they have of getting something peer reviewed? That beautiful process that is carried out over morning tea and brunch if your research has the “right” theories.

 

[kranky al]

You’re being naive, deceptive or probably flat out lying. We both know that climate scientists who deny man made climate change or who acknowledge humans have very limited influence on the climate are punted from any positions where they can be heard. What chance do they have of getting something peer reviewed? That beautiful process that is carried out over morning tea and brunch if your research has the “right” theories.

Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

And no im not - we are friends with a quite senior climate scientist - the only argument they have amongst themselves is how bad the damage will be. She travels the world studying its effects - she has a doctorate - she knows more than you, i and any other dickhead on this forum.

She could also be rich beyond her wildest dreams if she published a piece decrying mmcc.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

And no im not - we are friends with a quite senior climate scientist - the only argument they have amongst themselves is how bad the damage will be. She travels the world studying its effects - she has a doctorate - she knows more than you, i and any other dickhead on this forum.

She could also be rich beyond her wildest dreams if she published a piece decrying mmcc.

This is the one that cracks me up the most.

To believe anthropogenic climate change is a myth you must believe that modestly-remunerated climate scientists apparently have endless energy and boundless resources to expend on propagating a lie so as to ensure their modest research funding continues.

Meanwhile, the PR departments of global fossil fuel giants with revenues in the billions are helpless to respond effectively.

 

[kranky al]

This is the one that cracks me up the most.

To believe anthropogenic climate change is a myth you must believe that modestly-remunerated climate scientists apparently have endless energy and boundless resources to expend on propagating a lie so as to ensure their modest research funding continues.

Meanwhile, the media departments of global fossil fuel giants with revenues in the billions are helpless to respond effectively.

One of the names in climate science could literally name a price.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

One of the names in climate science could literally name a price.

Yes, overnight they'd achieve fame and riches beyond human understanding if they turned informant, but instead they choose to propagate a vicious lie in order that their modest research grants aren't unduly affected.

 

[GreyCrow]

Straight out of the Lib handbook - get people arguing about something else instead of the chaos that is the LNP

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker told Sky News that religious schools needed the right to discriminate against LGBT students because there might be "a child who wants to run a gay club within the school"

 

[Doss]

Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker told Sky News that religious schools needed the right to discriminate against LGBT students because there might be "a child who wants to run a gay club within the school

It pains me that our taxes are paying the salaries of intellectuals such as this.

 

[GreyCrow]

Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker told Sky News that religious schools needed the right to discriminate against LGBT students because there might be "a child who wants to run a gay club within the school

Should just call it a Glee club

 

[Bad Horse]

Liberal Senator Clarissa Fartknuckle-Smytthe said "religious schools needed the right to discriminate against Belgian students because there might be "a child who wants to run a Belgian club within the school or something". Senator Fartknuckle continued "I mean, we can't have that. We can tolerate their presence as long as they acknowledge we are doing them a favour and our tolerance should not be mistaken for acceptance or anything and they should just sit there and be lectured about the fact all Belgians are going to Hell and all their classmates should shun them. They are still sick. Sick I say....errrr is that mic still on? No? Cool. Sick. And nothing that could be construed as support for Belgians either...waffle appreciation society, Brussels sprout fanciers. Poffertje club, even....Dutch? Who cares, its all kind of Belgian to me. Always mistrusted Europeans as a whole to be honest, what have they ever done for civilisation? What...the Renaissance? Is that some kind of trendy "Belgian" bar in Prahran or something? See, that is exactly what we are fighting against..."

 

[Lebbo73]

LGBT students in religious schools yes
LGBT teachers in religious schools no
It is a nobrainer

 

[kranky al]

LGBT in religious schools yes
LGBT teachers in religious schools no
It is a nobrainer

Im fine with that.

But any school that discriminates loses government funding.

We had a referendum that explicitly showed that australia doesnt stand for discrimination.

Now if you wanted to replace one form of discrimination with another - it should have been included in the plebiscite - not applied as an “oh we lost this one so we will sneak a win in here” effort.

We voted - and despite the obvious efforts to cripple the plebiscite in your favour - you lost.

Give it up.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Im fine with that.

But any school that discriminates loses government funding.

We had a referendum that explicitly showed that australia doesnt stand for discrimination.

Now if you wanted to replace one form of discrimination with another - it should have been included in the plebiscite - not applied as an “oh we lost this one so we will sneak a win in here” effort.

We voted - and despite the obvious efforts to cripple the plebiscite in your favour - you lost.

Give it up.

Very well said.

 

[Strange Cat]

Im fine with that.

But any school that discriminates loses government funding.

We had a referendum that explicitly showed that australia doesnt stand for discrimination.

Now if you wanted to replace one form of discrimination with another - it should have been included in the plebiscite - not applied as an “oh we lost this one so we will sneak a win in here” effort.

We voted - and despite the obvious efforts to cripple the plebiscite in your favour - you lost.

Give it up.

Hear hear

 

[Lebbo73]

Im fine with that.

But any school that discriminates loses government funding.

We had a referendum that explicitly showed that australia doesnt stand for discrimination.

Now if you wanted to replace one form of discrimination with another - it should have been included in the plebiscite - not applied as an “oh we lost this one so we will sneak a win in here” effort.

We voted - and despite the obvious efforts to cripple the plebiscite in your favour - you lost.

Give it up.

I meant to say LGBT students Yes and LGBT teachers No

 

[Crankyhawk]

LGBT students in religious schools yes
LGBT teachers in religious schools no
It is a nobrainer

Can also crack down on any intimacy or public display of affection between any students (gay or straight) this will be fair

 

[borderbarry]

Does this include shaking hands?

 

[kranky al]

Does this include shaking hands?

Especially rubbing dingleberries - they will spend a LOT of time watching for that

 

[Demonic Ascent]

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

You keep posting rubbish accusations, without any evidence to support them. You get called an idiot.

He has evidence. His dad told him.

 

[Doss]

I get a little wry smile whenever I’m reminded there are actually still people out there who believe climate change can’t be human-induced.

 

[kranky al]

I get a little wry smile whenever I’m reminded there are actually still people out there who believe climate change can’t be human-induced.

Its like finding out an adult believes in santa

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Its like finding out an adult believes in santa

It's always dangerous when people mock other views, and it's usually a sign they're wrong. I instinctively dont want to support an argument that's case is made by counting scientists in agreement. No step forward has ever been made by consensus, and it's much more often been done in face of mocking and denigration.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the climate of the planet has never been stable and has swung wildly throughout history. That places a strong burden of proof on any claim that change is man made. Too often this argument is countered by evidence the planet is warming, which completely misses the point.

That said it's not entirely rational to think that given the scope of the change we haven't had any effect. Whether it's actually initiated by us doesn't matter anyway. If we can do anything to prevent the climate becoming less hospitable we clearly should.

I'm not negative about action, I actually align pretty closely with Turnbull's argument that if you doubt then view action as risk management, and it does need to be urgent.

Dont ask me to espect people mocking arguments and acting very much like preachers trying to shut down discussion though. That isn't going to happen

 

[Patrick Bullet]

It's always dangerous when people mock other views, and it's usually a sign they're wrong. I instinctively dont want to support an argument that's case is made by counting scientists in agreement. No step forward has ever been made by consensus, and it's much more often been done in face of mocking and denigration.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the climate of the planet has never been stable and has swung wildly throughout history. That places a strong burden of proof on any claim that change is man made. Too often this argument is countered by evidence the planet is warming, which completely misses the point.

That said it's not entirely rational to think that given the scope of the change we haven't had any effect. Whether it's actually initiated by us doesn't matter anyway. If we can do anything to prevent the climate becoming less hospitable we clearly should.

I'm not negative about action, I actually align pretty closely with Turnbull's argument that if you doubt then view action as risk management, and it does need to be urgent.

Dont ask me to espect people mocking arguments and acting very much like preachers trying to shut down discussion though. That isn't going to happen

Interesting post. How do you define being mocked? Some people feel like they're being mocked whenever someone disagrees with them. Where do you draw the line?

Do you think that no views should ever be mocked? Eg., Believing the world is flat is pretty crazy. Should those beliefs not be mocked at some point if a person refuses to concede in the face of the evidence?

Lastly how do you reconcile the argument that it doesn't matter if we're the cause of climate change with the argument that if we can do something about it we should? It would seem that believing we can fix it implies a belief that we broke it in the first place

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's always dangerous when people mock other views, and it's usually a sign they're wrong. I instinctively dont want to support an argument that's case is made by counting scientists in agreement. No step forward has ever been made by consensus, and it's much more often been done in face of mocking and denigration.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the climate of the planet has never been stable and has swung wildly throughout history. That places a strong burden of proof on any claim that change is man made. Too often this argument is countered by evidence the planet is warming, which completely misses the point.

That said it's not entirely rational to think that given the scope of the change we haven't had any effect. Whether it's actually initiated by us doesn't matter anyway. If we can do anything to prevent the climate becoming less hospitable we clearly should.

I'm not negative about action, I actually align pretty closely with Turnbull's argument that if you doubt then view action as risk management, and it does need to be urgent.

Dont ask me to espect people mocking arguments and acting very much like preachers trying to shut down discussion though. That isn't going to happen

Ask for this for Christmas
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/209776/fantasyland-by-kurt-andersen/9780812978902