Rita Panahi has a shot at Robbo

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

gavaniacono said:
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.
Click to expand...

polarisation exists in the political sphere, quietly in the background codes and standards are being revised with little fanfare and controversy.
 
Isn't it interesting the way a footy forum discussion has degenerated into a discussion about climate change?

To my mind, regardless of where you stand on the issue, at least Bolt and Panahi provide a point of difference and an alternative view than the majority of the media which tends to err on the left side with these environmental issues.

Good on them I say for having the courage of their convictions.

And if she's holding to Slobbo to account as well - even better!!
 
LoungeLizard said:
Also didn't antarctica grow after they said it was shrinking? must be those northerners causing the probs
Click to expand...
No. It's cyclical. Obviously it will always freeze in winter.. and melt in summer. It's to what degree this happens that is important. And it's also important to look at the depth of said freeze/melt. Surface stuff (which is what you are referring to) isn't important so much as what's happening to the longer, older and larger sheets of ice.

The thing is this (And I am not completely convinced about the science at all): Earth is all we have. That's it! There is nowhere else for us to run if we * this up. It makes sense that we minimise pollution, and maximise the health of the planet that we all need to survive. If there is a 1% chance of us creating a situation that would see the earths ocean rise (and thus destroy millions of peoples homes), then we have to do everything in our power to ensure that doesn't happen. You see, let's say we get down the track a few years and haven't changed our ways, it will be impossible to turn back. If we start being pro-active now, hopefully we will be in a much better position - but even if climate change isn't real, does any of this hurt?. This is one case we can't afford to go "Oops, if only we'd done something sooner".

The reluctance to move to cleaner fuels by government is ******* frustrating. The reluctance by fossil fuel corporations to see the writing on the wall and move to diversify is no less so.

Regardless of the science, it just makes ******* good sense to protect our planet, and move towards renewable power sources.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
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?
Click to expand...

Frankly I don't see any irony. There are unarguably fruitcakes at both extremes. Call them whatever you like.

The difference is that anybody who speaks with even moderate and measured scepticism of ANY climate change pronouncement is labelled a "denier", a term uttered with pretty much the same tone and feeling of contempt and abhorence as "rapist".

In fact, even "climate sceptic" is spoken as an insult.

What I do find ironic is that you have allocated a "stance" to me - when you have no idea of where I stand on the core subject. In fact it's pretty obvious that you have drawn a conclusion on that which is utterly incorrect.

I do however find the perceived equivalence in some quarters between holy writ and and the utterances of professional climate lobbyists to be non constructive and the very antithesis of science - which should be a process of constantly questioning even the most closely held beliefs and conclusions. Not of shouting down the questioner.

If all of science were conducted like climate science is, we'd still believe that the earth is flat.
 
Laphroaig said:
Frankly I don't see any irony. There are unarguably fruitcakes at both extremes. Call them whatever you like.

The difference is that anybody who speaks with even moderate and measured scepticism of ANY climate change pronouncement is labelled a "denier", a term uttered with pretty much the same tone and feeling of contempt and abhorence as "rapist".

In fact, even "climate sceptic" is spoken as an insult.

What I do find ironic is that you have allocated a "stance" to me - when you have no idea of where I stand on the core subject. In fact it's pretty obvious that you have drawn a conclusion on that which is utterly incorrect.

I do however find the perceived equivalence in some quarters between holy writ and and the utterances of professional climate lobbyists to be non constructive and the very antithesis of science - which should be a process of constantly questioning even the most closely held beliefs and conclusions. Not of shouting down the questioner.

If all of science were conducted like climate science is, we'd still believe that the earth is flat.
Click to expand...
I don't think your analogy is helping your case much.
 
jenny61_99 said:
No. It's cyclical. Obviously it will always freeze in winter.. and melt in summer. It's to what degree this happens that is important. And it's also important to look at the depth of said freeze/melt. Surface stuff (which is what you are referring to) isn't important so much as what's happening to the longer, older and larger sheets of ice.

The thing is this (And I am not completely convinced about the science at all): Earth is all we have. That's it! There is nowhere else for us to run if we **** this up. It makes sense that we minimise pollution, and maximise the health of the planet that we all need to survive. If there is a 1% chance of us creating a situation that would see the earths ocean rise (and thus destroy millions of peoples homes), then we have to do everything in our power to ensure that doesn't happen. You see, let's say we get down the track a few years and haven't changed our ways, it will be impossible to turn back. If we start being pro-active now, hopefully we will be in a much better position - but even if climate change isn't real, does any of this hurt?. This is one case we can't afford to go "Oops, if only we'd done something sooner".

The reluctance to move to cleaner fuels by government is ******* frustrating. The reluctance by fossil fuel corporations to see the writing on the wall and move to diversify is no less so.

Regardless of the science, it just makes ******* good sense to protect our planet, and move towards renewable power sources.
Click to expand...
Yeah i agree, but what i don't agree with is these so called expert scientists attacking the questioner.
They should be welcoming these questions.
And i don't want to sound like an alarmist, but the sun will implode one day, and there is not a thing we can do about it.
So on that note, just enjoy what you have.
 
LoungeLizard said:
Yeah i agree, but what i don't agree with is these so called expert scientists attacking the questioner.
They should be welcoming these questions.
And i don't want to sound like an alarmist, but the sun will implode one day, and there is not a thing we can do about it.
So on that note, just enjoy what you have.
Click to expand...
Hopefully after we have won our 50 th flag and based on our last win could be a few thousand years away
 
honestly * this whole thread
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I liked the bit in the climate change debate video where she just completely made up stuff.
 
Laphroaig said:
Frankly I don't see any irony. There are unarguably fruitcakes at both extremes. Call them whatever you like.

The difference is that anybody who speaks with even moderate and measured scepticism of ANY climate change pronouncement is labelled a "denier", a term uttered with pretty much the same tone and feeling of contempt and abhorence as "rapist".

In fact, even "climate sceptic" is spoken as an insult.

What I do find ironic is that you have allocated a "stance" to me - when you have no idea of where I stand on the core subject. In fact it's pretty obvious that you have drawn a conclusion on that which is utterly incorrect.

I do however find the perceived equivalence in some quarters between holy writ and and the utterances of professional climate lobbyists to be non constructive and the very antithesis of science - which should be a process of constantly questioning even the most closely held beliefs and conclusions. Not of shouting down the questioner.

If all of science were conducted like climate science is, we'd still believe that the earth is flat.
Click to expand...

clearly I was wrong with respect to your stance. I don't have any feeling about your position on the actual issue of AWG, but the stance I attributed to you was one of someone who deplores the way sensationalist rhetoric subverts reasonable debate, which is the point I thought you were trying to make.

But then you go an employ those very techniques yourself, firstly by using a pejorative like "high priests of climate change", and now trumping that by claiming that people accuse climate change sceptics the same way rapists are accused.

Sure, some people might decry any kind of measured scepticism (which is vastly different to your blanket claim that everyone does) but if you're going to rail about that then I can't see how engaging in the same behaviour helps your cause
 
imperial_oz said:
I reckon Bunk should organise that bus and all you foamers and hirdashians can come visit Perth. Then I can go to the meetup! :D
Click to expand...
I'll only go if my mates mxett, DonsRule and Lance Uppercut (the contrarian) go. It would be a hoot! Don't want Bombfire though as he'd drag me down to the remand centre!
 
Ancient Tiger said:
I'll only go if my mates mxett, DonsRule and Lance Uppercut (the contrarian) go. It would be a hoot! Don't want Bombfire though as he'd drag me down to the remand centre!
Click to expand...

To be fair, your mate bombie has hit the courts and taken out a restraining order against you and you're not allowed within 100 feet, so he's going to have to miss the meet-up. It matches the 213898438 defamation cases he launched
 
Ancient Tiger said:
I'll only go if my mates mxett, DonsRule and Lance Uppercut (the contrarian) go. It would be a hoot! Don't want Bombfire though as he'd drag me down to the remand centre!
Click to expand...

You'd have to invite DapperJong to that meetup or he'll probably nuke it in retaliation but hey bring Lance and Donsrule along. Leave Mxett and 60sbomber outside with neutralguy and some of the other arch foamers. Pick up the pieces on the way out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
681
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top