Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

log man said.. >>>>Even more ridiculous are the dumbarse conspiracy theories.......it's a communist plot........ffs can anybody be that retarded?

Well obviously, just look at the above posts.

And it's not me saying It could be democracy or the planet.
I don't have that knowledge, I just copy pasted, scientist's views.

Yes I know science often gets it wrong, but if your floating towards a waterfall, are you going to wait and see if gravity is real? Wouldn't it be better to paddle to a bank, no matter how inhospitable that bank looked.

With any luck the powers that be will wake up in time. And I've no idea how democracy could be put aside for the duration. The world's military would all need to be on side, it's not going to happen.

If the world was in such a dire emergency why wouldn't you just support a Nuclear solution, wouldn't it be better to paddle to the bank no matter how inhospitable that bank looked.

A real solution to stop burning coal is available right now, your hypocritical leftist ideals are the road block. Makes me think saving the world is not the goal, particularly when you start talking about ditching democracy to do it.

Democracy or the planet - are you for real?

I went for a nap and turned the TV on. I caught the last 25 minutes of Four Corners.

They were discussing / pushing man made Climate change and the need to push Decrepits and The Conversations take that contrary opinion on the science should NOT be presented or published by the mainstream media.

Kerry labelled opinion or articles opposing the science to man made climate change as dross repeated by Jan Fran.

We have never had mainstream media freedom,think the editing of 911 Truth etc.

This current push is about turning the screw another notch further by attacking opinion on other topics that are contrary to their agenda.

Before you know it - freedom of speech is a thing of the past.

I remember years ago listening to a David Icke interview and he mentioned the powers that be are not going to announce their NWO and the rigid rules and regulations that go with it,rather it will happen incrementally and before you know it you are living in it.

China is good example of this,albeit a super watered down version.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
I went for a nap and turned the TV on. I caught the last 25 minutes of Four Corners.

They were discussing / pushing man made Climate change and the need to push Decrepits and The Conversations take that contrary opinion on the science should NOT be presented or published by the mainstream media.

Kerry labelled opinion or articles opposing the science to man made climate change as dross repeated by Jan Fran.

We have never had mainstream media freedom,think the editing of 911 Truth etc.

This current push is about turning the screw another notch further by attacking opinion on other topics that are contrary to their agenda.

Before you know it - freedom of speech is a thing of the past.

I remember years ago listening to a David Icke interview and he mentioned the powers that be are not going to announce their NWO and the rigid rules and regulations that go with it,rather it will happen incrementally and before you know it you are living in it.

China is good example of this,albeit a super watered down version.

Freedom of speech and democracy . you guys living in the 70's or something....bahahahahahahaha

The clever hounds have taken these two ideals and used them to claw back their wealth and standing reduced post WW2 and don't give one fck about the so called environment.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
I went for a nap and turned the TV on. I caught the last 25 minutes of Four Corners.

They were discussing / pushing man made Climate change and the need to push Decrepits and The Conversations take that contrary opinion on the science should NOT be presented or published by the mainstream media.

Kerry labelled opinion or articles opposing the science to man made climate change as dross repeated by Jan Fran.

We have never had mainstream media freedom,think the editing of 911 Truth etc.

This current push is about turning the screw another notch further by attacking opinion on other topics that are contrary to their agenda.

Before you know it - freedom of speech is a thing of the past.

I remember years ago listening to a David Icke interview and he mentioned the powers that be are not going to announce their NWO and the rigid rules and regulations that go with it,rather it will happen incrementally and before you know it you are living in it.

China is good example of this,albeit a super watered down version.

I think you mean Q&A don't you? I watched it as well.

While I don't (in principle) support censoring of opposing views, I can see why The Conversation is doing what they are doing. They're just sick and tired of all the uneducated misinformed fools ruining a respectful conversation about how to fix the problem. The science was settled decades ago, and the only people carrying on about how there should be a debate about it, are those who are late to the party.

The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

I got lots......

The lithosphere is moving?

BAM

Science

Move along

Select to expand quote

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

Select to expand quote

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

More of a straw man than a log man?

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

japie said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

More of a straw man than a log man?

Yes exactly. Very clever. Funny to boot. We should see if we could get him to change his avatar.

Which do you prefer


or





I think both are appropriate. The one in the suit without the head is probably better although the suit lends it character which I am not sure is.

(Appropriate that is.)

Select to expand quote

japie said..

Pugwash said..

japie said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

More of a straw man than a log man?

Yes exactly. Very clever. Funny to boot. We should see if we could get him to change his avatar.

Which do you prefer


or





I think both are appropriate. The one in the suit without the head is probably better although the suit lends it character which I am not sure is.

(Appropriate that is.)

yes, highly amusing.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
I got lots......

The lithosphere is moving?

BAM

Science

Move along

yeah, yeah. urban heat island, volcanoes......yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

japie said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

More of a straw man than a log man?

yes, not that amusing

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.
The truth does not care about feeling

I can't see how non-scientists who have no hope of understanding climate science can have a worthwhile debate.
Certainly not educate!
Feel free to give uninformed opinions - the rest of us can just ignore them.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Pugwash said..

japie said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

More of a straw man than a log man?

yes, not that amusing

It wasn't intended to be...

Select to expand quote

japie said..

Pugwash said..

japie said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

More of a straw man than a log man?

Yes exactly. Very clever. Funny to boot. We should see if we could get him to change his avatar.

Which do you prefer


or





I think both are appropriate. The one in the suit without the head is probably better although the suit lends it character which I am not sure is.

(Appropriate that is.)

Oooo... I like the first one... fly free little straw man... the second one reminds me too much of Bill Shorten.

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.
The truth does not care about feeling

I can't see how non-scientists who have no hope of understanding climate science can have a worthwhile debate.
Certainly not educate!
Feel free to give uninformed opinions - the rest of us can just ignore them.

My views are based on research by scientists. I do not invent them out of thin air. I supply empirical data to support my arguments.

While I do not consider myself a scientist, I have formally studied earth science. I like to think I have the ability to read papers on climate science. I like to think I can interpret data. I like to think I can analyse and synthesize information.

We can all learn and be educated by anyone. Do not be so closed minded to think otherwise. Learning is lifelong. And I am critical of everything I read or see. Everything. Try it, it is good for you.

I know the issues with the empirical data I show here. The data is correct, but the issues are discussion points, that's the educational value of them. I am not going to tell people the issues, people here have to read and analyse it, then try a rebuttal on my views, which then I will have to defend my position. That pretty much never happens here. Calling me a flog is not a rebuttal.

Decrepit tried briefly, we discussed the vertical movement of the continental plates, things were looking good for an intelligent debate. Then I showed evidence that cyclone activity and intensity is decreasing, which he tried to write-off 50 years of BoM cyclone data with the short term climate drivers of el Nino and el Nina. Wrong. So then he gave up and wanted me censored instead. As if that will change the data.

Science is never absolutely settled. Scientists are still finding problems and refining some of Einstein's popular theories on gravity, energy, time, relativity etc etc. If science was done by 'Argumentum ad populum', god would still be the answer for everthing.

BAM

Battlestar Galactica

BAM

Move along

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..Then I showed evidence that cyclone activity and intensity is decreasing, which he tried to write-off 50 years of BoM cyclone data with the short term climate drivers of el Nino and el Nina. Wrong. So then he gave up and wanted me censored instead. As if that will change the data.

If you have evidence and a unique hypothesis that will disprove the current science, why don't you write a scientific paper and submit it to a respected journal for peer review, i.o.w. become a scientist.

Anything else is just posturing.

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..Then I showed evidence that cyclone activity and intensity is decreasing, which he tried to write-off 50 years of BoM cyclone data with the short term climate drivers of el Nino and el Nina. Wrong. So then he gave up and wanted me censored instead. As if that will change the data.

If you have evidence and a unique hypothesis that will disprove the current science, why don't you write a scientific paper and submit it to a respected journal for peer review, i.o.w. become a scientist.

Anything else is just posturing.

I think it's more like attention seeking behaviour. Tone posted an article about the number of cyclones........because it supported his argument......but.......didn't show the explanation of those numbers because the explanation didn't support his narrative. To me that's either plain deceptive or delusional.
So why do it, knowing that you're either wrong(and you know it).....or wrong.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..While I do not consider myself a scientist, I have formally studied earth science. I like to think I have the ability to read papers on climate science. I like to think I can interpret data. I like to think I can analyse and synthesize information.

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.
The truth does not care about feeling

I can't see how non-scientists who have no hope of understanding climate science can have a worthwhile debate.
Certainly not educate!
Feel free to give uninformed opinions - the rest of us can just ignore them.

My views are based on research by scientists. I do not invent them out of thin air. I supply empirical data to support my arguments.

While I do not consider myself a scientist, I have formally studied earth science. I like to think I have the ability to read papers on climate science. I like to think I can interpret data. I like to think I can analyse and synthesize information.

We can all learn and be educated by anyone. Do not be so closed minded to think otherwise. Learning is lifelong. And I am critical of everything I read or see. Everything. Try it, it is good for you.

I know the issues with the empirical data I show here. The data is correct, but the issues are discussion points, that's the educational value of them. I am not going to tell people the issues, people here have to read and analyse it, then try a rebuttal on my views, which then I will have to defend my position. That pretty much never happens here. Calling me a flog is not a rebuttal.

Decrepit tried briefly, we discussed the vertical movement of the continental plates, things were looking good for an intelligent debate. Then I showed evidence that cyclone activity and intensity is decreasing, which he tried to write-off 50 years of BoM cyclone data with the short term climate drivers of el Nino and el Nina. Wrong. So then he gave up and wanted me censored instead. As if that will change the data.

Science is never absolutely settled. Scientists are still finding problems and refining some of Einstein's popular theories on gravity, energy, time, relativity etc etc. If science was done by 'Argumentum ad populum', god would still be the answer for everthing.

BAM

Battlestar Galactica

BAM

Move along

Haha so you studied water divining and suddenly you're right an the thousands of other climate scientists are all wrong? What and ego dude.

BAM

Fark move on dude.

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

TonyAbbott said..While I do not consider myself a scientist, I have formally studied earth science. I like to think I have the ability to read papers on climate science. I like to think I can interpret data. I like to think I can analyse and synthesize information.

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.
The truth does not care about feeling

I can't see how non-scientists who have no hope of understanding climate science can have a worthwhile debate.
Certainly not educate!
Feel free to give uninformed opinions - the rest of us can just ignore them.

My views are based on research by scientists. I do not invent them out of thin air. I supply empirical data to support my arguments.

While I do not consider myself a scientist, I have formally studied earth science. I like to think I have the ability to read papers on climate science. I like to think I can interpret data. I like to think I can analyse and synthesize information.

We can all learn and be educated by anyone. Do not be so closed minded to think otherwise. Learning is lifelong. And I am critical of everything I read or see. Everything. Try it, it is good for you.

I know the issues with the empirical data I show here. The data is correct, but the issues are discussion points, that's the educational value of them. I am not going to tell people the issues, people here have to read and analyse it, then try a rebuttal on my views, which then I will have to defend my position. That pretty much never happens here. Calling me a flog is not a rebuttal.

Decrepit tried briefly, we discussed the vertical movement of the continental plates, things were looking good for an intelligent debate. Then I showed evidence that cyclone activity and intensity is decreasing, which he tried to write-off 50 years of BoM cyclone data with the short term climate drivers of el Nino and el Nina. Wrong. So then he gave up and wanted me censored instead. As if that will change the data.

Science is never absolutely settled. Scientists are still finding problems and refining some of Einstein's popular theories on gravity, energy, time, relativity etc etc. If science was done by 'Argumentum ad populum', god would still be the answer for everthing.

BAM

Battlestar Galactica

BAM

Move along

Haha so you studied water divining and suddenly you're right an the thousands of other climate scientists are all wrong? What and ego dude.

BAM

Fark move on dude.

Um you get banned from this site all the time because you think you know everything

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

japie said..

Pugwash said..

japie said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..

log man said..

TonyAbbott said..
The problem with this censoring is that it logjam can post rubbish about relative sea level rise is b.s., urban heat islands are b.s., volcanoes do not produce co2 etc etc. This is less reasonable than calling the earth flat

And yet, all good with the Gestapo like censoring of the settled science eco-fascists

Yet post empirical data that is inconvenient to the 'settled science' and those same eco-fascists lose their minds

This whole thread started because decrepit wants empirical data produced by the BoM banned because it doesn't suit his alarmist view.

No debate, no discussion. Just ban

You state that a apocalypse event prediction has turned out to be false. Proven wrong by time. And these alarmist go mental

Only open debate can bring rationality to the discussion. Only open debate can educate.

The truth does not care about feeling

sorry mate, you've got nothing..........just move on.

personally im sick and tired of the same old talking points.......easily debunked and debunked and debunked.......how long do we have to cater for the loons.

Why do you keep coming back then?

He has this condition which demands that he attach labels to people. And things. Labeling, labeling, labeling.

Its a form of debate avoidance which allows the user to be right by default.

More of a straw man than a log man?

Yes exactly. Very clever. Funny to boot. We should see if we could get him to change his avatar.

Which do you prefer


or





I think both are appropriate. The one in the suit without the head is probably better although the suit lends it character which I am not sure is.

(Appropriate that is.)

Oooo... I like the first one... fly free little straw man... the second one reminds me too much of Bill Shorten.

How about this one?





Perhaps a little radical.

Or whimsical!

Select to expand quote

Next quote from"The Conversation", is a surprise for me, and very hopeful

" Australia is the runaway global leader in building new renewable energy

In Australia, renewable energy is growing at a per capita rate ten times faster than the world average. Between 2018 and 2020, Australia will install more than 16 gigawatts of wind and solar, an average rate of 220 watts per person per year. This is nearly three times faster than the next fastest country, Germany. Australia is demonstrating to the world how rapidly an industrialised country with a fossil-fuel-dominated electricity system can transition towards low-carbon, renewable power generation."

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Next quote from"The Conversation", is a surprise for me, and very hopeful

" Australia is the runaway global leader in building new renewable energy

In Australia, renewable energy is growing at a per capita rate ten times faster than the world average. Between 2018 and 2020, Australia will install more than 16 gigawatts of wind and solar, an average rate of 220 watts per person per year. This is nearly three times faster than the next fastest country, Germany. Australia is demonstrating to the world how rapidly an industrialised country with a fossil-fuel-dominated electricity system can transition towards low-carbon, renewable power generation."

Sounds good then, yes? And you still want to censor opposing views?

Select to expand quote

quikdrawMcgraw said.. >Sounds good then, yes? And you still want to censor opposing views?

I've never said, I want to censor opposing views! people keep putting that in my mouth.

I've posted an editorial that I thought interesting that's all. But I do understand the rational behind that editorial, and think the editor has every right to make that decision.
It's been openly declared, unlike some of the edited, cherry picked facts that appear here.

Do you think, the Murdochs, Joneses, Bolts etc of this world aren't censoring opposing views???????
And without saying so.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

quikdrawMcgraw said.. >Sounds good then, yes? And you still want to censor opposing views?

I've never said, I want to censor opposing views! people keep putting that in my mouth.

I've posted an editorial that I thought interesting that's all. But I do understand the rational behind that editorial, and think the editor has every right to make that decision.
It's been openly declared, unlike some of the edited, cherry picked facts that appear here.

Do you think, the Murdochs, Joneses, Bolts etc of this world aren't censoring opposing views???????
And without saying so.

Ok i see your point and yes of course they do censor differing views to suit their narrative.

What I find heartening here is that economics is making good things happen despite the federal government. If they were trying harder we might even make Ian's graph look better.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

quikdrawMcgraw said.. >Sounds good then, yes? And you still want to censor opposing views?

I've never said, I want to censor opposing views! people keep putting that in my mouth.

I've posted an editorial that I thought interesting that's all. But I do understand the rational behind that editorial, and think the editor has every right to make that decision.
It's been openly declared, unlike some of the edited, cherry picked facts that appear here.

Do you think, the Murdochs, Joneses, Bolts etc of this world aren't censoring opposing views???????
And without saying so.

I don't think anyone is putting words in your mouth. You did indicate your support to get rid of opposing views and democracy with that little waterfall analogy, it seemed pretty clear that you were in favour of a totalitarian authority to "save" the world