topic Re: Would you? in Community Spirit

Would you?

***super_nova*** — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:04:41 GMT

Keep driving?

Re: Would you?

polksaladallie — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:18:50 GMT

97% of oncologists say you have an treatable Ca, 3% say no, don't worry about it.

Would you go for treatment?

Re: Would you?

siggie-reported-by-alarmists — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:01:52 GMT

Alarmists have perfected the art of creating fake catastrophic events...........it's what your religion is based on.

Skeptics in the mean time, will deal with the real world observations and data........

Re: Would you?

ca04 — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:06:10 GMT

That would be 97% of government sponsored climate scientists??:-()

Re: Would you?

donnashuggy — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:07:40 GMT

I would hardly call a denier a skeptic

Re: Would you?

bright.ton42 — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:37:37 GMT

Just wondering what bridge is that? Why do they say it will collapse?

Re: Would you?

lakeland27 — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:40:58 GMT

@ca04 wrote:
That would be 97% of government sponsored climate scientists??:-()

no. 97 per cent with expertise. our government no longer funds science of this kind (why pay to look so foolish)

Re: Would you?

izabsmiling — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 03:02:15 GMT

our Government seems to have denied it ,then accepted it for popularity rather than the science behind it

.....and promised that their very expensive band aid without adhesive to make it stick ...paid for with our money

will be money well spent .What a joke and it makes us all look stupid

Economists Trash Direct Action

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/10/economists-trash-direct-action/

21 AUG 2013 - 4:03PM

Comment: Direct Action is a slogan, not a policy

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/08/21/comment-direct-action-slogan-not-policy

Decades of evidence against 'direct action'

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/decades-of-evidence-against-direct-action-20131028-2wbxt.html

BHP moves towards Abbott's direct action plan

No 21 2013

"We are looking very keenly with them as to what we can do with their direct action measure that will I think protect the competitiveness of trade-exposed industries across Australia, not just ours, and really understand how we can drive emissions reductions" ... Andrew Mackenzie. Photo: Reuters

BHP Billiton boss Andrew Mackenzie has revealed he is in talks with the Abbott government over carbon policy, and declared that its "direct action" policy will protect trade exposed industries.

The Abbott government is poised to repeal Labor's carbon tax during the current term of government, and Mr Mackenzie told the BHP annual meeting of shareholders that his talks with the government had been "constructive".

He then appeared to give cautious approval to the "direct action" plan.

what's in it for BHP ? nudge nudge wink wink .....

oh and here's another from a self motivated fat cat .

Direct action will deliver, says Origin Energy chief Grant King

SID MAHER
THE AUSTRALIAN
DECEMBER 09, 2013
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/direct-action-will-deliver-says-origin-energy-chief-grant-king/story-e6frg6xf-1226778307079#

It would all appeal no doubt to the those OS companies who have recently and quite quietly bought into our power (high poluting) industries....

Politifact ..

Most of the countries around the world are moving in favour of Direct Action" and "not proceeding with emissions trading schemes or market based mechanisms".

Joe Hockey on Monday, October 28, 2013

Our ruling

Joe Hockey didn't have to say what he said on The Project. He could have much more fairly claimed, for example, that the United States will not be implementing a carbon price and will instead choose to reduce emissions through regulatory measures. In a crude sense, Barack Obama is taking "direct action".

But the actual measures Obama is implementing don't bear any relation to the suite of policies that fall under Direct Action. And remember, Obama wanted a cap-and-trade system but couldn't get it through Congress.

We note that reverse auctions are being used in some jurisdictions, such as India and South Africa. But they are being used to drive investment in some parts of the energy market, not as the centrepiece of a climate change policy. And these are not the highly developed economies with which Australia is and should be compared.

At any rate, the idea that "most countries" are going down this path and not proceeding with emissions trading simply doesn't square with the facts. If there were any doubt, the OECD's October report makes this plain.

Each year the number of jurisdictions trading carbon grows. Australia would be the first to dismantle such a system. The government can make the case for that decision. But we don't see how a senior government figure could possibly argue that most countries are moving in that direction.

We rate the claim False.

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/01/joe-hockey/hockey-says-most-countries-moving-toward-direct-ac/

big fat fib Joe Hockey !

The Coalition’s alternative climate change policy will cost billions of dollars more than Tony Abbott claims and has no chance of meeting Australia’s emissions reduction target."

Mark Butler on Thursday, August 15, 2013 in a press release

How much will the Coalition's Direct Action plan cost?

Our ruling

Mark Butler says Direct Action will cost at least $4 billion more than the Coalition reckon, and has no chance of meeting its target. The report he cites as evidence is the latest in a long line of models showing the Coalition’s figures don’t add up.

It’s not quite fair to say Direct Action will go over budget AND miss its emissions target. It’s basically an either/or situation. Either Direct Action remains capped and misses the reduction target, or Greg Hunt will spend more than was budgeted in order to reach it. The policy is supposed to be reviewed in 2015, so who knows? It could all change again.

One thing politicians can’t be allowed to do is claim that a policy is costed because they’ve announced how much they’ll spend. Costing something inherently involves measuring whether the amount you’ve budgeted will achieve what you think it will.

We can’t be sure what the future will bring but at this point, Butler has much more data on his side than Hunt.

We rate the statement Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/20/mark-butler/how-much-direct-action-cost/

the world is round

Re: Would you?

izabsmiling — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 03:29:24 GMT

the concept some who don't give credit to the 97% of scientists are actually expecting other people,their families and generations to come to ignore the scientific evidence and effectively expecting that others should be OK to drive on that bridge and even perhaps do something to make it even more structurally unsound for other people is incredible .

Re: Would you?

siggie-reported-by-alarmists — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 04:22:47 GMT

I find the behaviour of Alarmists immoral also Iza.......

Re: Would you?

lakeland27 — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 04:28:38 GMT

how exactly ? (and you'll need proof, none of yer wild unsubstantiated claims you never back up)

Re: Would you?

lakeland27 — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 04:30:19 GMT

what's immoral is to play interference for a political end that actually is baseless, a lie. if you were at all moral , you'd be quiet.

Re: Would you?

siggie-reported-by-alarmists — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 04:44:21 GMT

@lakeland27 wrote:
how exactly?(and none of yer wild unsubstantiated claims you never back up)

That's funny......., that's what I have been saying about the Alarmist religion.......

LL, all you have is a weak theory, and failed predictions.

Re: Would you?

lakeland27 — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 05:02:03 GMT

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:
how exactly?(and none of yer wild unsubstantiated claims you never back up)
That's funny......., that's what I have been saying about the Alarmist religion.......

LL, all you have is a weak theory, and failed predictions.

do you read anything beside bolts blog ?

there is no religion. there is a burden of proof though, you have failed to meet it. consistently. even the abbott supporters laugh at your efforts .

i lean more toward pity than scorn though.

Re: Would you?

freakiness — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 05:13:38 GMT

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:
how exactly?(and none of yer wild unsubstantiated claims you never back up)
That's funny......., that's what I have been saying about the Alarmist religion.......

LL, all you have is a weak theory, and failed predictions.

How does anyone get almost all of the scientists to agree to an elaborate con job on the populace, especially considering they can be rather competitive? How do you also get them to side with and falsify research for conflicting political parties and corporations when many of the scientists are not fans of politicians or loyal to corporations for the sake of it?

Re: Would you?

siggie-reported-by-alarmists — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 05:14:07 GMT

@lakeland27 wrote:
@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:
@lakeland27 wrote:
how exactly?(and none of yer wild unsubstantiated claims you never back up)
That's funny......., that's what I have been saying about the Alarmist religion.......

LL, all you have is a weak theory, and failed predictions.

do you read anything beside bolts blog ?
there is no religion. there is a burden of proof though, you have failed to meet it. consistently. even the abbott supporters laugh at your efforts .
i lean more toward pity than scorn though.

Do you?......you do seem very infatuated with him.........

There won't be an alarmist religion for long.......as it is dying.....

Are people laughing?..... awesome... so am I....it's good for your health.......