As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
@monman12 wrote:"To be clear, we have no intention of debating global warming. Why not? Because there is no debate. It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening. It is a scientific fact that humans are responsible.........and more likely sooner rather than later, global warming will be undeniable. Truly undeniable. "
That is bordering on an oxymoron. It can not be a scientific fact and then: also "more likely sooner .....will be undeniable" !
The thrust of the comments I am in agreement with, however, It is badly phrased, and I would assume B1G is a topic that you are not versed in, the Scientific Method.
It is actually NOT a scientific fact....that humans are responsible, but there is at least a 95% probability that global warming is caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions based upon the preponderance of scientific acceptance of the hypothesis.
The fifth IPCC report: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
For SRBA and those deniers devoted to choosingselective time periods: The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years.
"Which brings us to global warming. Or climate change" That sums up the article, they are actually different topics, one a single variable the other multiple variables, but what else would you expect from an article from two (good) mathematicians?
I notice B!G in their article they included: "Abbott now claims to believe in climate change" which you "culled" for some reason?
By your C&Ps accuracy your are known, I would suggest avoid science (with P007 and SRBA) well others C&P science !nษฅยบษพ
By your C&Ps accuracy your are known, I would suggest avoid science (with P007 and SRBA) well others C&P science !
monman12, well by your own grammar and spelling maybe you should avoid posting anything at all.
"The global economy has embraced the renewable energy industry. Last year wind power grew by 25 per cent worldwide and solar power by 30 per cent. On May 11, Germany met 74 per cent of its electricity demand with renewable energy."
"The country on Sunday set a record by generating 74 percent of energy from renewable sources, according to Renewables International."
Now for a more realistic view of that comment:
For a short period of time, around 1PM on May 11th the figure of 74% (of demand at that time) was recorded. This figure was achieved on a windy and sunny day, oh yes, and on a Sunday when electricity demand was rather less than a normal working day.
I am used to global warming deniers carefully selecting a trend period to "support" their argument, but a fleeting moment on one particular day, when industrial/commercial electricity consumption is minimal, is overly disingenuous.
Now for some realism:
"In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources in Germany met a record 27 per cent of the country's electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather"
โEight hard-coal power plants are scheduled to start in the next two yearsโ in Germany."
And of course a graph.
"The Chinese economy is four times the size of ours yet they have 30 times as much wind power installed."
Only "four times" ? World Bank or IMF figures please B1G.
"30 times as much wind power installed" I would suggest a per capita figure would be more relevant. It is a very large country with a very large population and this helps: "a law that requires the Chinese energy companies to purchase all the electricity produced by the renewable energy sector"
I would suggest heralding Chinese energy production compared to Australia's is rather silly, considering currently China is opening 40 new coal fired power stations per year, Australia has NON planned, whilst Germany intends starting up 8 in two years.
nษฅยบษพ
