Know the Enemy

[PinHead]

M62..I am NOT in favour of destroying the environemtn HOWEVER..before people start jumping on bandwagons they should make sure that what they are supporting is proven ..not just based on supposition and the "theories" of a few. I am also not in favour of altering people's lifestyles based on what a few "green scientists" want. ie Moreton Bay.
It is up to these groups that are demanding change to put unequivocal proof on that table that what they are saying is not open to conjecture or debate. That it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that what they are saying is true.

These days the average bloke is starting to get hit in the hip pocket to appease the greenies. I, for one, aqm not in favour of it, and if that makes me part of your so called posse and it drives these greenies off the fishign pages and anywhere else than that is also a good thing.

When the greens can provide the indisuptable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do.

To be prefectly honest, I have had an absolute gutful of all these green ideologists wanting everyone to change their lives just to suit the greenies ideals.
Their ideals are based on some wierd dreams of Nirvana and they do not care to what lengths they have to go to achieve it.

Basically they are all hypocrites.

[kc]

Mike you have to agree that mainstream media love a good "sky is falling" story and have hepled perpetuate the general public opinion that carbon induced climate change is the real deal. It is just a mainstream media view. If we can't agree on that point then

The view of the 500 signatories to the Manhattan declaration "should" have been big news. It wasn't. Why? Either they are all "crackpots" in the employ of the evil energy industry OR the media isn't really interested in "good news"...just the bad.

It's the same up here in regards the reef. If a marine researcher comes out and says "all is well, the reef is doing fine...no one (in the media) seems to give a damn, but issue a press piece saying "The reef will be dead in 20 years" and they are all over it like a rash.

Maybe it's just human nature. Maybe we want to be afraid of something, anything and need to have this shadow hanging over our collective heads. Beats me!

From my reasonabley well read position, the CC debate is dominated by the believers with the help of a supportive media and anyone who dares dissagree is howled down, ridiculed or if they have a valid point, ignored, all while this country works towards an emmissions trading scheme which will achieve no climate change benifits and will cause economic hardship which will make the current interest rates/petrol price downturn look like a picnic.

KC

[Jeremy87]

kc seems to be on the right track to me. At uni we refer to it as critical thinking, it's when you take a piece of evidence and instead of listening to what someone else has to say about it you sit down and nut it out by yourself. Take the temp co2 relation that keeps coming up. It shows the temperature rising and then shortly followed by elevated CO2 the two factors correlate but one isn't causing the other. So really unless someone figures out wether or not temperature causes CO2 to increase the data is rubbish, just 2 factors that correlate with no cause. So based on that graph you can't use it to say that co2 causes temp to increase and equally you can't say that it doesn't. Similarly global temperatures over a 3 year period cannot be used to talk about climate, because climate is on a longer time scale. I'm not on anyones side here, I have very similar feelings towards alot of environmentalists as pin head does. What i'm saying is you should really think critically about things before you take a stance on them because just going on the information iv'e seem on this thread none of it is actually convincing evidence for either case.

[Atriplex]

M62..I am NOT in favour of destroying the environemtn HOWEVER..before people start jumping on bandwagons they should make sure that what they are supporting is proven ..not just based on supposition and the "theories" of a few. I am also not in favour of altering people's lifestyles based on what a few "green scientists" want. ie Moreton Bay.
It is up to these groups that are demanding change to put unequivocal proof on that table that what they are saying is not open to conjecture or debate. That it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that what they are saying is true.

These days the average bloke is starting to get hit in the hip pocket to appease the greenies. I, for one, aqm not in favour of it, and if that makes me part of your so called posse and it drives these greenies off the fishign pages and anywhere else than that is also a good thing.

When the greens can provide the indisuptable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do.

To be prefectly honest, I have had an absolute gutful of all these green ideologists wanting everyone to change their lives just to suit the greenies ideals.
Their ideals are based on some wierd dreams of Nirvana and they do not care to what lengths they have to go to achieve it.

Basically they are all hypocrites.

Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying.

"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

[Tangles]

Atripper;

"Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying'

Does your view compromise others and their lifestyle?


"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

"You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

Sort of sticks at odds with your past posts doesnt it Tripper, ie science , now you say science cant be based on indisputable facts, IE your saying there are no facts here Tripper.

So does this mean CC and Green policies you espouse etc isnt based on facts as according to you science cant provide indisputable evidence? So whats your argument or is it a Feeling?

SO: According to Tripper:
1: Science isnt fact and can never provide 100% facts/evidence
2: Atripper relies on science for his arguments? so now how do we treat your statements Tripper? oops its disputable? ie how can you credibly back up any future statement Tripper when you quote a scientist?
3: Therefore given your right then you must recognise your view can only be seen as being based on opinion and emotion only


Keep it up Tripper love it

PS still waiting for the facts Tripper

mike

[Atriplex]

Atripper;

"Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying'

Does your view compromise others and their lifestyle?


"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

"You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

Sort of sticks at odds with your past posts doesnt it Tripper, ie science , now you say science cant be based on indisputable facts, IE your saying there are no facts here Tripper.

So does this mean CC and Green policies you espouse etc isnt based on facts as according to you science cant provide indisputable evidence? So whats your argument or is it a Feeling?

Keep it up Tripper love it

PS still waiting for the facts

mike

I'll try to be as sensitive as I can.

Fact: 2 + 2 = 4. You could say it's a truth; a mathematical fact and truth. There are also scientific truths; i.e. the Bunsen Burner will cause A flame when gas meets match. That's a scientific fact, no? But it would be illogical to say that every time gas comes into contact with a match there will be a flame. We just don't know do we.

And it would be illogical to think that the sun will rise everyday. Even though there has been no case of the sun not rising when it should. So therefore science will never provide us with indisputable evidence!!

Do you understand now?

The Greens policies that I prefer to the opposing policies are based upon Scientific facts as separate from indisputable/logical/deductive facts.

Does my view compromise others and their lifestyle?

An interesting question. I believe my view does not unfairly compromise the lives of others. Would it compromise the lives of people who get pleasure from/while wrecking the environment? Yes most definitely.

Do you think my view would unfairly compromise the lives of others?

"SO: According to Tripper:
1: Science isnt fact and can never provide 100% facts/evidence
2: Atripper relies on science for his arguments? so now how do we treat your statements Tripper? oops its disputable? ie how can you credibly back up any future statement Tripper when you quote a scientist?
3: Therefore given your right then you must recognise your view can only be seen as being based on opinion and emotion only"

According to me putting words into someone else's mouth is the worst form of argument, and is the argument of someone who does not know what they are talking about, or they don't understand what the other person has said properly. I'm afraid, though, I can't dumb down any further.

I hope I've covered what you said in the above.

[disorderly]

Do you think my view would unfairly compromise the lives of others?

Oh you are such a silly,unthinking young person...so happy to jump on the popular environmental bandwagon without having really done or experienced anything in life to make you so narrowminded...

I could write a ten thousand word report of the world of hurt perpetuated onto mine and my wifes small company purely by ridiculous new rulings pertaining to national parks/forestry/water resources purely to appease the greenies...not to mention problems we have also had and continue to have since landclearing laws came in that showed our property in a zone that with the stroke of a pen was zoned "critical habitat" despite have been clearfelled 15 years prior....none of which is making us more environmentally friendly...in actual fact it's having quite the opposite effect by making a very sustainable eco'freindly business into one that will become far more polluting over the next few months....

Big problem is, individual cases are not assessed ...blanket rules are made and can adversely affect many otherwise good,caring people.

And I make my living by growing and selling thousands of plants ,propagating,conserving and selling "rare" and endangered plants from all over the world as well as re- vegetating and landscaping.

Tripper you have no idea.

Scott

[siegfried]

Stick to spongebob and wiggles concerts AXXX, your having a shocker.

[Mike Delisser]

Kc wrote-
"Mike you have to agree that mainstream media love a good "sky is falling" story and have hepled perpetuate the general public opinion that carbon induced climate change is the real deal. It is just a mainstream media view. If we can't agree on that point then "
Of course I agree Kc

Kc wrote-
"The view of the 500 signatories to the Manhattan declaration "should" have been big news. It wasn't. Why? Either they are all "crackpots" in the employ of the evil energy industry OR the media isn't really interested in "good news"...just the bad"

Although I think you could be close with "in the employ of the energy industry" ($via Heartland Institute) I'm sure the MS press wouldn't give a shit about that, it would be because they love to sell papers and add space and that = bad news.

critical thinking yes Jeremy, and critical discussion on these pages would be great 2, not just abuse & bully so n so untill he leaves just because I can't make him change his mind or he doesn't see things my way.

Pin wrote
. I, for one, am not in favour of it, and if that makes me part of your so called posse and it drives these greenies off the fishign pages and anywhere else than that is also a good thing.

And what would that achieve Greg?
One of the problems I see is that so many here (esp the stubborn ones) seem to label anyone who isn't 100% with them a ratbag greenie.

[Chris Ryan]

ok i withdraw the idiots comment but this stuff is garbage.

This message is from a different login responding to the quote of calling people idiots which was made form another user. Am I to assume this same person ahs different logins?? i though that was against the rules of Ausfish?

[PinHead]

Please clarify this for me. Are you saying that you should be able to continue living a lifestyle that compromises the lives of others? It seems to be what you are implying.

"When the greens can provide the indisputable proof on what they are saying then I will listen. Until then, they know what they can do."

You don't learn do you. Science will never provide 100% indisputable evidence. Need I explain? This should be one of the first things you learn about science.

yes lease..bedazzle me with your youthful brilliance and your comprehensive library of facts that are totally indisputable.

Now tell me how my lifestyle comprimises that of others.more like greens wanting me to compromise my lifestyle for the sake of their ideologies..not going to happen...it anything I will go the other just to annoy the buggers.