Page 227 of 988 FirstFirst ... 127177217225226227228229237277327727 ... LastLast
Results 3,391 to 3,405 of 14808
Like Tree284Likes

Thread: The Australian politics thread

  1. #3391
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    I'm not surprised that Copenhagen failed at all, it was a load of crap to begin with.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  2. #3392
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Would say the massive economic and hence political vested short term interests in ignoring the consequences of our (in)actions had more to do with the lack of a result than the ideas being crap tbh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  3. #3393
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    I'm no scientist and I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I would encourage someone to do so, but how is it possible to stop temperatures from raising a maximum two degrees like the politicans wanted to do in their little chit chat in Copenhagen? Last time I checked I thought that was controlled by the sun, and that is something we don't have a dial for to control how hot or cold it gets. What if the temperature raises for example raises three degrees, what are they going to do? Cop out and say they can't control nature? Why is the highest (widely accepted that is) temperature recorded in Australia, in Cloncurry is 53.1 °C, recorded in 1889, before we had cars, planes, computers etc.? Why in the 1970's there were concerns of a Global Cooling period? Whilst it was never actually scientifically proven, from what I have read that is, that there was a global cooling period, as in the plant cooling, articles appeared in popular media to suggest that it was the case. Newsweek had an article in 1975, and it stated "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.". It appears to me that the earth goes through global temperature cycles.

    As for the Coral off the Great Barrier Reef, that has been around for millions of years right? And that would of adapted when the temperature raised or there was a reduction in temperature, right? So why has it survived so far and will suddenly die if the sea temperature raises? And why didn't the coral die off in the 50's, 60's, 70's when big industry was taking off?

    FTR I don't see myself as "skeptic" or a "realist", or anything like that, nor do I have any ties to any political party, and I do care for the environment. I'm just an individual who wants to learn to make the most informed decision I can, not what Kevin Rudd or Barack Obama's spin doctors tell me.

  4. #3394
    International Captain Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    5,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    I'm no scientist and I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I would encourage someone to do so, but how is it possible to stop temperatures from raising a maximum two degrees like the politicans wanted to do in their little chit chat in Copenhagen? Last time I checked I thought that was controlled by the sun, and that is something we don't have a dial for to control how hot or cold it gets. What if the temperature raises for example raises three degrees, what are they going to do? Cop out and say they can't control nature? Why is the highest (widely accepted that is) temperature recorded in Australia, in Cloncurry is 53.1 °C, recorded in 1889, before we had cars, planes, computers etc.? Why in the 1970's there were concerns of a Global Cooling period? Whilst it was never actually scientifically proven, from what I have read that is, that there was a global cooling period, as in the plant cooling, articles appeared in popular media to suggest that it was the case. Newsweek had an article in 1975, and it stated "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.". It appears to me that the earth goes through global temperature cycles.

    As for the Coral off the Great Barrier Reef, that has been around for millions of years right? And that would of adapted when the temperature raised or there was a reduction in temperature, right? So why has it survived so far and will suddenly die if the sea temperature raises? And why didn't the coral die off in the 50's, 60's, 70's when big industry was taking off?

    FTR I don't see myself as "skeptic" or a "realist", or anything like that, nor do I have any ties to any political party, and I do care for the environment. I'm just an individual who wants to learn to make the most informed decision I can, not what Kevin Rudd or Barack Obama's spin doctors tell me.
    It's not the spin doctors you should be listening to. The politicians have only gotten behind global warming because it has penetrated the public conciousness on the back of a broad agreement for the phenomenon from within the scientific community.

    The question isn't whether or not the Earth is warming. It is. The only issue that is seriously debated is whether this period of warming is a natural one, or a period caused by the increase in carbon emissions due to humankinds activity on the planet. The theory in laymans terms (and as a layman I'd appreciate any corrections to my understanding of the issue, SS?) is that the Earth is under the influence of a greenhouse effect, which is a proveable, reproduceable phenomenon. Co2 is a gas that can create a greenhouse effect, and the increases in temperatures correlates with how much the level of man made carbon emissions would increase temperatures under said greenhouse effect.

    AFAIK the main point of contention is how much reducing our emissions would affect the rise in temperatures. Would cutting emissions by 50% lower the projected rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees? Would cutting them by 20% lower them to a 3 degree rise? That's much more difficult to predict, so there's alot of argument around just how much we should do to fix the problem.
    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

    Too many bones, not enough CASH!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZwgu8_b0Vw

    RIP Craig


  5. #3395
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,876
    No point in having a follow-up conference at the end of next year in Mexico.

    According to Emperor Rudd - Copenhagen was our one chance, to act now.

    The world has missed that chance, and now we're all doomed.

    Or will he come up with a new artificial deadline...

  6. #3396
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    It's not the spin doctors you should be listening to. The politicians have only gotten behind global warming because it has penetrated the public conciousness on the back of a broad agreement for the phenomenon from within the scientific community.

    The question isn't whether or not the Earth is warming. It is. The only issue that is seriously debated is whether this period of warming is a natural one, or a period caused by the increase in carbon emissions due to humankinds activity on the planet. The theory in laymans terms (and as a layman I'd appreciate any corrections to my understanding of the issue, SS?) is that the Earth is under the influence of a greenhouse effect, which is a proveable, reproduceable phenomenon. Co2 is a gas that can create a greenhouse effect, and the increases in temperatures correlates with how much the level of man made carbon emissions would increase temperatures under said greenhouse effect.

    AFAIK the main point of contention is how much reducing our emissions would affect the rise in temperatures. Would cutting emissions by 50% lower the projected rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees? Would cutting them by 20% lower them to a 3 degree rise? That's much more difficult to predict, so there's alot of argument around just how much we should do to fix the problem.
    But I want to know they plan to cap temperature raises by up to 2 degrees. I would like some of the science guys like Corey and SS to answer my questions.

  7. #3397
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    But I want to know they plan to cap temperature raises by up to 2 degrees. I would like some of the science guys like Corey and SS to answer my questions.
    It's debateable.



    Personally believe the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is overstated somewhat. That said, a 2 degree increase would be a massive change to our climate. Think they who went to the conference are hedging that the deniers will win.

    I'm a bit out of the loop these days, though. The debate still seems to go along the lines of which scientific discipline you followed. The chemists (which I was), focussed on the micro, would say "MY GOD, ONE CHLORINE RADICAL CAN DESTROY 40 000 O3 MOLECULES! THE END IS NIGH!!" while the rock jockeys (geologists), a more macro science, would say "You guys are panicking over nothing! No way are the bazillions of equilibria in the atmosphere going to be affected by small-scale reactions. Climate n00bs.". The physicists would say "What? Who are you? Repossessors? Hey come back with my laser! I swear, my grant is coming through next week!", the biologists would say "What's carbon dioxide?" and the plant biologists would sit in the corner occasionally asking for water.

    The truth is somewhere between those extremes, I think.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 21-12-2009 at 06:56 PM.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  8. #3398
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bonn, BRD
    Posts
    22,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Personally believe the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is overstated somewhat.
    What about CH4?
    Messi scores on the rebound.

    Founder of ESAS - Edgar Schiferli, the best associate bowler
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
    Member of JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf Grünbaum
    Is the conduct approved by the gods right ("pious"), because of properties of its own, or merely because it pleases the gods to value or command it?

  9. #3399
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    What about CH4?
    I fart in your general direction.

  10. #3400
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,589
    Like some of you guys, I'm no scientist but it's pretty much a given that

    a. Polar caps etc are melting leading to rise in sea levels, degradation of habitat etc

    b. There are a couple of massive holes in the ozone layer that bring their own dangers

    c. Weather conditions are changing in some areas (less rain/more rain/violent storms, etc)

    I have no idea what is causing it but we do need to take steps to address the situation

    However, chucking billions in compensation at the thirld world is not the answer as history shows that such actions will only serve to create a bigger divide between the haves and have nots in those countries

  11. #3401
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT, Leanyer
    Posts
    4,184
    The lack of success at Copenhagen has brought the skeptics out of the woods.

    Was hundreds of officials from each country going to a conference vowing to do best for "my people" and "my backyard" really going to make a deal on an issue which requires a different mode of thinking?

    Our best chance in Aus for some action is an early election and the Liberals to get thumped.
    Last edited by Redbacks; 22-12-2009 at 12:41 AM.

  12. #3402
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    And that is why having a bunch of politicans trying to deal with the issue is a bad idea when they have their own self interest at heart. Kevin Rudd talks a good game when it comes to global warming so he can get re-elected next year. They are just a bunch of cock sucking wankers.

  13. #3403
    Cricketer Of The Year James90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,572
    That's democracy. Find me a better system or just accept that government doing what's best for the people will invariably be rewarded with re-election.
    Stedders' Supported XI (in batting order)
    NJ Kruger, *SM Katich, LA Carseldine, MEK Hussey, Mohammad Ashraful, NT Broom, AA Noffke, +Mushfiqur Rahim, Mashrafe Mortaza, DE Bollinger, WAP Mendis.

    CricketWeb Black!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I think Ponting forgot to take his Swiss Ulti-Vites when he was on 99 not out.
    RIP Fardin.

  14. #3404
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,589
    Quote Originally Posted by James90 View Post
    That's democracy. Find me a better system or just accept that government doing what's best for the people will invariably be rewarded with re-election.
    Hope you're kidding!

    On the application form for a job as a politician, there are the following questions

    1. Are you a good liar?

    If "yes", got to question 2

    If "no", dont bother as this job is not good for you

    2. Will you do/say/etc anything to get re-elected and have no problems backing down on that commitment?

    If "yes", go to question 3

    If "no", dont bother as this job is not good for you

    Etc etc

    In general, politicians are pond scum with the gift of the gab

  15. #3405
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    The debate still seems to go along the lines of which scientific discipline you followed. The chemists (which I was), focussed on the micro, would say "MY GOD, ONE CHLORINE RADICAL CAN DESTROY 40 000 O3 MOLECULES! THE END IS NIGH!!" while the rock jockeys (geologists), a more macro science, would say "You guys are panicking over nothing! No way are the bazillions of equilibria in the atmosphere going to be affected by small-scale reactions. Climate n00bs.". The physicists would say "What? Who are you? Repossessors? Hey come back with my laser! I swear, my grant is coming through next week!", the biologists would say "What's carbon dioxide?" and the plant biologists would sit in the corner occasionally asking for water.

    The truth is somewhere between those extremes, I think.
    Made me laugh.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Australian Conditions - The Difference?
    By benchmark00 in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13-10-2006, 08:38 AM
  2. 2004/05 Australian domestic season thread
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1116
    Last Post: 27-03-2005, 10:25 PM
  3. *Official* India in Australia Thread
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 2652
    Last Post: 08-01-2004, 07:00 PM
  4. South Australian Crickets Don Bradman Medal Night
    By Blewy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14-10-2003, 05:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •