Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

Looking at global temperatures, there's no need to cherry pick to see that the past decade has been flat. CO2 shows a steady rise. Temperatures don't.

Likewise with real estate. House prices are flat.

That faint whistling noise is the point, sailing far over your head.

Alternatively, you are engaged in lying with statistics. A common practice of both climate change deniers and real estate spruikers.

 

[drsmithy]

That's why they moved the goal posts and called it climate change instead of global warming

Both terms are accurate and have been in use for decades.

 

[Pukka]

That a majority of people might vote for the Liberal party in no way implicitly means that a majority of people want Abbot as PM. You are conflating two different things.
Compare, for example, polls comparing Abbot as leader to Turnbull.

Yes but as it stands Turnbull is not an option that's my point.

However they could be forgiven for believing that government is just a big game of musical chairs based on recent events

 

[drsmithy]

Yes but as it stands Turnbull is not an option that's my point.

Your point is not relevant to the argument "the majority of Australians want Tony Abbot as PM". Australians don't vote for the PM, and available evidence shows that if they could, only about 30% of them would vote for Tony Abbot.

 

[amaroo]

There fixed that for you. Sorry but cold hard numbers trump your gut feeling any day.

According to you!

 

[Pukka]

Your point is not relevant to the argument "the majority of Australians want Tony Abbot as PM". Australians don't vote for the PM, and available evidence shows that if they could, only about 30% of them would vote for Tony Abbot.

Well if people don't vote for the PM how do you explain the ALP's dramatic rise in the polls when they resurrected KRudd. The leader obviously matters a lot. The point is that the coalition are still on top despite TA but if he wins he will still have been voted in by the majority of people

 

[Mak404matt]

how do you explain the ALP's dramatic rise in the polls

Must just be all that fantastic policy and that

 

[drsmithy]

Well if people don't vote for the PM how do you explain the ALP's dramatic rise in the polls when they resurrected KRudd. The leader obviously matters a lot. The point is that the coalition are still on top despite TA but if he wins he will still have been voted in by the majority of people

So saying polls show a boost to Labor from Rudd is ok, but saying polls show Abbot to only be preferred by 30% of voters is wrong ?

 

[drron]

No, you changed from saying Gillard enacted a carbon tax to Gillard and Rudd have called it a carbon tax.
No I said Julia called it a Carbon tax in her press release announcing the introducing the legislation to parliament.It seems though that that post has now disappeared but here is another of mine-

yes it is a fact that both Julia and Kevin call the present Carbon pricing scheme a Carbon tax.
Yes it is a fact that the UN does say people arriving without satisfying the countries entry requirements are illegal.
Just because those facts are not popular with you doesn't make them untrue.

Found it by going to my page-

Julia Gillard introduces a Carbon Tax which she called it in her announcement of putting the legislation to parliament but then you bring in all sorts of reasons why it isn't a tax even though it was called one.

No, the quotes do not support the assertion that boat arrivals (or anyone else) without proper documentation are "illegal".

Here is what Skyring posted.The UN Conventions are stated.Look it up.I had and was about to post but he beat me to it.I though looked at the Conventions-
And article 31 of the UN convention says a refugee who enters a country without authorisation does so illegally, although nations that have signed the convention "shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence".

Article 3 of the UN convention against transnational organised crime and the protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea or air speaks of people smugglers as facilitators for profit of the "illegal entry of the person into a State Party [in our case, read Australia] of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident" and that "illegal entry shall mean crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements", such as a visa.

I'm not "impugning your character" because I disagree with your views, I'm saying you lack honesty and integrity because you keep changing your argument halfway through when evidence against it is shown.

[/QUOTE]So no I haven't been changing my argument but your interpretation of my words has definitely changed.

 

[Pukka]

So saying polls show a boost to Labor from Rudd is ok, but saying polls show Abbot to only be preferred by 30% of voters is wrong ?

What I'm saying is that there are only 2 choices Rudd or TA. So when you vote for the party the leader comes with it , it's a package. So the winner has a mandate to govern by the majority of the Australian people.

I'd like Messi to captain Sunderland but unfortunately it's not a choice I can make.

 

[drsmithy]

So no I haven't been changing my argument but your interpretation of my words has definitely changed.

Pretty sure I've been interpreting you correctly:

[...]
3.No carbon tax.It is not just that she has introduced a tax but we have the highest tax in the world.$A23/tonne.EU-4.5 euro/tonne.NZ-$NZ0.14/tonne as of last week.
[...]

[...]
Bring in a carbon tax.
[...]

[...]
And the fundamental flaw in yours is that after the carbon tax the government's standing in the Opinion polls began falling.
[...]

 

[drsmithy]

What I'm saying is that there are only 2 choices Rudd or TA.

No, you said that the majority of Australians would prefer Tony Abbot to be PM. I'm making the point that the polls quite explicitly show this to be incorrect.

So when you vote for the party the leader comes with it , it's a package.

When I buy a hamburger at McDonalds it comes with pickles. Doesn't mean I like pickles.

So the winner has a mandate to govern by the majority of the Australian people.

No, not necessarily.

 

[Pukka]

No, you said that the majority of Australians would prefer Tony Abbot to be PM. I'm making the point that the polls quite explicitly show this to be incorrect.


When I buy a hamburger at McDonalds it comes with pickles. Doesn't mean I like pickles.


No, not necessarily.

I give up.

I love pickles by the way lol

 

[Skyring]

That's why they moved the goal posts and called it climate change instead of global warming

Heh. Spot on. There's no warming going on, and of course it became a joke phrase every winter.

 

[Skyring]

No, you said that the majority of Australians would prefer Tony Abbot to be PM. I'm making the point that the polls quite explicitly show this to be incorrect.

The polls are quite explicitly showing they prefer Kevin Rudd to be the Prime Minister of a Coalition government.

 

[Moody]

The polls are quite explicitly showing they prefer Kevin Rudd to be the Prime Minister of a Coalition government.

That's the sanest thing you've said in quite a while, Skyring. Have you been on the turps?

 

[drsmithy]

Heh. Spot on. There's no warming going on, and of course it became a joke phrase every winter.

Ah, you mean like there's been no drop in the AUD ?

 

[Pukka]

Ah, you mean like there's been no drop in the AUD ?

Exactly like that its cyclical goes up comes down goes up again etc

 

[drron]

That faint whistling noise is the point, sailing far over your head.

Alternatively, you are engaged in lying with statistics. A common practice of both climate change deniers and real estate spruikers.

Its not only deniers who lie with statistics.Alarmists pick the year 2000 so as to say the noughties showed continual warming.It just happened to be on average the coldest year in about 15.
Anyway even the British Met office believes there has been a slowing of warming.You can see the graph here-
Global-average temperature records - Met Office

Pretty sure I've been interpreting you correctly:

Lovely except I quoted the last 2 replies I had made on the subject and you have gone back to older posts except omitting my first ever reference which was a link to Julia's press release.It was to these last two that you partially quoted from when accusing me of a lack of honesty and integrity.

Ah, you mean like there's been no drop in the AUD ?

You really should read more.here is an article in Der Spiegel interviewing a climate scientist who is not a sceptic-
Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Just a couple of quotes-

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

And to save you the effort of finding out about Dr.storch-
Hans von Storch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[drsmithy]

Its not only deniers who lie with statistics.Alarmists pick the year 2000 so as to say the noughties showed continual warming.It just happened to be on average the coldest year in about 15.

Huh ? Who uses the year 2000 ? Why would they ? The trend of global temperature for over a century has been steadily upwards.

Anyway even the British Met office believes there has been a slowing of warming.You can see the graph here-

A "slowing of warming" is still warming.

Maybe this will help.

Lovely except I quoted the last 2 replies I had made on the subject and you have gone back to older posts except omitting my first ever reference which was a link to Julia's press release.It was to these last two that you partially quoted from when accusing me of a lack of honesty and integrity.

I partially quoted for brevity. Each quote has a link to its original, so anyone is but a mouse click away from context.

However, if I have misinterpreted you, and you agree with me that the "carbon tax" is not actually a tax, feel free to clear that up.

You really should read more.here is an article in Der Spiegel interviewing a climate scientist who is not a sceptic-

I've already read it.