Jump to content

Director

Hero
  • Content count

    15,608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Director last won the day on January 3 2017

Director had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

480 Overlord

1 Follower

About Director

  • Rank
    Guru

Recent Profile Visitors

15,631 profile views
  1. Director

    What's on your mind?

    From my favourite Catholic... Thank you for your ongoing support against totalitarian laws such as 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). This law: causes community division, fails to target speech that actually calls for violence (such as calls for jihad), and leads to political witch hunts against conservative Australians. This is the law that has been used to silence Andrew Bolt. This is the law that has been used to destroy the lives of university students kicked out of unmarked 'Indigenous Only' computer labs. This is the law that paved the way for other state-based laws that are now criminalising Australians for their conservative views on marriage. PERHAPS WORST OF ALL, THIS IS THE LAW WHICH WHITE PEOPLE CANNOT USE. The Federal Court rule over a decade ago that 'white' people are not protected by the Racial Discrimination Act. It is a special law for special people and it must go. Over 5,200 people have signed my submission calling for this law to be repealed. Thanks to your support, this means that my submission will be the most supported submission to this inquiry. There are now two days left for Australians to add their names to this submission. You can do so here: http://bernardgaynor.com.au/18c-inquiry/ Thank you once again and below is a press release I issued a few moments ago: MEDIA RELEASE 7 DECEMBER 2016 AUSTRALIANS BACK REPEAL OF 18C AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION More than 5,000 Australians have signed my parliamentary submission calling for the repeal of S.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and the abolition of the Australian Human Rights Commission. This submission is likely to be the most well-supported submission to the joint parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia. This inquiry has attracted significant public interest and I have been informed that so many submissions have been received that it may be some time before any are published on the inquiry's webpage. The support for my submission demonstrates strong levels of community concern about anti-discrimination legislation. Many Australians, for good reason, view bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission as nothing more than a left-wing political police force. Speech that incites violence on racial grounds is already criminalised under S80.2A and S80.2B of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and other state laws. Unfortunately, these laws are not being enforced and incitement to violence goes unpunished. Meanwhile, cartoonists and university students are instead targeted for their political commentary or innocuous statements of fact. It is time for special laws for special people to be scrapped. They are divisive and lead to political witch hunts. Instead, all Australians should be treated equally before the law and speech that incites violence should be targeted, regardless of whether it is racially-motivated or not. My submission can be read here: http://bernardgaynor.com.au/18c-inquiry/
  2. Director

    What's on your mind?

    yeah but they have a university degree in road building and you don't. So there. P~
  3. Director

    how crap is this government ?

    I dunno, there's a lot of pessimism around Adani, from the not having the government 'loan' repaid (where did the government borrow the money from and at what interest rate?) to having the mine full of fifo 457 workers from India (which the premier denied...if you believe her). And then there's the billion dollar railroad that won't be of much use if the mine fails or when it closes. PLus if we have all that great coal why aren't we using it in our own generators to reduce the price of power? Haven't looked into it too much though, trying to focus on more productive things. :) (Was replying to ev before mac posted.) uh-huh. :) Ok my final (hopefully) post on this topic, since you quoted wiki as a reliable source in your redacted post I will do the same: List of scientists opposing AGW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (not all 'climate' scientists but a lot of them are) I previously posted how they came up with the '97% of climate scientists mantra' looks like you chose to ignore stuff as well. :) Anyway, if you want support to clean up our abuse of the planet then I'm right behind you. I'm just not on board with more global ponzi schemes and more taxes.
  4. Director

    how crap is this government ?

    Breitbart? BREITBART?? Shit, D, I knew you were prone to conspiracy theories, but I didn't think you were an outright lunatic. Well I could have cut and pasted the whole internet....... :) Point is that there is enough information from enough different sources to question the "97 percent of climate scientists......"
  5. Director

    how crap is this government ?

    Cox, the physicist..and Q&A? And you were paying me out for MY sources? :) Another IPCC lie that people have swallowed? http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/ "Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming. The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science. Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle "The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action? In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy. RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”" https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm There is no consensus The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". OK here's some more (possible wall of text warning) Dr Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week’s US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.” Transcript via JudithCurry.com: I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today. Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus. I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues. (note the usual reaction from so-called 'objective' science.) I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. What have I concluded from this assessment? Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’. The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations. Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance. How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech. There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests." And as you mentioned lies ,more lies and statistics...... https://www.corbettreport.com/lies-damned-lies-and-global-warming-statistics/ But you are falling into the rap of arguing is it or isn't it? Neither of us can solve that question. My complaint is 'more tax' instead of fixing the issue directly. If you don't like Abbott's plan then use another one. :)
  6. Director

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    Awww, I was waiting for the guy to jump..but he didn't.
  7. Director

    how crap is this government ?

    And here is the problem - you dump the problem back on the climate scientists because you don't like the answer governments come up with and that's ok even though the result is a fucked planet. That approach will work out well. As for your direct action approach we know that it can't work long term because the government doesn't have enough money to pay for it. Unless you are saying that there should be a dramatic increase in taxes. As recently as yesterday the CSIRO put out a statement saying that an emission trading scheme was the most cost effective way for Australia to meet it's targets. I'm not dumping the 'problem' back on the scientists, I'm dumping the burden of proof on them and the burden of arguing the point on Leo. :) Cos there's way too much playing with the data going on for my liking and really CBA keeping up with it all. Why should direct action cost the government anything? Look at it this way, if the ATO decides to audit your arse they will go through your shit (to carry the analogy) with a fine toothed comb and then send YOU the bill for their time. So there is NO good reason why they couldn't do the same with an emissions auditor. Paying for an annual or two-yearly inspection would be far cheaper than paying more tax...forever. And I was under the impression that the CSIRO did science? What qualifies them to make statements about global financial mechanisms? And here's how emissions trading schemes work in the real world. http://www.redd-monitor.org/2014/11/04/carbon-violence-the-impact-of-green-resources-carbon-plantations-in-uganda/ "The report found that somewhere between 8,000 and 40,000 people “face profound disruptions to their livelihoods, including many experiencing forced evictions.” In addition to losing access to the land, villagers report pollution of water and land by the agrochemicals used in the plantations. In 1996, Green Resources obtained a 50-year permit from Uganda’s National Forestry Authority for plantations in the Bukaleba Forest Reserve in eastern Uganda, and the Kachung Forest Reserve in northern Uganda, covering a total of 11,864 hectares. While the land is part of the government-owned Central Forest Reserve, villagers in the past had access to grow food, collect resources and graze animals." And this: https://carbonviolence.org/2014/09/20/environmental-destruction/ In fact there's a whole raft of good stuff on this site: https://carbonviolence.org/ Direct action is the most sensible and practical plan if the whole thing were honest, no tax or dodgy trading scams or dead peasants required.
  8. Director

    how crap is this government ?

    dit : @ Director : Paying the tax is at least better ... as long as they be paying it, and not simply charging us more. Of course they'll be charging you more! That's the whole point.
  9. Director

    how crap is this government ?

    um... but isn't the level of tax dependant on the emissions ? Or am I hallucinating ? ;) /snip Allegedly. The point is that while a corporation can simply pay the tax they will do nothing to fix the actual problem. The 'governments' can put the carbon tax up as much as they want. The corporation will simply factor the charges into their product pricing and all of us will simply pay more...and more and more. And then there's the whole carbon offset trading scams on top of that .....
  10. Director

    What's on your mind?

    All the best dude, hope the little guy comes through OK. :)
  11. Director

    What's on your mind?

    Har har har fucking har....after talking about LED tubes this morning, guess what just stopped working, the bloody fluro baton in the kitchen. Now to find a sparky before Xmas....
  12. Director

    What's on your mind?

    Bargain!
  13. Director

    how crap is this government ?

    Meh., I'll let Leo and others haggle over the details, and there's no doubt that human (greed) activity is screwing up the planet. But ask your climate scientists mate what scientific data he has that proves 'more tax' is going to save the world? Cos that's the only solution I'm seeing and it hasn't been pretty so far. If the governments were involved in direct action then I'd maybe I'd be swayed towards the idea that there is a real danger. So instead of more taxes and global carbon trading ponzi schemes they would go to an alleged greenhouse gas polluter and say "Ok mate, you've got 5 years to upgrade your plant and equipment to the new standards and we will give you special tax breaks to get it done and tax incentives for a few years after you have met compliance. Or something like that. Until I see that then I'm keeping one eye open. Ahem. https://steemit.com/climate/@corbettreport/who-wants-to-be-a-carbon-trillionaire Eat your heart out, Al Gore. Being a carbon billionaire is so passé now that we're in the age of the $100 trillion climate swindle. So the real question is who (or at least which corporate front) will be the first carbon trillionaire? Will it be a carbon eugenics promoting Rockefeller or a global government promoting Rothschild, or a carbon divesting Saudi government, or one of the shady hedge funds that are spearheading weather derivatives and other Enron-developed financial instruments to try to cash in on the carbon fraud? Whatever the answer, one thing is for certain: you won't see this question asked (let alone answered) in the establishment gatekeeping press. Instead you will see endless iterations of the accusation that anyone who disbelieves in the woo woo pseudoscience of climate catastrophism is funded by the very Big Oil oiligarchs who stand to benefit from the debunked climate scare. Both mainstream press and pseudo-alternatives religiously trot out hit pieces from attack sites like Desmogblog to smear scientists and avoid actual scientific debate (which, for the record, the alarmists always lose). Conveniently left out of this chapter-and-verse reliance on Desmogblog is the fact that it is a PR front itself whose primary benefactor is a convicted money launderer. More to the point, they can't even research or accurately report on the most basic facts. I should know; when I started my ClimateGate.tv website with a free WordPress template and about $5/month of GoDaddy hosting they produced a laughable article claiming that the website was a tv station that was being funded by Big Oil. No, there's not time at all in the mainstream press to raise even the slightest question about the hundreds of billions that are already being pumped into the carbon scam from government and institutional investors around the world or the tens of trillions that are expected to be spent in the coming decades. Instead, all of the media coverage is focused on the other side of the issue: who funds those who critique this (demonstrably incorrect) "consesnsus" on global warming?
  14. Director

    What's on your mind?

    :) Unless you have clue, don't, I do have a license but I hesitate with lighting, the wiring is sort of irrational in my view so I call my sparkie mate who is just around the corner. I've had enough of being blown across the room by 220V :) Cheers Yeah, I actually met a sparky yesterday so I might give him a call. After some investigation I decided to just buy new batten with the LED's in them and will get a sparky to swap out the old ones. Prolly leave it till after Xmas now, apparantly every tradie in the universe goes on holidays for 2 weeks right about now.
  15. Director

    What's on your mind?

    OK cheers. And looks like the battens will need to be replaced too. They don;t seem 'to' expensive, about $40 for a batten and tube plus a sparky to come and wire it in..unless I'm feeling brave...:)
×