Comments on: Morgan: 55-45

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:32:35 +0000

Newspoll post up.

By: James J

James J — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:29:15 +0000

Newspoll 57-43

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24093309-601,00.html

By: Progressive

Progressive — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:24:00 +0000

Me, a concerned troll? You must be mistaking me with Lose The Election Please, is he still around? LOL
Grog: The Poisoned Dwarf is as predictable as ever! It’s a shame that his anti-Labor drivel gets so much prominence in the Monday News Ltd rags!

By: vera

vera — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:23:35 +0000

Coldest day for time of year here since 1963 but we’re getting some steady rain as well so I shouldn’t bitch.

By: ron

ron — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:15:26 +0000

Amigo FINNS
No end will occur mate , amigos will always ride Trying to address the nuances of world politcs & CC vs Kyoto is a deep hole The US are the ultimate selfish country , were the biggest emmitters & hav got th standard of living benefits from th CO2 up in th atmosphere PRES Bush actively supports th ‘G8 +5” GED’ and sent his reps to it & opposes Kyoto When I broughtt this subject up elswhere saying da man also suports this aproach I got howled down & my risk to Kyoto’s existense point was missed in partisan da man suport ,despite his written policy NOT mentioning at all ratyfyng Kyoto BUT specifically supporting the “G8+5” forum , in fact it also calls it th ‘GED’ Th othr POTUS candidate also supports th G8+5 ‘GED’ & opposes ratifying Kyoto as well In my view most of th blame here is th selfish US and its power hungry politcians
There ar 2 poker games happening Under Kyoto presently India & China are legaly bound by a post 2012 emmissions deal is to be negotiated Th Kyoto protocols provide for ‘less developed countries’ (those that contributed less to CO2 up there) eg India & China) to get LOWER targets post 2012 So if the US ratifies Kyoto , India & China will get emmission targets , that they probabley calculate is HIGHER than they’d prefer as they naturally want to look aftr there econamy to th maximum( but because of being ‘less developed’ there targets will be LOWER than say th EU or the US) They’d probabley wear that…reluctantly I assume
But th US does not like that Kyoto poker game , because th US says selfishly that means India & China get a competittive edge with those ‘less developed countries’ lower emmissions targets , well they woul, d but th US is being selfish on competive grounds So th bully boy US says we just will not suport ratifying Kyoto (Bush AND th 2 curent candidates) , unless India & China from day one hav the same emmssions target criteria as th US , plainly that’s unfair & th US damn well knows India & China would never agree So th US and its politicans instead like a bully supports a competing non Kyoto forum the G8 +5 , because the US emmissions targets will be lower (because there’s no scientists scenarios there to restrict them & only th US will decide Indian , China & Russia also can hav lower targets in such a forum than th ‘less developed country’ lower targets they’d get under Kyoto ALL hav an econamic insentive to get out of Kyoto , and th US an incentive not to go into Kyoto Th US has opened th door for themselves to avoid Kyoto , but th carrot is there for India China & Russia to get out of Kyoto

Summary , I believe China & India should stay in Kyoto , get the ‘less developed country’ emmissions targets dispensations & the US should ratify Kyoto and join the rest of the world under th scientists scenarios pressures , to CC is solved

By: Grog

Grog — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:12:09 +0000

I just love how Milne thinks Nelson telling him a story about some woman contitutes “evidence”.

By: ShowsOn

ShowsOn — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:06:50 +0000

Ron I refer you and otthers on this site to the technical summary ecspecially TS.6 Robust Findings and Uncertainties http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

Makes for interesting reading

There is uncertainty in all science. If you can’t handle accepting some uncertainty, then you will never be certain about anything.

Why is it that climate change denial is ultimately just another form of extremist post modernist relativism? Andrew Bolt should be lecturing about Foucault in some French cultural studies department, rather than giving hilarious interpretations of scientific data.

By: ron

ron — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:06:49 +0000

Diogenoski

yes i know its there ! it just seems alittle inequitable that a 95% chance by each & every one of of 3,700 top scientiists & a 5% chnace of not being man made because science obviously can not give 100% , allows a single scientist th 5 % argument (and Bolt it) Anyway 95% should be enough for objective

By: ruawake

ruawake — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:06:38 +0000

Was “the woman from Narellan” Pat Farmers mum?

By: Edward StJohn

Edward StJohn — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:05:29 +0000

Hey Progressive 475,

Where’s the concern troll angle in that post? You’ve disguised it cleverly.