It's not uncommon on Bolt's blog, together with many of the more extreme rightwing sites loose on the interweb, to read that we are doing a Robinson Crusoe when it comes to Climate Change policy.
I've blogged on this before, but that was some time ago.
This site graphically dispels the myth, and provides up to date information.
H/T Chris.
Update -
Somebody is Robinson Crusoe in this picture - (Nicked from an ALP website and digitally enhanced).
12 comments:
Abbott was referring to 'the science' behind climate change, not climate change itself.
I'm surprised you fell into the trap like so many others.
Warnings about climate change are based on scientific observations. As to what Tony meant, that changes with the audience.
He didn't fall into the trap, Cav. He dived in head first and refuses to acknowledge the possibility of being incorrect in his assumptions.
I don't make assumptions - my information comes from subscriptions to scientific journals.
"As to what Tony meant, that changes with the audience."
What journal was that again?
What journal was that again?
No journal necessary. He contradicts himself -
I am confident, based on the science we have, that mankind does make a difference to climate, almost certainly the impact of humans on the planet extends to climate.
(Source: Sydney Morning Herald - May 27, 2010)
And - At an October 2009 meeting in the Victorian town of Beaufort, Abbott said: "The climate change argument is absolute crap"
"I am confident, based on the science we have, that mankind does make a difference to climate, almost certainly the impact of humans on the planet extends to climate."
Couldn't be clearer than that. Everyone I know says that the climate is in a constant state of change, therefore the statement "The climate change argument is absolute crap" would indicate that Abbott believes any arguement about the fact of climate changing is "crap".
And the contradiction is????????
It's all about perception and how people with an agender can make it appear.
Let me spell it out for you. The "argument" is not about whether the climate changes - it's about whether the changes are influenced by human action or not.
Abbott, on the one hand, says they are (first quote) and then says they're not (second quote).
That's a contradiction.
By the way, the word is agenda ont agender.
Let me spell it out for you.....your quotes are not in cronological order if your sources are as stated.
Tony agrees on one hand that humans influence climate change (General statement I guess considering that if and when an ant farts it will be having an effect on climate change, everything does.) Tony says the argument (which he qualifies with the words "climate change", is crap. There is no arguement, climate changes (that's a fact). If we put things in order of occurrence according to your sources and accept your understanding of the quote that the argument is crap, then Tony goes from being negative to positive. That should be a plus in your blinkered view. Think about it!!!
You can't mark me on spelling. I use the phonetic method of communication taught by teachers of your generation so spelling is irrelevant. Juliar wishes she can change that around, and I agree with her on that point.
your quotes are not in cronological (sic) order if your sources are as stated.
And the order makes a difference? That's the weirdest logic I've heard in a while.
You seem to be claiming that he's had a conversion and like St Paul on the road to Damascus, has seen the light.
Fraid not - "Tony", as you call him, simply changes his story to suit his audience.
As for spelling - I think you mean "phonics".
"Phonetics" is the study and classification of speech sounds: "Phonics" is a method of teaching reading. Spelling remains relevant as a standardised means of written communication. It would only be irrelevant if you were speaking – but you’re writing.
BTW - there's a "h" in "chronological".
No, I meant phonetic as written.....didn't mean phonics.
pho·net·ic/fəˈnɛtɪk, foʊ-/ Show Spelled [fuh-net-ik, foh-] Show IPA
adjective
1. Also, pho·net·i·cal. of or pertaining to speech sounds, their production, or their transcription in written symbols.
2. corresponding to pronunciation: phonetic transcription.
3. agreeing with pronunciation: phonetic spelling.
4. concerning or involving the discrimination of nondistinctive elements of a language. In English, certain phonological features, as length and aspiration, are phonetic but not phonemic.
As I said you carnt hav a go at me spellin.
Tony didn't say "climate change is crap"
According to your source Tony said "the climate change argument is crap".....there is a different meaning to each statement....is that easier for you to comprehend?
If you say "no" you should hand back your educational qualifications.
Post a Comment