Is this the standard position of all RIGHT WING NUTTERS?

What do ya reckon SC is BJT on a winner with the moon landing was all B/S


Do you agree ?

i'm old enough to have watched it live, first job as a teen, snuck out at lunch-time to a local pub, didn't drink just watched

but what about the looney left ... can they learn a few things

can they realise that science is updating all the time

and know that a statement like "the science is settled" as in ANTI science statement

well would you believe who (i guess after after a court found him to be an alarmist political propagandist) changed his tune when the science was superceded & updated - as it always is)

yes Al G himself ... i'm impressed that he can admit he was wrong .... but the religious direction must be a sales pitch you'd reckon

i wonder if the rest of the alrmists can also

----

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate

Instead, Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message - now put out by hundreds of volunteers - to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

"I've done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up.

I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references.

It's probably my favourite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytising," Gore tells Newsweek.


but what i enjoyed most was this .................


In his conversations with Schmidt (NASA) and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought.

Carbon dioxide - while the focus of the politics of climate change - produces around 40% of the actual warming.

Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.

----------

all science is continually being updated ... thank goodness at least one alarmist is willing to understand the true nature of science

so the ETS tax & trade rort as introduced by the previous govt

and admitted by the IPCC as having almost nothing to do with the environment anymore

and also stated by the IPCC spokesperson that ....

one should free themselves from that illusion ... is

the BIGGEST RORT EVER

The biggest rort ever is giving the biggest polluters 9 billion dollars of our money in the hope they will reduce emissions.

With NO COMPULSION OR PENALTY IF THEY DON'T.


NOW That's a RORT.

Wouldn't it be great to get a speeding payment from the Gov't of say $200 a year just in the hope that i don't speed in my car for 12

mths.............. and if i do speed ....i get off and still get my 200 next year.


That will bring down the speeding on our roads.

or introduce a fake-for-the-environment co2 tax ... to STOP the country from using electricity

and then give people a bonus cheque from the govt to cover the cost increase of electricity associated with the tax

fkn numbskulls

SHAME ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT


but at least you agree that the taxation / trading of co2 is ... NOT an environmental program anymore

BIGGEST RORT EVER

Interesting that you go into a 2 year apoplectic fit over bankers getting some money or whatever you're on about...........

but it's ok for the biggest polluters who spew their bile into the atmosphere we all share .......to get this largesse.


WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY NOT AN ECONOMY.

a rant that has been borne out to be true lol


... even though your own one-eyed political left vs right nonsense rants can't see it the rort for what it is


the ipcc now admit it ... and have made public statements to that effect

international climate policy has little to do any more with the environment

one must free themselves from the illusion

an ETS will allow the richest and current miners to butn as much coal as they want

as long as they (or their customers) pay

the bankers have slipped in between and will handle the trading of the rort co2 credits for us 

BIGGEST RORT EVER

SHAME ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

but the real shame is the blindness in not seeing it


and re your party politics rants

discuss it (LOL) ... with someone who cares

cherry picker ffs

AFL
That's an 8 word slogan ...

a bit too long for Abbott to master


---

AFL
WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY NOT AN ECONOMY.

???


to quote a recent comment

...............................................  so ....


how does the use of one word over another change the fact that australia was sucked into rort that the eurpoeans are still recovering from ?

   I'm outa here  have a good one.

see ya mate

lol AFL i asked you 8 questions in 1 post.....
you didn't even have the decency to acknowledge the post

...then expect an answer from me on a completely unrelated topic to this thread not long after

AFL - pictured here when mention of ETS scammers is raised




helping along the
BIGGEST RORT EVER

PUP to introduce it's ETS into the senate next week

*planet itself

Those historical analyses mesh well with empirical results which show that people's rejection of climate science is associated with the embrace of

laissez-faire free-market economics (Heath & Giord, 2006; Kahan, 2010). There is little doubt that people's personal ideology|also often referred to as

worldview or cultural cognition|is a major predictor of the rejection of climate science

(Dunlap & McCright, 2008; Hamilton, 2011; Heath & Giord, 2006; Feygina, Jost, & Goldsmith, 2010; Kahan, 2010; Kahan,Jenkins-Smith, & Braman, 2011; McCright & Dunlap, 2011a, 2011b).

In this article we investigate predictors of the rejection of climate science and investigate whether they generalize across content domains. We define the

rejection of science as the dismissal of well-established scientific results for reasons that are not scientifically grounded

(Diethelm & McKee, 2009; Jacques, 2012; McKee & Diethelm, 2010).

2 Those reasons may comprise the psychological factors that are of interest here, but they may also include indecision arising from inaccurate or misleading

media coverage|for example, the scientific consensus on climate change is often misrepresented in the media (e.g., Boyko, 2007).

Rejection of science must be distinguished from true scepticism, which may prompt the revision of a scientific claim on the basis of evidence and reasoned

theorizing. Skepticism is not only at the core of scientic reasoning but has also been shown to improve people's discrimination between true and false

information (e.g., Lewandowsky, Stritzke, Oberauer, & Morales, 2005, 2009).

Another variable that has been associated with the rejection of science is conspiratorial thinking, or conspiracist ideation, dened here as the attempt to

explain asignificant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations
(Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009).

The presumed conspirators are typically perceived as virtually omnipotent (Bale, 2007): thus, internal documents of the tobacco industry referred to

medical research on the health eects of smoking as \a vertically integrated highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel" which in combination with \public

monopolies" . . . \manufactures alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases, and publicity and dissemination and advertising

of these so-called findings" (Abt,1983). Likewise, rejection of the link between HIV and AIDS has been publicly associated with the conspiratorial belief

that HIV was created by the U.S. Government to wipe out Black people (e.g., Bogart & Thorburn, 2005; Kalichman, Eaton, & Cherry, 2010). Rejection of climate

science has also long been infused with notions of a conspiracy among scientists. As early as 1996, accusations of corruption in the IPCC were aired in the
Wall Street Journal
(Lahsen, 1999; Oreskes & Conway, 2010). More recently, a book by a U.S. Senator referred to a \Global Warming Conspiracy" as \The Greatest Hoax"

(Inhofe,2012)

...an accoutrement of the denial of an inconvenient scientific fact, rather than re ecting an independent and potentially stable psychological variable that

is associated with therejection of science more generally.

It is known that people's propensity for conspiracist ideation is not limited to one theory in isolation. Instead, the belief that AIDS was created by the

government is likely accompanied by the conviction that the FBI killed Martin Luther King or that the Air Force is hiding evidence of extraterrestrial

visitors (Goertzel, 1994; Swami,Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2009).

In support of a general disposition towards conspiracist ideation, Douglas and Sutton (2011) showed that endorsement of conspiracy

theories was associated with people's willingness to engage in a conspiracy themselves when deemed necessary. It is therefore possible that this disposition

predicts the rejection of science independently of the scientic domain in question: if conspiracist ideation re ects a stable personality or cognitive

characteristic, then beliefs such as that NASA faked the moon landing may predict rejection of a range of scientific propositions, from HIV/AIDS to climate

change.

Another common attribute of the contemporary rejection of science is its reliance on the internet (Diethelm & McKee, 2009; McKee & Diethelm, 2010). By

definition, denial is dificult to practice in the peer-reviewed literature; for example, questioning the link between HIV and AIDS lost intellectual

respectability decades ago (Nattrass, 2010, 2011),and there are few contrarian climate publications (Anderegg et al., 2010). The internet, by contrast,

provides opportunity for individuals who reject a scientic consensus to feed\each other's feelings of persecution by a corrupt elite" (McKee & Diethelm,

2010,pp. 1310{1311).

Accordingly, climate \skeptic" blogs have become a major staging post for denial, although blogs are also used to disseminate scientific evidence by

supporters of climate science. The in uence of blogs should not be underestimated: One \skeptic" blogger (Steven McIntyre of \Climateaudit") has testified

before the U.K. Parliament

Discussion

Summary of results

Rejection of climate science was strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets. This replicates

previous work (e.g., Heath & Giord, 2006) although the strength of association found here (r':80) exceeds that reported in any extant study.

At least in part, this may re ect the use of SEM, which enables measurement of the associations between constructs free of measurement error
(Fan, 2003).

A second variable that was associated with rejection of climate science as well as other scientific propositions was conspiracist ideation.

Notably, this relationship emerged even though conspiracies that related to the queried scientific propositions (AIDS, climate change) did not

contribute to the conspiracist construct. By implication, the role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science did not simply reject

\convenience" theories that provided specific alternative \explanations" for a scientific consensus.

Instead, this finding suggests that a general propensity to endorse any of a number of conspiracy theories predisposes people to reject

entirely unrelated scientific facts.

The relative importance of those two constructs difiered between climate science and the other scientic propositions. We suggest that free-

market ideology was more important for climate science than conspiratorial thinking (=) for two reasons: First, climate science has arguably

become more politicized than other sciences (Hamilton, 2011; McCright & Dunlap, 2011a), and second, given the fundamental importance of fossil

fuels (and hence CO2 emissions) to contemporary economies, climate science presents a far greater threat to laissez-faire economics than the

medical facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. Conversely, for the same reasons but in reverse, conspiracist

ideation was relatively more important for AIDS and lung cancer (==than free-market ideology (


The third construct, the perception that previous environmental problems have been solved, turned out to predict rejection of climate science,

but not of the other sciences. We suggest that this construct re ects a predisposition to dismiss environmental concerns (or consider them

solved) that is prevalent in particular among adherents of the free market (as evidenced by the weight with free-market ideology;


Finally, we replicated the nding that perceived scientic consensus is associated with acceptance of science (Ding et al., 2011; Dunlap &

McCright, 2008; Kahan et al.,2011; Lewandowsky et al., 2012).

Although the direction of causality cannot be ascertained from these data, it has been shown that providing consensus information can

signicantly enhance people's acceptance of climate science (Lewandowsky et al., 2012)

Sure is.....