Australia's on fire again


Recommended Posts

No, you have read in a newspaper that figure of 97%.

Now you have to factor in what the editor of that newspaper wants people to believe. All newspapers have an agenda and can bend things to suit their own ends.

Remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Lies you can sometimes see through, statistics can be bent anyway the users wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Same problem down here in Victoria, bazza (#2). The burn-offs are either restricted or the smokies are too frightened to do preventative burn-offs due to a few getting out of control and leaving the

Forest fires are a natural feature in Oz and have always happened, either caused by man or by dry lightning strikes..I recall country fire departments dreaded lightning storms during summer, so climat

These people are cranks?????? You have got to be joking surely?? A hint of what the upcoming report contains: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for

Bilboro-lad, if you really believe that the papers tell the truth, that would explain why you believe that the perfectly normal climate change that is occurring now, ie a slight cooling for the last 15 years. is caused by man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Papers write the truth how very naïve.

If you believe that you will believe anything my old mate.

Papers write what they think will sell papers and if that means bending things to suit their readership then so be it.

The Guardian will always have a left wing bias and The Sun will always have a right wing bias Fact.

My problem is I cannot think of a single newspaper that is not biased one way or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If editors allowed the truth to be printed, their career in journalism would be finished, reporters file stories, editors follow owners guidelines as what to print, break those guidelines, and they are gone and blacklisted..

As far back as the 1930's? Not sure of the date now, but it's searchable, one top journalist of the day stated at a meeting, if "we dare print the truth, our careers would be over" Or words to that effect...I'll try and locate the author, date and meeting later when I have time....

In the late 1970's I was going to bend the nose of a reporter who's paper had printed a story of a strike we were on at CPL's Boulby Mine. The story "quoted" our shop steward, our shop steward had NOT EVEN BEEN interviewed by the media, let alon made any statements to the media, he'd been in closed meetings all day with management..

So much for media truths...

Haven't bought a newspaper in years, nor do I read them, same applies to TV news media...ALL bunkum, lies or distorted truths to suit the ruling classes...... And BS for the masses to soak up...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the conspiracy theorists are back. Why does anyone watch or read the news if it's all rigged? Come on guys, tell me why you do it. Tell me how you keep up to date with current affairs. If you don't believe anything - why do you believe in denying climate change? Where does your info come from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading books does not make one an expert.......if it did I would be an expert in most subjects on the earth.

Intelligent people read all about it and draw their own conclusions as everyone on here has done. Just that we don't have to all agree.

You have your opinion others have theirs. You should respect their opinion and not try to brow beat them into accepting yours and vice-versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying then that 97% of climate scientists cannot make up their own minds and arrive at the answer that YOU insist that they should therefore they are in league with the 'establishment' to make money from phony climate change. Err - forgive me if I slip you quietly into the basket of conspiracy theorists. Sorry about that, but you give me no alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all comes down to a pattern of irrational thought. You have chosen a set belief without evidence and then set out to prove yourself correct.

However, the secret is in the word 'irrational'.

Basically what it means is that you've brain-washed yourself into a belief pattern that you can no-longer control.

Any 'facts' that come to light that are against your beliefs will be investigated with suspicion and dismissed as falsehood or an attempt to hoodwink the unwary.

That's how conspiracy theories work.

If I say that 97% of climate scientists say that climate change is man made - you'll instantly say "Ah yes but if they want a research grant they have to be pro-climate change." That's irrational thought but because you have programmed your brain in a set way you cannot see it.

Without meaning to be rude, you have simply deluded yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old words; you don't have a very large vocabulary do you? Back to that poor education.

Now, because your daughter is studying a certain subject, it makes you a master of that too?

Delusions of grandeur come quickly to mind.

There, I've corrected it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How well you describe yourself and your way of thinking.

Totally one sided no rationale to your train of thought if you can muster a train of thought that is.

Your non arguments sound more like an emergency siren Whee Whaa, Whee Whaa. on and on. Like I said same old words mostly meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I will ask, where do you get 97% figure from?????? The fairly recent climate change meeting in Poland, well over that figure endorsed climate change is quite normal and that the average world temperature was actually dropping and was stable for ten or more years, much to the embarrassment of the United Nations who called for the meeting..

They also unanimously agreed the UN should cease funding of "man made climate change investigations...

Link to post
Share on other sites

How well you describe yourself and your way of thinking.

Totally one sided no rationale to your train of thought if you can muster a train of thought that is.

Your non arguments sound more like an emergency siren Whee Whaa, Whee Whaa. on and on. Like I said same old words mostly meaningless.

And there we have it. A perfect example of irrational thought leading to a conspiratorial explanation. At one moment in time you had a 'Eureka moment' when all became clear to you. When was that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as you keep stating NASA this and NASA that, are you aware NASA now contradicts your "97%" over so called man made global warming, ie CO2 emissions have caused "global warming"??? Don't believe me??? Then go here to NASA's own site..

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as you keep stating NASA this and NASA that, are you aware NASA now contradicts your "97%" over so called man made global warming, ie CO2 emissions have caused "global warming"??? Don't believe me??? Then go here to NASA's own site..

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Let me know when the 97% becomes 45% will you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I don't watch or read the "Lame Stream" media, you'll have to post links to it..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your figures not mine, you can halve it with a few key strokes, as of yet you haven't quoted any sources for your figures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...