That was never a valid point because you have no evidence to support it.

would it occur to you that 4 out of the top 7 are countires with massive deserts so therefore the ratios would be tilited against the end result??????

just like there is no conclusive evidence that smoking causes lung cancer....all report say it raises the risk.....

You know that China also has a pretty massive desert, right?well i'm not sure to be honest....but my point is when you have these calculators with such diverse parameters any result is possible and accurate, perhaps china has a big desert, but it is more than compensated by such a high population who live in high density.....just saying



So... burning fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate doesn't cause climate change, it just increases the risk of it?

I actually have no idea what you mean, mostly because you rarely make sense.

Not rubbish at all.

You seem to discuss politics only in hyperbole and personal anecdote. Everyone associated to anything slightly left or social is a self-serving, wasteful, incompetent criminal and you're quite happy to dish out the accusations and point fingers then declare anyone that ask for actual proof of your claims "blind" or simply too young to understand.

You ignore facts regularly, and use dog-whistle language pulled directly from Andrew Bolt blogs and LNP propaganda campaigns without actually understanding the context OR the facts that are incorrect within. You ignore actual expertise in favour of commentators with actual vested interests in having conservative politicians in power. When presented with these facts it all comes back to the great leftist conspiracy that is happening right in front of our noses whilst butter wouldn't melt in Tony Abbotts arsehole.

Does that make sense?

Not rubbish at all.

You seem to discuss politics only in hyperbole and personal anecdote. Everyone associated to anything slightly left or social is a self-serving, wasteful, incompetent criminal and you're quite happy to dish out the accusations and point fingers then declare anyone that ask for actual proof of your claims "blind" or simply too young to understand.

You ignore facts regularly, and use dog-whistle language pulled directly from Andrew Bolt blogs and LNP propaganda campaigns without actually understanding the context OR the facts that are incorrect within. You ignore actual expertise in favour of commentators with actual vested interests in having conservative politicians in power. When presented with these facts it all comes back to the great leftist conspiracy that is happening right in front of our noses whilst butter wouldn't melt in Tony Abbotts arsehole.

Does that make sense?

do you need pages and pages of proof telling you how bad they are and what you should do before you can make a decision or act and get the picture????????

condescending manor

Err... what do you think was over-fixed to drive the non-mining economy into recession?

Isn't this what any objective & rational voter should be needing?

By George, i think i detect both the scent of extreme resentment of those whom chose to receive a uni education and the conspicuous sound of an individual's stubborn refusal or inability to educate themselves.

it's like this report some over elaborate way of calculating pollution.....what a load of horseshit......some over educated fuckwitt making some lego block calculation while pulling his cock over how fucken smart he thinks he is......over complicating the issue...."in the country they say if it aint broke dont fix it"

And life should have shown you, if extreme stubbornness and resentment didn't get in the way, that regardless of formal education, each person or the work of that person should be judged on merit, not discounted by an all encompassing, prejudiced view.

It also should have shown you, that if one is to discount a study using scientific data because,



it displays to your listener that he or she can has no alternative but to conclude there is an extreme prejudice against educated people, an irrational stubbornness to judge a study on it's merits or perhaps the inability to understand it's substance being hidden behind a wall of childish logic and stereotyping.

When you don't subscribe to the theory, 'Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth a remove all doubt', one doesn't need to 'keep trying' to display you as a fool when he or she can just sit back a watch you regularly provide the evidence.

I enjoy your political conversation

Hey batfink, I enjoy your political conversation although I don't often agree with you, but it's a bit silly calling skeptic septic don't you think, I honestly thought you were above that sort of childish stuff.

Joffa

Edited by Joffa: 16/5/2012 01:15:47 PM

I reckon I could counter all your political arguments with only gifs.

Challenge accepted.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has found that most of the union funds spent on Craig Thomson's electoral campaign were disclosed appropriately.

Fair Work Australia's report into the Health Services Union (HSU) found the former Labor MP spent almost $270,000 in union funds in connection with his campaign.

Most of that money covered salaries for two HSU staff members who worked at least in part on the campaign.

But the AEC has found both staffers completed work that did involve HSU matters and says their salaries were included in the union's third-party expenditure returns.

It says one staffer performed some duties that could arguably have been more appropriately disclosed in another return but that it cannot reach a definite conclusion.

The AEC also found most of the other payments were disclosed.

It is, however, seeking more information about four of the payments worth $17,000 in total.

Mr Thomson has denied accusations that he used HSU money to pay escorts and to get elected to Federal Parliament.

The AEC findings come as Labor frontbencher Simon Crean hit out at the ALP's decision to preselect Mr Thomson, saying tougher questions should have been asked.

Mr Crean told Sky News this morning that Fair Work Australia's findings were disturbing.

"I think unless they're cleared, I think it would be a mistake to re-endorse him, that's for sure," Mr Crean said.

"I don't know the circumstances surrounding the last pre-selection, but it seems harder questions should have been asked.

"But both the minister and the Prime Minister acted very strongly in response to that report, as did the trade union movement."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-16/thomson-cleared-of-most-campaign-spending/4014284