Monday 23rd of October 2017

more bullshit from turdy... when it rains it pours... especially in company of nigel lawson...

turdy bullshit....

Amazing. Tony Abbott has to know that what he is saying is complete bullshit... Really. Unless he is a complete idiot and the people of Warringah who vote for him year after years are all morons, idiots, loonies, psychos and imbeciles... Bring your umbrella... When it rains bullshit it's not pretty...

DANGEROUS bullshit...


Tony Abbott says climate change action is like trying to 'appease the volcano gods'

read more:

global warming is real, fast and anthropogenic...


While our turdy Abbott bullshits in England, in front of a denialist outfit let's recall the reality: (sarcastic)


and plenty more on this site... And please don't forget that should YOU start to feel the impact of global warming, WE WOULD ALL BE COOKED WITHIN FIVE YEARS. Present global warming is super fast on a geological timeframe but in human life terms, the real nasty effects will start by 2032. Beyond this we will be in trouble. Planning to minimise our emissions of CO2 now HAS TO BE A PRIORITY! TONY ABBOTT IS A DANGEROUS IDIOT...


Turdball's tinkering promise of lowering the "cost of electricity" instead of getting it from the renewable source thereof is a fully despicable dishonest tactic to fool people. He is today declared an official member of the Turdy tribe.


a sad turd walks the strange path to delusion...



It would be tempting to laugh at Tony Abbott’s feelings about how carbon dioxide is secretly good for humanity, and his insights into the goat sacrificing habits of primitives subduing volcano gods – except it isn’t that funny.

The London outing is more strange and sad, and the strangeness and the sadness manifests itself on multiple fronts.

Let’s start with strange.

The bloke who hobnobbed with the climate sceptics at Global Warming Policy Foundation is the same bloke who took a decision as prime minister to sign Australia up to the Paris international climate agreement.


He’s also the same bloke who produced a set of initiatives in government which was badged as a policy to incentivise emissions reductions.

That policy still exists and it’s called Direct Action.

He’s also the same bloke who kept Australia’s renewable energy target, while abolishing the mechanism designed to give the market certainty to make future investments in baseload power generation.

Abbott has a whole lot of feelings, and some loyal media megaphones to help him spread his singular insights, but these are basic facts he can’t escape.

Abbott’s record in government points to him being a “warmist” (as Andrew Bolt is fond of characterising the modest band of weirdos who don’t think they know better than the world’s most eminent climate scientists).

London’s hardcore climate sceptics, frankly, should have laughed him out of the room.

Now let’s get to sad. Abbott’s climate frolic isn’t about a substantive issue. It’s about politics, because Australians haven’t had quite enough of politics, right?

Abbott wants to cause a ruckus. He wants to make enough ruckus to constrain Malcolm Turnbull from producing a sensible energy policy.

The lightbulb moment he’s trying to manufacture for colleagues is simple: the Abbott rationale is we can win the next election like I won the election in 2013 – by belting Labor on climate and energy policy.

The country, the national interest, actually needs the major parties to come to terms and settle the climate wars which have generated the current problems we are all experiencing in the energy market, and settle them in sensible fashion.

But politicians behind in the polls like to win elections.

Put simply, Abbott’s pitch is an appeal to baser instincts – a pitch that prolonged polarisation serves the Coalition’s immediate interests.

The former prime minister has also positioned himself in the public domain as a critical player in Turnbull’s ultimate settlement of energy policy, when the truth is all the heavy lifting on the new policy is happening completely outside Abbott’s orbit.

The actual decision makers in the government are heads down bums up on the new investment framework, swerving around the many obstacles, trying to land something vaguely credible, which doesn’t blow up the Coalition.

That’s the objective. Whether the government can produce something credible, given one of the core objectives has to be not blowing up the Coalition, is at this point seriously moot.

Meanwhile, Abbott’s persistent wrecking tactics allow Labor to claim with a veneer of truth and credibility that the former prime minister is driving the government’s energy policy rather than Turnbull – elevating his status from fringe agitprop activist to centre-stage.

In politics that sort of caper is called frontrunning, but I struggle for a word to adequately characterise that behaviour.

Perhaps we can just keep it nice, and say cynical?

read more:



No Katharine... Cynical is too nice a word. Abbott has gone apeshit, loony and mad. He is demented and DANGEROUS. He is a psychopath. And the more frightening thing is that Turdy Abbott is not the only one in the Australian parliament who is completely loony...


the other turdy does damage...

Turdy Turnbull is actually worse than Turdy Abbott. Turdy Turnbull talks as if he still believed in the science of global warming but acts contrarily to what he says. It's a trick. It's a con. He has joined the rank of the denialists with a twisted mind about cheaper electricity rather than saving the planet. He could not care less. The dark blood of ugly capitalism flows through his veins. This is where we're at:


We should read "Coalition accept the scientific evidence on energy (and the rest)"...


a turdy ignorant self-contradicting coward...

Tony Abbott titled his London speech on climate change “Daring to Doubt” – a challenge, if you will, to reject mountains of evidence and instead lick your fingers and shove them into the plug socket of denial.

Go on, I dare you.

Throughout his speech, the former Australian prime minister urged listeners to think that dismissing decades of research backed by the world’s leading scientific institutions required bravery and fortitude, rather than other less celebrated human attributes.

But what would constitute bravery for a conservative politician like Abbott? Changing your mind when the evidence tells you you’re dead wrong, or saying what you’ve always said, using the logical fallacies that you’ve always used? One step is brave, the other is cowardly.

Abbott was giving the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s annual lecture – an “honour” previously bestowed on his spiritual and political mentors John Howard andCardinal George Pell.

Nobody should be surprised that what we got was an absolute crap speech from a man who confessed he still thinks climate science is “absolute crap”.

Abbott went for the whole canon of tired climate science denial talking points – carbon dioxide is just food for plants, the climate has always changed, it’s the sun – in what constituted a warmed-up meal of misinformation with a side order of supercilious gravy.

Several leading Australian climate scientists have hit back. How tired they must get of debunking this stuff.

Abbott’s speech was also chock-full of internal contradictions.

He suggested a conspiracy to tamper with temperature readings, but admitted the globe was warming. He described carbon dioxide as a “trace gas” and dismissed its role in warming, but elsewhere thought warming (which might not be happening) would be good. And the “trace gas” is insignificant, but not when it comes to its ability to “green the planet” and help plants grow.

Professor Steve Sherwood, deputy director of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, read the speech and said it was “the usual mix of misdirection, falsehoods and tirades against ‘brigades’ who supposedly say this and that but are never clearly identified”.

read more:


read from top...

his turdiness pissweak malcolm...

A former Liberal leader has urged Malcolm Turnbull to defy Tony Abbott in the party room over climate and energy policy, saying that by "drawing a line in the sand" he could deliver better policy and save his prime ministership.

In a searing assessment of the Coalition's chances of recovery, John Hewson told Fairfax Media that Mr Turnbull looked weak for failing to assert his past commitments on climate change, tax policy and marriage equality, and for refusing to call out Mr Abbott despite the growing absurdity of his arguments.

Dr Hewson cited Mr Abbott's claim this week that global warming could be good for the world saying the statement had laid bare the former prime minister's role as a wrecker while further isolating him from mainstream Australian voters.

He said Mr Abbott had adopted every position on climate change from "it being a significant issue to being crap".

"In those circumstances, I'd call him out," he said.

But he said while Mr Turnbull failed to implement a proper policy that drove new energy investment it would be Mr Abbott's attention-grabbing statements from the conservative right that would define the government to voters.


"It's a bit ironic but they [voters] elect governments to take the hard decisions and when you don't take them you look really weak," he said.

But a senior minister defended the Prime Minister's restrained handling of the Abbott-led climate insurgency, saying the policy, which is expected to go before cabinet within days or weeks, would aim to deliver reliability, affordability and to achieve emissions reductions consistent with Australia's Paris commitment as a by-product.

read more:



Bullshit from the pissweak turdy Malcolm' s senior minister presenting a "restrained blah blah blah", ... with "as a by-product?"... That smoke of sulphur Turdy Tony bullshit from smouldering rubbery lies and fat porkies burning is filling the cabinet room...

the turd in turdy's head is not a fertiliser...


It was well that Tony Abbott gave his climate change denying speech this week in London, because his thinking betrays a bizarre Euro-centric conservative outlook that constantly ignores multiple studies that show Australia’s economy will suffer greatly from climate change.

His speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation was a typical Abbott speech: a greatest hits of climate change denying canards that collapsed under its own lack of internal logic.

It was redolent of the shallow conservative thinking that unfortunately dominates far too much Australian commentary – especially when it comes to climate change.

They think climate change is a myth but it doesn’t matter because global warming will be good because, as Abbott put it, “far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves”.

Read more:

scriptures study lesson...


It is therefore not surprising to discover that the former prime minister’s recent speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation displayed a similar juxtaposition of the Bible and an endorsement of the west. On this occasion, however, there was an added concern: the alleged advance of a new religion.

"Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the west. Still, only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” and charged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it."

The logic seems to go like this. Climate change is replacing Christianity as the west’s religion. But if we’d just stick to the Bible we would realise that climate change isn’t a problem. After all, the Bible teaches that we are to “subdue the earth”. In other words, climate change is actually part of the divinely-mandated human vocation.

It is regrettably true that the teaching about “subduing the earth” (found in Genesis 1:28) has been used as an ideological tool to justify exploitative and destructive attitudes towards the earth. But even a cursory engagement with the critical discussion of this verse will quickly reveal that this use and English translation of the text are themselves in some tension with its use in Genesis 1.

The text preceded the industrialised world by at least a couple of thousand years and was pitched at an agrarian society. Even if we take the resonances of the English word “subdue” at face value, it would have meant something quite different in that earlier context. To invoke it to justify the climate change produced since the industrial revolution is a straightforward category mistake.

But, and this is the crucial point, we shouldn’t take the English translation at face value in any case. We need to engage the meaning of the original Hebrew word: kabash.

All exercises in translation are complex, and, yes, there are some problematic dimensions to this word where it surfaces in other parts of the Bible. But in Genesis it’s connected to the divine declaration of creation’s goodness. In this first chapter of the Bible kabash can suggest the idea of “development”, argues Old Testament scholar Terence Fretheim. “This process offers to the human being the task of intra-creational development, of bringing the world along to its fullest possible creational potential.”

When the original readers of this text read it they would not have heard a cavalier “change the climate at your convenience”. Instead, they are more likely to have heard something like, “make something good of this earth”.

read more:


I don't care what god said 2,000 years ago or 4,000 years ago. What is written in the Tanakh is simplistic and in ignorance of greater relationships in nature, which were unknown at the time, despite the plagues of frogs. There is no wisdom in the scriptures. Our life has nothing to do with the godly hour.

The planet is a small cosmic drop in the vast universe. It is imbued by chance with particular relationships of environment, evolution and changes of which we are part of. Understanding these processes is in our survival interest. Ignorance at this level is not bliss and telling fairy stories as truths is not going to help us. We need to take a deep breath and cross this somewhat difficult step for many people — the abandonment of faith in favour of greater knowledge of processes through science, including our relationships with our self, others and the planet itself, while maintaining an artful romance of whom we could be without loosing the sight of whom we are.

Global warming is a simple part of these processes. The relationship between surface temperature and carbon dioxide is an important one and we can twist our understanding of this relationship whichever way we can in order to salvage our industrial burning of fossil fuels, the result is incremental rise of temperatures that are calculable — and eventually will be destructive.

This is the way some atoms and molecules acts and reacts in relation to electromagnetic wavelengths.

We could wish differently but this is not going to change the processes that have been studied by Galileo, Planck, Einstein, Bohr and the countless persons of precise scientific observation and applied deductions which make your mobile (cell) phone work — or give your MRI and the atom bomb. It's the only proper understanding.

Global warming through producing EXTRA CO2 by our burning of fossil fuel is our slow-release atomic bomb. The emissions of CO2 released since the human industrial revolution in the atmosphere have basically added 25 per cent more potential energy into the atmosphere, above the natural settings for the last million years. At this level, there are delays between cause and effect, but the effects are coming, NO MATTER WHAT. 

Present global warming is real and — unfortunately as much as we hate to admit it — is anthropogenic. The tragedy is that people like Tony Abbott are engrossed in devious deceit in order to ... Well I have no clue why people like these are doing their scientific denialism. Protecting the "word of god"? I don't think so. It seems people like Tony who talk about biblical stuff have no clue about the biblical stuff. Protecting a deadly industrious setting of capitalism? Possibly. But why? What do they get out of this denial? The satisfaction of being ignorant and powerful through political machinations? We might have to ask these idiots, away from their faith into the folly of godly instructions written by old men who died long ago — and saw nothing else but their own misery. 

Actually, I know why people like Abbott are acting as they do. Without contrariantly shitting in someone else's garden, especially reality, they would not have any purpose in life. They would be lost in the emptiness of their own mind. Talking shit with brilliance defines whom they are are, without having to do the hard work of knowing something properly.

We have the opportunity to reduce our future CO2 emissions to nil. This has to be the goal without creating more potential havoc such as having to deal with nuclear waste. So how do we go about it? The planet has its own potential energy continuum with electromagnetic wave bombardment from the sun. This can be captured by solar panels, solar heaters and the likes*. The atmosphere has currents and eddies and we have become very efficient at capturing the energy of the wind since the windmill of the Dutch landscapes...

We have been able to apply the science of the atoms into storing electrical energies and are getting better at it. So in order to get our comfort energy level at this point in time we could reduce our CO2 emission close to nil. Should we plant "a few" trees and stop deforestation in favour of belching cows or of insecticide-laden cotton fields, we even might be able to go into carbon emission reversal.

What's stopping us? The RELIGION OF BURNING COAL because it's "tradition" since... 1750? or since 1698, when Thomas Savery, an engineer and inventor, patented a machine that could effectively draw water from flooded mines using steam pressure? 

Time to let go. Everyday we burn carbon, everyday we add potential devastating change in the atmospheric conditions. And this is the reality.


Read from top.

* Variant to photosynthesis, a new technique in development uses the sunlight to excite atoms in certain potentially charged substances, above and beyond the energy supplied by the sun. The depletion of electron in these substances are replaced by addition of different substances that eventually can electronically slowly (naturally) "recharge" independently of being "online" — via ambient electromagnetic waves...