Steve, you have tried to push the line that "scientists mislead us"...
Your problem is that you've tried to use Tim Flannery as an example of that....and you've failed miserably...
you've been sucked in by those with an agenda similar to yours
and what is my agenda.
....you've wanted to hear from someone that "scientists mislead us" and you've jumped at the first 'evidence' of this, even though it's all lies...
No I went to a common and well known climate alarmist that just about everyone agrees used his position to misrepresent the truth about what man made pollution was doing in Australia. Man made pollution was not causing the dams to go dry alone. Man made pollution was not causing the sea to rise a meter or meters and flood waterfront property like he had made out and happening in the near future like he implied.
He didnt tell all the facts and gave the wrong impression so that it gave the labor government more support for their carbon tax. He was a paid employee of labor getting $3,000 for a part time job of 3 days a week. See I can admit that flannery has done a lot of good even on the climate change front but it gives him nor others any excuse to misrepresent the truth with the way he see things because he is over zealous or has some other agenda.
One more time...
Flannery has NEVER made comments about people in Western Sydney going mad with the heat and committing crime...liars like Bolt would like the gullible like you to associate him with the comments of others...
Who made the comments that the west of Sydney would suffer from a terrible heat waves that would affect their mental health and make them violent then. Was it the climate commission or professor Hughes.
Flannery did NOT make the comment that our dams would NEVER fill again....again, that exaggeration was added by the deniers....to catch people like you...
No thats an exaggeration made by you. I have said that I or no one else had said this. The actual statement was that even if we get enough rain fall it isn't going to fill our dams and rivers. You have added the never fill dams again which shows how you yourself take this debate to the extreme end. I am not making out that flannery and science are totally misrepresenting things here as I have said a few times now. I am saying that some do and flannery is one of them. I can get you plenty more if you wish. Thats the point it happens with some because thats human nature but you dont even want to admit that scientist suffer from the usual human weaknesses of doing stuff like that. To you scientists are Gods who never make those mistakes.
Flannery was speaking about a SPECIFIC location and a SPECIFIC time, when run off rates had been reduced by, from memory, 60% of the normal rate. His statement was that, if that situation persisted, that the water falling would not be able to fill the dams, at that time...!
No this is you again adding things in. The statement is made from his own words in an interview that was copied word for word. He doesn't say a specific place. He says, quote " Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation."
So its not a specific area its in some areas more than one area and this is where he is being obscure which is misleading in itself because it leaves the impression is it here or there are everywhere. But it more or less implies everywhere because he doesn't make it specific and just leaves it hanging. He goes onto say this translates to 60% reduction in runoffs to dams and rivers. But remember we are in drought when he is saying this so it has a lot more impact. He says the soil is warmer so it takes more rain to fill the dams and rivers. Ah that is what happens in a drought. But the real cruncher is when he says even if it rains there wont be enough water to fill our dams and river systems. What systems is that all the systems or some of the systems. Thats the point he gives the impression that its widespread and doesn't specify which is another way of saying its everywhere. Anyway that doesn't matter because where ever it was we got rain that filled the dams to over flowing and the rivers filled and flooded and we got water flowing in places that havnt had water for years. The rain has kept coming to most places and we will continue to have droughts and flooding plains.
I'm not denying that there is a problem with climate change, the issue is that Flannery is not admitting that part of or even most of the so changes he is trying to make out is climate change and global warming is natural occurring situations that have been happening for thousands of years. He made out it was caused by man made global warming only and on behalf of the government. The government brought him in and appointed him. He brought out the results of his commission only a few weeks before the carbon tax was to be introduced and the public didn't buy it. So it was a way of buttering us up. But it didn't work and he and the labor government was booted out.
You have seen what you wanted to see Steve.....you are convinced that "scientists mislead us" and have eagerly gobbled up the muck served up to you by those with a dishonest agenda....
No thats what you keep saying. I have told you how I see things and that I dont have any agendas. Now you have to make out I do because you have nothing else. I have said that I can see both sides and can admit that both sides will do the same. You just cant admit that people representing science will ever be guilty of misrepresenting the truth because now you've turned it into some sort of win and lose situation and you cant admit defeat now.
No...I didn't think there's be an apology....honest people tend to make those....
I am honest and I dont need to make any apology because i can handle the truth.
You see thats where your being dishonest and distorting things to avoid the original point I was making. You side tracked the point by focusing on a particular aspect and not acknowledging the fact that people do use science to distort the truth. That is the original point I was making remember. You have muddled it up with so much irrelevant stuff that I dont think you know what is what. I could find many examples of science getting it wrong with their predictions and pushing a p[articular agenda or promoting something that science itself shows is wrong. The fact that two scientists can disagree on the same subject shows I am right.
I'll ask one more time and by the fact that you keep avoiding to answer shows that you dont want to face the truth. Do people use science to promote their personal agendas. Do they twist or misrepresent science to push their personal point of view. Do scientist sometimes do the same. Remember my point wasn't all science and I specifically pointed that out by saying the majority of scientists are fine. But for some reason you take things to an extreme and it becomes all scientist are doing it as you have mistakenly said a number of times. This shows that you are making it an us and them thing and turning it into sides. Its nothing like that. This is merely a debate about degrees. Some do it on both sides. Its not all black and white. You are not looking at any of the middle ground. That is people are human and they can have a tendency to do these things on both sides. Admitting they do doesn't mean someone are loses and someone wins. It just means you acknowledge the human weaknesses we all have. It just makes you a realist.
