Carbon tax: Dullard puppet fisted by the Bob and the Greens

[skippy.]

Its nice to see Pastafarian showing mellie up for the retarded fuckwit that she is.

[Sappho]

You still seem to be equating this with climate change? How does someone who has spent a life time in astronomy and astrophysics all of a sudden dedicate an entire life to the church of climatology?

What part of astrophysics (her backgropund is in gravitational lensing) have to do with climate change. I find it disturbing that she resigned. But to say this is a climate change issue exclusively is objectively misportraying the information.


Yes ebing left out of the climate change area was obviously part of it, it wasn't the entire thing.

Since you have no PHD's in English, Philosophy, Education or Journalism... you too have no authority to speak about any matters, least of all scientific credentials. And whilst I appreciate that you can speak, read, write, think and opine in English, you have no relevant PHD to back this up, in the same way that the astrophysicist can read, write and opine on science, but lacks the PHD in climate studies to validate his considerations.

[Pastafarian]

Since you have no PHD's in English, Philosophy, Education or Journalism... you too have no authority to speak about any matters, least of all scientific credentials. And whilst I appreciate that you can speak, read, write, think and opine in English, you have no relevant PHD to back this up, in the same way that the astrophysicist can read, write and opine on science, but lacks the PHD in climate studies to validate his considerations.

I'm confused are you having a dig at me or mellie?

[Pastafarian]

Have you seen the list of people Rudd took to Copenhagen?

I think there was a toenailologist in there somewhere, and someone who read tea leaves even, didn't the ministers take their wives or mistresses?

You are missing the point entirely, the point being, ....

Naaaa, forget it, it's beyond your scope of reason and logic, at first I thought you were being impertinent.

My apologies~

I.e. I don't have a point, so I'll pretend as though my point has been missed?

[mellie]

In response to the question by Liberal senator David Bushby, "Have you given any personal direct briefings (to then prime minister Kevin Rudd)", she replied, "One".

In contrast, as of last month, every British government department, aside from Treasury, has its own science adviser, in addition to Britain's chief scientific adviser, John Beddington. All contribute to policy discussion.

In the US, John Holdren heads the Office of Science and Technology Policy. He regularly briefs President Barack Obama.

Suggestions Professor Sackett quit her $300,000 a-year job two years early because of poor resourcing of the office are unlikely. The office confirmed its 2009-10 budget was $2.3 million, and Professor Sackett stated at the October Senate estimates hearing that it was staffed by about 15 people, about half of whom had scientific training.

Professor Sackett's former colleague at the Australian National University and Mount Stromlo Observatory, astrophysicist Brian Schmidt, said "she has always strongly supported a key role for science in setting government policy".

He noted when Professor Sackett was appointed as the first full-time Chief Scientist for Australia in September 2008, she made that clear. "Scientists can and should engage with government to inform national policy while effectively communicating with the people of Australia about the scientific issues that affect their lives," she said, adding that "the chief scientist must be a strong and continuous advocate of evidence-based decision-making".

Professor Schmidt agreed.

"I'm hoping we can use this as an opportunity to rethink the way we as a society incorporate science into government policy," he said. "We can look at how other countries approach this issue and learn and improve."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6009693251

[mellie]

Have you seen the list of people Rudd took to Copenhagen?

I think there was a toenailologist in there somewhere, and someone who read tea leaves even, didn't the ministers take their wives or mistresses?

You are missing the point entirely, the point being, ....

Naaaa, forget it, it's beyond your scope of reason and logic, at first I thought you were being impertinent.

My apologies~

I.e. I don't have a point, so I'll pretend as though my point has been missed?

The point is, why have a car if you have no intentions of driving it?

Or as someone else pointed out, is in fact a space shuttle.

Perhaps Julia Gillard should outline, clarify the duties of a "Chief Scientist for Australia", yes?

[Pastafarian]

Have you seen the list of people Rudd took to Copenhagen?

I think there was a toenailologist in there somewhere, and someone who read tea leaves even, didn't the ministers take their wives or mistresses?

You are missing the point entirely, the point being, ....

Naaaa, forget it, it's beyond your scope of reason and logic, at first I thought you were being impertinent.

My apologies~

I.e. I don't have a point, so I'll pretend as though my point has been missed?

The point is, why have a car if you have no intentions of driving it?

Or as someone else pointed out, is in fact a space shuttle.

Perhaps Julia Gillard should outline, clarify the duties of a "Chief Scientist for Australia", yes?

Perhaps, but a hell of a lot of the Chief Scientists duties have nothing to do with briefing the PM. In the past the position was only part time.

It will have to wait til I get home (my work comps sound is out) but I note this on the Chief Scientists website

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/0 ... -straight/

The Chief Scientist’s statements at a Senate Estimates hearing on the 23rd February have been the subject of media interest and frequently misquoted. Listen to the entirety of Professor Sackett’s remarks precisely as they were delivered.

[Sappho]

Since you have no PHD's in English, Philosophy, Education or Journalism... you too have no authority to speak about any matters, least of all scientific credentials. And whilst I appreciate that you can speak, read, write, think and opine in English, you have no relevant PHD to back this up, in the same way that the astrophysicist can read, write and opine on science, but lacks the PHD in climate studies to validate his considerations.

I'm confused are you having a dig at me or mellie?

Can't stand Mellie... but nor can I tolerate those who would question the scientific ability of a first class scientist to analysis science not necessarily in their field.... It's like saying that a person who speaks English cannot comment on the language because they have no tertiary studies in that language. Have you noticed that this fallacy you speak of only goes in one direction, so that, an astrophysicists or biologists who supports global warming, will be given editorial licence to express that support, because they speak and think in scientific lingo.

If you want to disagree, disagree with the points made by the scientist and not the qualification of the scientist.

[Pastafarian]

Can't stand Mellie... but nor can I tolerate those who would question the scientific ability of a first class scientist to analysis science not necessarily in their field.... It's like saying that a person who speaks English cannot comment on the language because they have no tertiary studies in that language. Have you noticed that this fallacy you speak of only goes in one direction, so that, an astrophysicists or biologists who supports global warming, will be given editorial licence to express that support, because they speak and think in scientific lingo.

If you want to disagree, disagree with the points made by the scientist and not the qualification of the scientist.

I wasn't questioning her ability to do so, I was suggesting that because its not her chosen field, that she is more than likely going to have advisers who are specialists in that field. It's a case of being clever enough to know what you don't fully know.

[mellie]

This government is top heavy, Labor are notorious for cock-stroking, extending political advantage to those not really qualified to make or oversea government policy , like they chaired their 'School funding review panel" with coca-colas CEO.

See, in this blur of frenetic clunky bureaucracy, and too many people with their own vested interests having too much to say when it comes to this Clayton governments decision making process, it's just a fucking big mess whereby nothings getting done, and moneys being senselessly wasted, our economy being held together with glue and sticky-tape. We are living hand to mouth under this minority government without a mandate to govern, and investors are cringing.

This minority government hasn't worked any more or less efficiently than Rudds majority government that did have a mandate, so as much as Gillard Labor tries to excuse itself with the limitations of a rainbow government, really, it's a lost cause, and was well before the Greens arrived, they just picked the carcass, and still are.

Too many cooks spoil the broth, and you don't need a Ph.D in political sciences to realise this government is broke.

Then to balance the budget rather than function as a confident assertive CAPABLE government should, they propose it's little and big mission impossible taxes, one after the other they know fine well will only be impeded by it's own dysfunctional bureaucratic process anyway, (like the flood levy at present)... public money forever swirling around and around dwindling away in Labors illusive technocratic vortex.

For every day Labor spend in government, Liberal will have to remain in for a week, just to clean up their mess, before we can even think about recovery, much less restoring a surplus.


This carbon tax is unconstitutional, it's as simple as that.