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

[mellie]

Mr Speaker, why is it that Professor Penny D Sacketts resignation as Chief Scientist for Australia on the 18th of February 2011 for controversial government related reasons relating to climate change hasn't captured the essence of our media's corporate driven Carbon-Tax frenzy?


http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/0 ... scientist/

[mellie]

Why is it that Gillard only calls people on their "statements" she feels she can advantage from?

Believe you me, if this chief scientist had not made this statement, and Gillard herself thought she could have the openly climate sceptic senators comment repealed, make him look like a liar, idiot (((this and attract positive media attention to her desperate blight in the process ))) she would have been all over it like Ricky Nixon at a high school formal.

No further questions Mr Speaker.

[Pastafarian]

I'm enjoying see the breakdown in someones mind.

[mellie]

I'm enjoying see the breakdown in someones mind.

That's your best response to the untimely and controversial resignation of Australia's chief scientist and climate change advisor?



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 146756.htm


Hmm, interesting.

Shock, sudden realisation effects people differently I guess.

[Pastafarian]

Hmm, interesting.

Shock, sudden realisation effects people differently I guess.

I'm guessing that its only shock to people who want to think of it as a shock. They'll find another one, people will move on. Bigger issues to face.

[mellie]

Australia's recently resigned and Labor shunned chief scientist tells the truth.


No wonder Gillard did a body swap, and didn't wish to meet with her or cart her along to Copenhagen, she wouldn't lie for the ALP.

See, Australia's recently resigned chief scientists research findings concluded that the planet had not warmed in the past 15 years.

Senator Fielding, one of seven cross-bench senators, has written to his upper house colleagues telling them that Australia's chief scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, had accepted the validity of data which showed the world had not warmed in the past 15 years.

But the senator's office had earlier sent out a media release wrongly naming Australian National University climate expert Will Steffen as the nation's chief scientist.

No wonder Gillard wanted this to slip under the radar.... wonderful timing isn't it.


Night all.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/836 ... to-al-gore
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 146756.htm

Hello Mellie,

If this is true, then it is extremely disturbing no matter which side of the debate you're on. However neither of those links you gave provides the quote that you gave about Fielding writing to other senators.

So it was extremely disturbing when you thought I couldn't provide a source to the above quoted text, but is now suddenly the breakdown of someone's mind when you realised I had, and that you, in typical warmer mode, only read the paragraphs you wanted to believe ?

Senator Fielding, one of seven cross-bench senators, has written to his upper house colleagues telling them that Australia's chief scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, had accepted the validity of data which showed the world had not warmed in the past 15 years.

But the senator's office had earlier sent out a media release wrongly naming Australian National University climate expert Will Steffen as the nation's chief scientist.

You don't like being proven wrong do you, is that you freeloader?

You have that same surly, sore loser demeanour about you this and get really narky when people correct you.

[Pastafarian]

So it was extremely disturbing when you thought I couldn't provide a source to the above quoted text, but is now suddenly the breakdown of someone's mind when you realised I had, and that you, in typical warmer mode, only read the paragraphs you wanted to believe ?


You have that same surly, sore loser demeanour about you this and get really narky when people correct you.

Actually the breakdown of mind statement was in reference to the no more questions Mr Speaker comment. Plus how can we believe anything Fielding says given that as you've shown, his office didn't know who the hell the chief scientist actually was.

[mellie]

Look, if you aren't prepared to objectively break down the information people provide, this and have only come here to abuse people personally, like the half bakes you entrusted with the moderation of your site, then it might be best you lurk with your own kind in future?

You don't handle constructive criticism too well do you.

Go lick your wounds with Skip, ... and just know, you aren't alone, there are plenty of people who got sucked into it, this and fell hard for the church of climatology, even dedicated their lives to it, (like our scientist here) however, it's the ones who know it's garbage, this and continue trying to convince others for selfish reasons (usually greed) that really get my back up...like Gillard for instance, who never even met Australia's chief scientist, even after this scientist made it clear she was on the verge of resigning over her feeling disillusioned about her appointment.

Remember, tax-payers funded this scientist, for what?

A convincing campaign stage prop?

Because this scientist is now wondering the same thing herself given its clear, they weren't really interested in her input.

Gillard probably assumed that like those she's used to dealing with in her party, the scientist would just curl up and quietly suckle on the tax-funded public teat, this and wouldn't feel insulted getting paid to do nothing, would shut up and enjoy the title and salary.

How insulting, honestly, put yourself in her shoes, this scientist obviously took her role seriously, had a work ethic, it's just a pity our government didn't.

She has every right to be pissed. I would be floored.

Of all the useless people Rudd took with him to the Copenhagen summit at the tax payers expense, (would you like the list?)... they didn't see fit to invite Australia's chief scientist?

Opposition science spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella says Professor Sacket is resigning because she was ignored by the Government.

"It's clear the Government has ignored and shunned her. She's supposed to be the Prime Minister's adviser, and guess what? She's never met Ms Gillard," she said.

"No wonder she resigned. She wasn't even invited to be part of Australia's huge delegation of over 100 people to Copenhagen. She wasn't involved in the process of setting targets we negotiated at Copenhagen."

Ms Mirabella says the comments show the Government is squandering the resources of the office.

"If the Prime Minister doesn't even meet with you and you're supposed to be her chief adviser on science, that shows a pretty rude disregard," she said.

"What is surprising is the Government set this office up, it employs 16 people and costs $2.3 million a year. Why wouldn't you use those resources?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 146756.htm

Here's her resignation....

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/0 ... scientist/


Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
-Blaise Pascal

But it's the ones who don't you really have to worry about.


Just how false can this government get?

[Pastafarian]

Go lick your wounds with Skip, ... and just know, you aren't alone, there are plenty of people who got sucked into it, this and fell hard for the church of climatology, even dedicated their lives to it, (like our scientist here) however, it's the ones who know it's garbage, this and continue trying to convince others for selfish reasons (usually greed) that really get my back up...like Gillard for instance, who never even met Australia's chief scientist, even after this scientist made it clear she was on the verge of resigning over her feeling disillusioned about her appointment.

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.

[mellie]

Go lick your wounds with Skip, ... and just know, you aren't alone, there are plenty of people who got sucked into it, this and fell hard for the church of climatology, even dedicated their lives to it, (like our scientist here) however, it's the ones who know it's garbage, this and continue trying to convince others for selfish reasons (usually greed) that really get my back up...like Gillard for instance, who never even met Australia's chief scientist, even after this scientist made it clear she was on the verge of resigning over her feeling disillusioned about her appointment.

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.

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~