dutchroll

Nope, no killing of the planet going on here. Nothing to see. Not happening. And yeah, I flew over the Aral Sea regularly in the early 2000's on the flights to London and Frankfurt. Used to be one of the four largest inland seas in the world. It is one example of very, very many. [ATTACH]48080._xfImport[/ATTACH]

They actually believe that big improvements in health, education and longevity drives people to have more kids and end up in poverty? In reality, the opposite effect is demonstrated when you improve these things. People have less kids and the workforce is more productive (but you have to include education in the mix).

I think with the advance of knowledge which has been exponential in the last century, we've accumulated a large degree of scepticism of the traditional "church" view of things and rightly so. The church was around long before many things were understood so its traditional views were based partly on an interpretation of religious scripture, and partly on superstition. Effectively the church's "best guess" - which often wasn't a very good one. As far as acknowledging what is good and decent behaviour I think the church gets too much credit for this. There is one prime method by which we learn at a young age to distinguish good behaviour from bad behaviour: our parents. This gets proven over and over again. Some moral behaviour is innate as we see from experimental observation of animals, especially in the primates and their cousins. However it's widely accepted, and in fact pretty obvious in most cases, that the influence of our early parenting is very strong. We see this in both good behaviour and bad behaviour to the point that if you've had that grounding from your parents, even those who behave badly later in life are fully aware of it (regardless of whether they care or not). I've sometimes been asked: "if you didn't get your morals from the Bible, where did you get them from?" My answer is simply "from my parents".

I found this part of an article published just a few minutes ago interesting: Some bail justices, who did not want to be named, said there was pressure to bail suspects because prisons were full. But there was also scepticism about the release of Gargasoulas, considering the charges he faced and the police opposition to his release. It is understood there has been a growing frustration among some bail justices over a "softly, softly'' stance. Bail justice Gary Poole said there were signs that since the Bourke St rampage "nervous" colleagues were taking themselves off rosters. He said the bail justice who had granted bail to Gargasoulas was being supported. He said he had previously written to Attorney-General Martin Pakula and his shadow, John Pesutto, about reforming the "antiquated" system. One suggestion was to remunerate bail justices. Neither replied.

So the perpetrator, the son of Emily and Chris Gargasoulas, born in Australia, has a long history of serious violence and psychiatric problems and is an ice addict. He claims to be a Kurdish Muslim. When opining here, do you always prefer to believe the claims of mentally deranged ice addicted murderers over and above any other facts, Gnu? Actually disregard that. I think I already know the answer......

Queen St massacre 1987 - 9 killed 5 injured.

Yeah not Islamic inspired. Just a plain, garden-variety violent psycho well known to the police, who should not have been released on bail.

When left unchecked and unregulated, one of these leads directly to the other. Always.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson said it was a terror attack then sprouted off about keeping Muslims out, but as Pauline regrettably often does, she opened her mouth before she had any facts. It was not a terror attack. An Australian man, Dimitrious "Jimmy" Gargasoulas with a long history of drug offences, domestic violence, and mental health problems was being chased by police after a series of assaults were reported in recent days. He drove into the city where police called off the pursuit because it was getting dangerous (tough call which they might regret, but they couldn't have foreseen what he was about to do). He then started doing burnouts at a major intersection near the main railway station before heading into the city centre and mounting a kerb and driving down the Bourke Street Mall, the major city pedestrian and shopping mall in Melbourne, running over people. Tragically 4 people have been killed with 31 injured including a 3 month old baby girl in a critical condition. The driver was shot in the arm by police and apprehended. He is the subject of multiple bail orders. Last weekend he was arrested over a number of offences and then granted bail by a bail justice. Basically, a psychopathic b**tard cut loose and created mayhem. A more comprehensive story of how it unfolded here: Four dead, 31 injured, suspect in custody after CBD car chase

If you mean she deliberately wanted to defy "public disclosure laws" to avoid disclosure of that information, you'd be wrong. Classified information is classified information. It actually doesn't matter where or how it's stored, technically, as long as it stays safely locked away unable to be accessed by people who are not authorised. Of course this is why they have "secure" servers and rules regarding their use, ie, above a certain classification, it becomes mandatory to store and transmit that information only using secure, approved methods. If it's classified, it cannot be publicly disclosed - no matter what. To do that it must be "de-classified". If you mean she wanted to deliberately disclose it by storing it insecurely, well there's no evidence she actually ever did deliberately disclose it. So that argument doesn't really work either. However she was certainly careless and stupid to do it. There is no doubt about that. This is one example of how conspiracy theories start - a misunderstanding of the rules and their intent. Source: I worked in the military for many years with a very high level security clearance.

I'm really bothered when people use that argument too. Although in principle it could be true, it is normally used without any supporting evidence at all and purely directed at climate science. However, if it is true for climate research that scientists are just "making it up" to get research funding, then it should logically be true for pretty much every other research field in the world. Why would only climate scientists do it to get money when everyone else can too? Do they have some sort of vetting process which filters out the honest ones, but only in that field and in no others? Seems unlikely to me. Therefore all scientific research is untrustworthy and we should believe none of it. Better still, to root out this corruption, we should cease all scientific research. Of course this argument then becomes fairly absurd. The reality is that it's normally when people don't like the results that the accusations fly. Prior to any unpalatable results being released, they're absolutely fine with it and have nothing to say about it at all. It's a fascinating observation in how human behaviour changes depending on the circumstances. I've actually witnessed a heavy smoker use the same argument - that research on smoking related diseases is all dodgy. It's a really interesting psychological phenomenon that people will vehemently dispute research findings which imply they're doing something bad or damaging, without having any evidence that those findings are actually wrong, but are totally ok with any research which doesn't produce those results.

It's not the theory which has to be reproducible. It's the results of experiments which support the theory which have to be reproducible. A theory can be whatever you like. A theory can also be modified and tweaked if some things support it but some things don't. In fact almost every scientific theory there ever was falls into this camp and has been modified at some point in time, including all of the uncontroversial ones. When theories are first proposed, they are never "perfect", even if their basic foundation might be largely undisputed. A central tenet of a scientific theory is that it should be falsifiable, ie, that there is an experiment or an observation or measurement that could be made which shows that it simply cannot be true. Some sceptics say the AGW theory is unfalsifiable, which only shows that they're not thinking very hard about it or don't understand what constitutes falsifiability. You need to be careful how you interpret "falsified". Birds fly. This does not falsify the theory of gravity. It could be falsified if you could show a relatively continuous drop in global temperatures for say 50 years or so without a clear cause. It could be falsified if you could show a sustained long term drop in global sea levels. It could be falsified if you could show a decline in atmospheric CO2 but no change in the temperature trend. It could be falsified if you could discover a heat source within the climate system which was previously unknown. It could be falsified if you could demonstrate major errors in our understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics. It could be falsified if CO2 molecules in a lab behave totally differently to CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. No-one has ever successfully demonstrated any of these possibilities, so the theory remains intact.

Oh come now Phil, we know it's not the end!

Jesus wept. A day after appointing his son-in-law as a senior advisor, Trump now appoints an anti-vaxer to head a commission reviewing the "scientific integrity" over vaccines. This is the guy who in 2005 wrote an article for Rolling Stone magazine alleging that there was a Government conspiracy to cover up a link between thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative once upon a time used in vaccines) and autism. No such link was ever proven but as a precaution, thimerosal was removed from almost all vaccines nearly 2 decades ago and was never in the MMR vaccine (which is accused of causing autism, though there's no evidence it does). The removal of thimerosal made no difference whatsoever to the rise in autism diagnoses. Meanwhile, millions of little polioviri are currently rubbing their hands in glee at the possibility they might once again be allowed to disable children around the world. Why not just ask (anti-vaxer and former Playboy playmate) Jenny McCarthy to head the commission? She's just as qualified. It's just a train wreck, and it's happening faster than I actually thought it would. Robert Kennedy Jr. says tapped by Trump to head vaccine safety review

I don't think Pauline is dishonest but I disagree that she can be trusted. The reason for this is similar to why I don't think Trump can be trusted. She says things which resonate with people and yes she speaks her mind. But she gets some pretty significant things wrong and is not always big on facts. That is a concern to me. Hanson "facts": We're being swamped by Muslims - utter nonsense. Not supportable by evidence in any way, shape, or form. Crime is rising - utter nonsense, it has been steadily declining or at worst, static, in most areas for a long time. Religious headgear like the burqa covering your face can be worn when getting a driver's licence - rubbish. It absolutely cannot cover your face for a driver ID photo in any State or Territory. Muslims want a separate legal system - rubbish. Stems from a total misunderstanding of what constitutes "sharia law", which is a set of guidelines and clerical interpretations (not much different in principle to what the catholic church does). They know you can't establish a separate legal system in Australia. It's simply unconstitutional to do that. End of argument. Thinks vaccines cause autism and cancer - rubbish. Disproven by massive studies which show absolutely no correlation whatsoever. There is no coral bleaching on the Barrier Reef. She went snorkelling 1000km from where the bleaching is occurring to "prove" it! The list goes on. But like with Trump, supporters don't actually care if it's true or not and will happily spread it around even when it's false. I'm fine with people being angry with pollies or the political "establishment", but personally I find it pretty disconcerting that quite a number of those same people don't actually care - quite literally they couldn't give a damn - what's true and what's not. We're entering a brave new era, according to pro-Trump columnist and commentator Scottie Nell Hughes, where (and I quote) "there is no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts". And she is proud of it! Just opinions. The Moon orbits around the Earth? That's simply an opinion. Others may choose to disagree and their different opinion should be respected on equal terms with everyone else's. If you don't do that, you're one of these snobbish elites. Wow. You can assert something which is completely objectively and comprehensively wrong, and the rest of us must totally respect it and just be good little people and keep our mouths shut about it. That's basically what we're being told by this newly "empowered" demographic.

Yeah I have to side with M61A1 here (cripes........is this a dream?). I wouldn't say Abbott led us to disaster. I think "mediocrity" is an appropriate adjective for what he achieved. What might've happened over a longer time is speculation.

Duterte talks tough, just like the original topic of this thread (Trump) and there is a certain element of humankind which is completely enamoured with tough-talkers to the point of ignoring what they actually achieve. The dustbins of history are filled with leaders who talked tough and led their countries to total disaster.

One of Hitler's first actions upon gaining power was the banning of trade unions and sending union leaders to prisons and in many cases concentration camps. He courted German industrialists throughout his reign and allowed them to run their businesses and industries unfettered up to and including the use of slave labour so they didn't have to pay workers anything. He virulently hated communists and believed Russians were second class citizens and should be treated as such, which was why so many Russians - both military prisoners and civilians - were simply murdered as his troops overran their territory. In "Gnu-World" (admittedly a fascinating place to poke your head in every now and again) all these traits are typical of socialist-loving lefties, aren't they? The National Socialist Party was socialist in much the same sense that the Liberal Party are liberal ("liberal" being the direct opposite of "conservative"). As far as Duterte goes, he campaigned for his presidency on a platform of having successfully addressed crime and drugs as Mayor of Davao City. As of 2016, Davao had the highest murder rate and second highest rape rate among Phillipines cities, so he kind of reminds me of Trump and Trump supporters. You can pretty much tell them anything you like and they'll believe you irrespective of what the actual evidence is. Welcome to the new world, where there's no such thing as facts. He also vocally supports extra-judicial killings where police or vigilantes can shoot dead anyone accused of drug use, without any actual evidence that they did. Nice society to live in eh? "Hey that Gnarly Gnu character - I saw him sniffing white powder the other day!" Give it a week to spread around, and your body will be found in a ditch somewhere. Pretty cool way to sort out disputes!

Well let's get down to the nitty gritty. Exactly what has the ABC said which you consider biased? Don't just say "the vibe". Give some examples. Do you honestly believe that an unbiased news source should wholeheartedly reflect your views on everything?

- I probably know half a dozen "left of centre" people who love the ABC - I know some conservative people who also love the ABC but don't watch its current affairs shows. - I know one extremely right wing person who gets all their news from Breitbart and thinks almost everything is a left wing conspiracy. - I know some left of centre people who don't watch the ABC much at all. - the population of Australia is about 24 million. What can I confidently conclude about the ABC from all these facts? That some people watch it and some people don't.

I like it when people bitterly complain of ABC bias then cite Fox News or an Andrew Bolt column. "We should NOT tolerate bias in the media..........unless it's bias I agree with!"

Well there you go again Marty. Using logic where none exists. I think a smattering of shows on Fox, namely Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and a couple of other opinion shows are absolute garbage. However Fox as a TV channel itself actually has many really interesting shows which I quite enjoy. So I don't say "Fox TV is extreme right-wing conservative nutjob sky-fairy tosh which should be wiped off the face of the Earth", which would be a fair comment if Hannity was the only thing I ever watched on it. I specify the shows I don't like, I don't watch them, but I watch the others I enjoy without judging the entire channel. But this is using common sense.

So on the ABC today we have: Rage (music videos) Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries Vera (British crime show) David Attenborough's Great Barrier Reef Australia's Remote Islands Chateau Downunder - A Wine Revolution (documentary of the Australian wine industry) Outback Choir (documentary following a regional country children's choir) When the Beatles Drove Us Wild (documentary) ABC News (ya know - it just reports the news - you don't have to like the news if you don't want to) New Years Eve telecast So.....which of these shows are taxpayer funded leftard BS? I suspect you mean "A teeny tiny proportion of ABC shows are opinion/political shows and I don't like what they say, therefore my immaculate logical reasoning is that everything the ABC has ever done is taxpayer funded leftard BS".

Its not really the same thing. These sovereign citizens actually argue that they don't exist as a named person, but rather that their name is assigned under a contract they object to. They also argue that "travelling" in your car by virtue of operating the steering wheel and controls is not the same as "driving" it.

Of course.....but you still wouldn't try on the "your laws don't apply to me" BS if you were pulled over for a traffic offence!