dutchroll

A volcanic eruption? That's absolute bollocks. Complete, utter bollocks and totally contradicted by all scientific literature, measurements, and studies of volcanos. When Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 scientists raced to study and measure the biggest eruption on Earth in modern history, and for the first time ever, they actually had the tools and technology to do it. It released 50 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. What do you reckon the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions measured and calculated in 2010 were? Any guesses? 34 billion tonnes. Yes, you'd need approximately 700 eruptions of the size of Mt Pinatubo (the biggest ever observed in the modern human age) to put out the same amount. Two Mt Pinatubo sized eruptions per day......every day......for a year! This is typical of the misinformation spread by the very commentators and columnists we are talking of here. Volcanos emit a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases that human habitation and industrialisation does. You can get this information from the premier and most highly respected volcanic research institute in the world - the US Geological Survey. Or you can get it from Alan Jones, the high school english teacher, who makes it up as he goes. Or just as valid as sourcing it from Jones, you can get it from Ian Plimer, a politically inspired mining geologist who trashed his own scientific career by being so flagrantly dishonest about demonstrable and provable facts.

The LNP dumped Turnbull because he wasn't "conservative" enough for their extreme right wing internal party power brokers, but look where that has got them. The Australian electorate historically doesn't like either left or right extremes of politics - the simple reason being that both extremes are essentially batsh*t crazy and Abbott falls squarely into one of those extremes. Their only choice is to replace him with a more moderate leader of which there are, of their own doing, probably only two or three to choose from (a return to Turnbull being one of them).

He cannot divorce himself from his own mindset. That he thinks neither clearly nor rationally is of deep concern when talking about someone who is governing the country. If you want to talk about stupid policy ideas: GP copayment. A perfect way to drive people into emergency departments for coughs and colds - the exact opposite of what you want to achieve. Severely scaling back renewable energy development (the exact opposite to what almost every other country in the world is doing) in favour of coal mining ('cos of course wind farms are a blight on the landscape, but the Shenhua open cut mine on 35 sq km of the Liverpool Plains will be a sight of majestic beauty). I can just keep listing stuff. There's plenty more. When you've got a national leader who is only held in check by a couple of sane Cabinet Ministers like Turnbull or Bishop, things are getting deeply troubling and yes, that amounts to a problem governing the country.

How exactly is a constitutional monarchy with two democratically elected houses of parliament and elections held every 3 years for the lower house going to turn into a dictatorship? I'm intrigued.......

Oh.....my.....god. The only person who needs to be locked in a padded cell more than Cory Bernadi is David Leyonhjelm! I mean, just for the safety of the general population!

Ok....sorry. It is factually incorrect that Abbott's decision to award Prince Phillip a knighthood was idiotic. It was actually a great, well considered "Captain's Call". If there was ever a way we could demonstrate the extraordinary value of knighthoods, it would be to award one to Prince Phillip. It is factually incorrect that Abbott's statement (recorded on camera) that he feels threatened by gays and lesbians was idiotic. To feel threatened by gays and lesbians is perfectly reasonable. I mean, with his dashing looks, I'm sure the gays out there are rushing to convert him. And as we know. they never try to hitch up with another gay person. They always try to convert a heterosexual. It is factually incorrect that his statement that "what the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing" was that their power bills would go up was idiotic. In fact, my professional working wife really appreciated it and thought he offered incredible insight into the day to day lives of Australian women. She was really complimentary - so much so that I haven't heard her utter descriptive words like that for years! It is factually incorrect that TA's statement on Q&A that "Jesus knew there was a place for everything, and it is not necessarily everyone's place to come to Australia" was the most idiotic invocation of religion into immigration policy I have ever heard in my life. Actually, it made perfect sense, and I really think he should always invoke the view of Jesus whenever Government policy is discussed. Should I go on? I have more. Lots more.

Narcissistic and nasty little man. TA could get budget-tightening stuff though the Senate if he made it remotely reasonable, but he decided he was going to try to bulldoze some fairly savage (and some fairly stupid) legislation through and it backfired. Now he seems to have given up, apparently believing that the "all or nothing" approach is the only way to do business. You watch this space and observe what the next Federal budget deficit is!

On their science reporting at least, the ABC actually is quite fair and unbiased. Politically they've probably been harsher on Abbott than they were on Rudd/Gillard, but all that means is that they should perhaps have been harsher on Labor at the time. That Abbott is a blithering idiot has fast become a matter of factual history rather than reporting bias. Yet our beloved far-right columnists come out to defend him every week. You'd think they'd be embarrassed to keep doing that by now but they apparently see it as an obligation!

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - Daniel Moynihan. Regrettably making up "facts", especially in regards to the state of scientific knowledge in the world, is what those particular people do best.

Well giving up my day job to commentate like the aforementioned journos/shock jocks is never going to happen. I admit that I'm simply not capable of making up that volume of sheer garbage and saying it with a straight face as if I actually believe it.

Miranda Divine....Andrew Bolt.....Alan Jones.......Piers Akerman. Oh my god. 100 million of my neurons just underwent programmed cell death and my IQ dropped 80 points upon reading those names.

The church services I went to as a kid and teenager were the primary cause of dispensing with any religious views and becoming mildly hostile to it. Sitting there listening to some bloke tell you how bad you are and how much you need salvation, week after week, gets on the nerves after a while!

Correction to my last: "A view which I have heard a lot from religious apologetics and which irritates me to no end."

.....which usually leads into the whole "if you don't believe what we do, how can you possibly be as good as us?" argument. A view which I have heard a lot from Christian apologetics and which irritates me to no end.

I often state to people when debating or arguing a point that I'm happy to be proven wrong. This isn't strictly true of course. I hate being proven wrong. But it happens and I grudgingly accept it, beat myself over the head a bit for not researching the facts properly before opening my mouth, then get over it and accept the reality of the situation. I have to say I've never observed the phenomenon of accepting error when confronted with evidence (no matter how strong or voluminous the evidence is), in someone arguing from a religious perspective. Had a devoutly religious family member the other day lamenting the immorality of society and explaining that they know of at least one case where a gay man had female sex organs transplanted so they could bear a child. This of course is utter rubbish and no such case exists. I explained that while theoretically possible, it is totally unfeasible to do this for anatomical reasons (they would need brain organs transplanted too, as the female pituitary and hypothalamus control ovulation). I also explained that the cases he was referring to were transgender cases - the men already had female reproductive organs when they were born. It didn't go down well when I said "and therefore I guess we can say they're just using the equipment God gave them"!

Not consciously or maliciously, but yes it and many other things are almost certainly a consequence of 7 billion prodigious resource consumers, polluters, and their industrial support base. The problem is that humans generally don't like accepting any adverse consequences of their actions (particularly when they're unintentional) and will tend to strenuously deny them. That's especially true if they perceive that doing anything about it will adversely affect their lifestyle in the slightest. It's also true if the facts conflict with pre-conceived beliefs (eg, God or some other mysterious entity will look after it, so I'll just sit back on my *rse and do nothing). My wife sees this all the time in her medical practice. When told some home truths, they end up getting quite grumpy about it, start making more excuses, then just continue denying it because it's not convenient for them to make changes. Recognise the cycle? When the consequences of our actions are good, we of course suddenly want to "own" them and tell the world. At least the Pope for once - possibly the first time ever in the history of his Church - seems to realise this.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself." Harry S Truman (alleged, and probably a paraphrasing of the similar verified quote about Congress by Mark Twain) It's a bit rich for Republicans to tell someone to butt out and stick to religion.

Yeah well they've apparently never been too keen on outsiders spoiling their "fun".

Yeah I personally know of one case at my State school where a female Year 12 student hooked up with a youngish divorced teacher (not one of her own teachers though). Naive and unwise? Quite probably, but totally consensual and legal. I do also personally know of an abuse case from a religious school. This wasn't a relationship. This was a male youth worker systematically sexually abusing the young boys, one of whom was a friend of mine and has suffered a lot for it. I found out about it many years later. I hold those institutions in particularly low regard (couldn't get much lower, actually) because most of the time they've been aware or suspicious that something odd was going on but chose to look the other way. You know - see no evil hear no evil.

I've never heard of endemic abuse in State schools. They're quite an open and public environment so I think it would be generally difficult to get away with even if the staff wanted to. Really wish I could say the same of religious schools and the clergy.

Oh gosh.....where to start on that one?

History is generously adorned with religious people who are not exactly outstanding examples of humanity. I'd caution religious folk against throwing stones in glass houses.......but it wouldn't have any effect.

This is true, but with Section 116 of the Constitution prohibiting the Government from legislating on religious grounds, the effect could be described as a similar one. What it doesn't do is prevent a political party from formally aligning themselves with a religion or particular religious views. The major difference though, is that Australian society overall is not very tolerant of the intrusion of religious views into politics compared to the US. So politicians do it at their own peril.

"Acceptably" is a matter of opinion which there isn't much point in debating! ;) That's kind of true (only if you're talking about the global desktop OS market), but somewhat misleading in its implication.