Skip to main content

In The News

And they have already nabbed 5 of the Indian rapist pricks.
Interesting - never seems too difficult in catching the arseholes, probably an indication of the arrogance and general lack of criminalisation of perpetrators, all too used to getting away with this stuff.
 
kxk said:
And they have already nabbed 5 of the Indian rapist pricks.
Interesting - never seems too difficult in catching the arseholes, probably an indication of the arrogance and general lack of criminalisation of perpetrators, all too used to getting away with this stuff.
Click to expand...

It's one country I would not like to visit if I were female.
 
Quite a few of those - countries that treat women like shit, most of them try to leave tourists alone since they need tourists money.

And do the Irish look at us like savages too?I hope not.
Considering that murderous pig from Melbourne - who apparently didn't 'mean'to kill that lovely young woman.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure the Irish don't judge us all for the crimes of some, I talked with my family in Ireland about the case in Mlebourne and they didn't hate us as a nation.

India has a population of 1,210,193,422 according to wiki, Australia's current population is 22,936,478 so of course India is going to have more arseholes.
 
Dawn French is going to be a judge on 9's AGT! Far out, and mel B is coming back for it too.
Hate variety talent shit like this but hell Dawn!
 
Greedy bankers

Something no one seems wanting to comment on. With the exception of Iceland, the western world does not seem to want to hold bankers responsible for their actions. That means the only ones left to pay off the mess are the people. And how do you do this you ask? You rob the people of 10% of their savings.

NOTE: this might make the people very angry, but there's jack shit they can actually do apart from take all their money out of your poxy bank.

This is just so very, very wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. But no one's commented on this.

Look at the US. MF Global stole trust fund money from common people like farmers, and no one is charged, let alone put on trial. Jon Corzine, as CEO, should have been held totally responsible, just because he was CEO. And be doing a 20 year sentence. But no what happened, nothing.

Surprise surprise.
 
The final results for the WA election are coming in. Collie-Preston and Kimberley have been called for Labor:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-...-retains-collie-preston-after-recount/4580344

Midland is being recounted today, with Michelle Roberts in front by 23 votes.

Eyre called for the Liberals:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/regional/goldfields/a/-/news/16389181/jacobs-hold-on-in-eyre/

And official Upper House results expected today and tomorrow:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-19/electoral-commission-to-announce-upper-house-winners/4581324
 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04?

This was a ludicrous situation. Someone in the USA opened up a challenge on people's rights to sell used goods. This would have included everything from furniture to mobile phones, music CDs, and DVDs...

The challenge from what I gather built around copyright and the fact that the first time you buy goods you are not breaching copyright as the copyright holders are getting their cut, but in resale no one but the seller gets a cut...

The good thing is that the Supreme Court upheld the decision and put a pox on this...... But it's an interesting situation had it actually succeeded.

What would people do with used goods had it passed?
 
Hey did anyone see the story on the news about the truck dumping a shitpile of asbestos right next to a children's playground? I wonder if they ever caught the maggot that did that?
 
Be interesting to see how the following pans out. A line in the sand has been drawn and the challenge layed down.

For the full story thus far, see: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=918&Itemid=1

Two Australian scientists, Drs Judy Ryan and Marjorie Curtis are challenging Professor David Karoly, of the School of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne, to provide scientifically justifIed evidence for his claims that humans are causing dangerous global warming.

...

On 19/03/2013, at 3:25 PM, Judy Ryan wrote:
Dear Professor Karoly,

Thank you for your reply dated 28th February 2013. However, you misjudge Dr Curtis and myself when you say that you do not think that we can change our opinions on anthropogenic global warming. Obviously we can because we are real scientists. We look at the evidence for both the null and AGW hypotheses and change our minds accordingly. I changed from being a believer of the “ scientific consensus” for AGW to being skeptical of it about a year ago. The question is, are you a real scientist Professor Karoly? If you are not then you are receiving taxpayers money under false pretenses. In our opinion that is fraud.

Professor Salby is a real scientist because he changed his mind on the basis of the definitive evidence of satellite observations. It’s a sad indictment of the peer review process that Professor Salby's ground breaking research has to appear on YouTube before it appears in a peer reviewed journal. However, when the people of Australia are made fully aware of the non scientific behavior of climate alarmist advocates, such as yourself, they will demand justice. The peer review process will be scrutinized and, those who have misused it will be held accountable.

Regarding the three references you have provided, I could not access the first one by Hegerl and Zwiers 2011. Please respond within two weeks of the date of this email and attach a copy of the paper.

I have looked at the second reference Zhang et al 2010. I must admit to being very disappointed as on the last page of the paper they make the important caveat “that the effect of natural external forcings, such as solar and volcanic forcing, have not been considered.” Yet, in your email of 15th January to me you stated that all climate models assessed by the IPCC include solar. Which statement is true and which is false Professor Karoly? You have not responded to my first email dated 13th January 2013, with one single study supporting the AGW hypothesis that includes solar and other natural forcings.
Therefore we conclude that your statement in the first email was untrue. In our opinion this is also fraud.

If you had not dismissed the CSIROh document, http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html , as irrelevant opinion I doubt you would have included the Australian Academy of Sciences report” The science of climate Change: Questions and Answers “(2010) as your third reference.

By failing to respond to the CSIROh document before the cut off date of the 1st March 2013 given in the registered delivery confirmation letter you have agreed that there are no significant errors or inaccuracies in it.

Are you deliberately misleading when you state, in your email dated 28th February, that a well known climate change skeptic was one of the fellows that reviewed the Academy’s report? You omit to mention that the particular fellow refused to have his name associated with the document. However, as appendix 8 in the CSIROh document states the respected atmospheric physicist professor Garth Paltridge refused to have his name on the document. His name is missing on the back of the document, yours is there.

Appendix 8 of the CSIROh document is a methodological analysis of the purported evidence in the Australian Academy of Science’s report. ”The science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers (2010).” The conclusion drawn from the evidence is that it ‘simply parroted the UN IPCC and other prominent advocates of the notion that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.” We think you underestimate the value of the CSIROh document. It is an excellent piece of investigative writing, which we believe can be a valuable evidential document in a court of law.

My understanding is that an internationally prominent sceptic is collecting material worldwide for pursuing alarmist advocates in court for fraud. I have heard that the person intends pursuing fraudsters in their country of residence and perhaps internationally in the international court. My view as to what should occur in Australia is that every academic advocate who received a delivery confirmed registered delivery of the CSIROh document should be required to defend themselves against the charge of fraud individually in the court. As you are the most prominent academic climate alarmist advocate in Australia, Professor Karoly, it seems only logical that you should be the first to be held to account.


One of the most damaging false statements continually repeated by CAGW advocates, such as yourself, has been the claim of overwhelming scientific consensus (i.e. 97% in support of the CAGW hypothesis). Over the decades you have frequently used words describing scientific consensus for either AGW or Climate Change Professor Karoly. The people of Australia have trusted you to report the truth but, it seems you have deliberately misled them. There was never any scientific consensus. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/ .The facts are that the number 97 stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman .http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

The student and her supervisor chose to report only the views of 77 participants out of the original 10,257. They then reported 75/77, in other words 97% scientific consensus for CAGW, on the basis of just two questions related to whether the respondent thought that human activities were causing the global mean temperature to rise. Not even a mention of atmospheric CO2 levels in either of those questions.
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf

The peer review process will be scrutinized to ascertain why such a weak distorted survey was ever published. I doubt that it could really be a peer reviewed paper. However, if it was, the reviewers will be required to give their reasons why they considered it acceptable. Further, those scientists, such as yourself, who have eagerly seized on that figure, and quoted it ad nauseam will be asked to explain why they did not check the methodology of the survey first. The fact that they actually endorsed this paper raises serious questions about their competence and/or integrity.

A recent methodologically sound survey, where there were no exclusions, published in the peer reviewed journal “Organizational Studies” November 2012 http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full reports that from a sample of 1077 earth scientists and engineers only 36% supported the AGW hypothesis, catastrophic or otherwise.

Within three weeks of the date of this email we expect to hear you publicly reporting the results of this later survey on the ABC TV and radio both morning and evening news. We also expect to hear you unequivocally retract the 97% scientific consensus figure at the same time.

We suggest that you meet with the Managing Director and Chairman of the Board for the ABC, both of whom have received registered post with delivery confirmation letters from Malcolm Roberts, and facilitate the news broadcasts immediately. Every day that you continue to conceal the true scientific facts from the people of Australia is one more day that they will hold you accountable.


In the meantime Dr. Curtis and I will continue increasingly in our endeavors to get the true scientific facts to the people of Australia. It is our duty as ethical scientists to do so.

As you can see we have copied in the Canberra Times, the Sydney morning Herald, The Age and the Australian. We have also copied in the West Australian, and the Farrago. We will being sending the paper version of this email to the Chancellor of The University of Melbourne and the ABC Managing Director and Board by post.

However, as you can see we have also copied in many more individuals and organizations who we think are concerned about the issue of the collapse of scientific integrity. Other scientists and interested individuals, including some members of federal parliament are BCC’d in order to protect their privacy.

Regards

Dr Judy Ryan
Dr Marjorie Curtis

...
Click to expand...

regarDS
 
Man charged for groping woman on plane
ninemsn staff
10:48am March 25, 2013

A man in the US who allegedly groped a woman while she was sleeping next to him on a plane later defended his actions by telling the victim, "It's not like I molested you".

Brett Zorse, 50, from New York City, was on a JetBlue flight from San Francisco to New York with his 12-year-old son last April when he assaulted the 32-year-old woman, The Smoking Gun reports.

It is alleged that Zorse put his hand underneath the woman's skirt while she was sleeping and massaged her thigh while his son was sitting next to him.

When the woman woke up, she demanded an explanation.

"It's not like I molested you," he reportedly said.

"It's not like I stuck my finger in your p---y or grabbed your tits."

The woman later reported the incident to JetBlue and police in New York.

When questioned by investigators, Zorse claimed that the woman had been "flirting with him, telling him he was attractive and he was a good father", the news site further reported.

He denied placing his hand up her skirt but said he may have made the rude remarks.

Zorse has been charged with simple assault and faces up to six months imprisonment if he is convicted.

Oh my goodness, what is this world coming to??????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top