It would be nice if you stopped these personal attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Printable View
It would be nice if you stopped these personal attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
An investigation has found that fire authorities blame lightning, not arson, for most of the serious fires.
Those trying to blame arsonists rather than climate change are spreading false information. It's just not true.
It's time to stop making weak excuses and face the reality of climate change, I think.
We crunched the numbers on bushfires and arson — the results might surprise you
The truth about Australia's fires — arsonists aren't responsible for many this season - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Bob these are not personal attacks.Quote:
It would be nice if you stopped these personal attacks.
They are comments on your behavior on the forum.
If you did not continually post articles of no relevance to Land Rovers and that are of widespread and general knowledge , and are pointed towards supporting your personal "hobbyhorses" then moderators would not comment.
You have been contacted many times by moderators about your postings so it is nothing new.
I thought by adding a bit of humour that I would soften the post.
We would rather guidance than action like deleting posts.
Regards PhilipA
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate that. I don't agree with some of your comments, but I know any discussion on my part would be pointless. I'll leave it at that, cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Scott Morrison can't afford to waste the bushfire crisis when Australia urgently needs its own green new deal
Scott Morrison can't afford to waste the bushfire crisis when Australia urgently needs its own green new deal | Malcolm Turnbull | Australia news | The Guardian
Re the Murdoch empire's anti climate change stance ... personally I couldn't give a rats what they do, say or write(or spread). Never read them, never thought too, never will. So for me their anti climate change 'policy' is of no meaning.
But one thing that irked me massively over the past few years, is ABC(mainly radio) .. and their stance on climate change.
The role of any news service is not to, especially the ABC .. is to provide news/info/content/etc .. not to shape public opinion in any way, and allow the information itself stand up to scrutiny which allows each individual to form their own opinions.
But what's been happening(at least here in Melb, on radio) over the last few years is that they have not provided news as such, and are themselves forcing the public into an opinion. What they do, is that whenever someone comes on to the talkback series with an anti climate change opinion, basically the caller is talked down(ie. argued against), shouted down and usually cut off. They finish full conversations with anyone calling in that only held the most popular opinion on climate change, and the reality is average joe/jane knows nothing of it other that what's been said by these scientists. So any opinions questioning the validity of the science is simply shut off on the ABC.
I respect the presenters right to believe what they like on whatever topic they hold opinions on, but as a news reporter they have no right to shut people off just because those types have an opposing opinion.
This is not news(in the traditional sense) .. where news = straight up, unbiased information.
For this reason I've stopped listening to ABC news radio, which is sad(for me) as I used to love listening to the spectrum of conversation on the shows. Traffic now is just plain annoying as a consequence.
From my perspective, what Murdoch's empire does and believes is their right too, as do the opposing sides of the news spectrum. Their only motive is numbers/financial gain.
ABC on the other hand .. their role in news is simply information! Unbiased, factual based, unemotional and to the point. The fact that they regularly shut down the opinions of the people, who they're supposed to 'represent' is reprehensible .. more so that the biases of Murdoch.
So get off the Murdoch case .. they are what they are, and those of us that see them for that ..we avoid the garbage.
But the ABC has no right to force people to their way of thinking .. irrespective if they are right or wrong.
Haven't tuned in for over a year now, which is maddening for me as I paid good money for a digital radio in my D1 for better sound quality!(what a waste of money that appears to have been now).
There, LR talk thrown in for good measure! [thumbsupbig]
The other issue I've been pondering recently, I think due to a link posted in this thread. But climate change is supposedly making cyclones worse too. The link was to the BoM where they stated some facts and figures, and they say that some rain and cooler weather will reduce the remainder of the fire season .. etc, blah blah .. and that a major reason for the 'intensity' of this years fire season was due to a very delayed cyclone season .. something to do with the IOD measurements.
Has it not occurred to anyone else too, if climate change is making cyclones and cyclone seasons worse ... where the hell are they!?
Or is this climate change thing making them worse .. only when they are worse!
As I've said before .. it's out of sight, so out of mind .. come next year summer, when there are no fires of any consequence and a couple of cyclones hit some major town/city .. the climate change talk will change to cyclones and how much worse THEY are now.
[bighmmm]
And the masses will just accept it because some numpty scientist, following on in the footsteps of other numpty scientist, said it.
My favourite ABC radio station, which is predominantly youth content, has been "Rainbow Coloured" and "Environmentally Focused" for the several years. It too influences impressionable, young people with it's take on social attitudes and biases.
I still listen to it for the music, though.
So, AK83 , what radio station do you recommend to listen to?
[biggrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblingboy42
none.
ps. I started listening to ABC Melb(morning through to arvo) about 2010 or so. Never came across them as biased in most respects. Always had a leftist 'feeling to it' .. ie. social justice issues and all that, but I don't ever remember in all that time that they just cut off a caller simply because that caller was a climate sceptic. But then slowly, the modus operandi changed from one of listen and debunk .. to listen and shut off.
I'm all for the counter arguments directed at climate sceptics, as long as they amount to dialogue, not just 'take them out' practises.
So, haven't listened to radio now for about a year or close to it ... hence why the comment re the waste of $s on the digital radio [bigrolf]
The rattly sound of the tdi is pleasant enough in my D1 to which I've added some sound deadening to make it a muted rattling.
If you (anyone) have any recommendations to share, feel free to do so.
But when on the road travelling(as in holiday-ish type drive), I try to tune into RN .. more so for weather and stuff .. and the odd listen in to local chitchat/issues and stuff.
my main new consumption is via ABC news(TV). Mad as Hell was always the most entertaining form of 'biased news' info tho .. nothing has ever comes close.
well,, every interview I have seen following the bushfires , the interviewees have said...."yeah, we have been listening to all the updates on the ABC"....."the ABC gives us the updates"....."without the ABC updates , we wouldn't know what's going on"...
the ABC are the only broadcaster offering comprehensive up to the minute updates on bushfires throughout Australia.
the others are sensationalising everything to keep listeners on their station.
if you tune into an ABC regional broadcast right now , you will hear very shortly , a fire update.
if you tune to one of the commercial stations you wont hear anything unless it's a sensationalised news item.
and that's the difference and why we must not allow anybody of any status in this country to do any more downgrading or budget cutting to such a hugely beneficial public broadcaster.
I reiterate what Lara Tingle tweeted.