7 January 2008

Is Deb Foskey the Anti-Christ?

| Ari
Join the conversation

Rumours have reached Canberra from the Vatican that the ACT’s own Greens Party hypocrite Deb Foskey could be the Anti-Christ.

The Times reports: An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year’s Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

No, Deb Foskey is in the same category as ‘Good Samaritans’ for those who find comfort in the bible, or Prophets as the older testament referred to nice people who could prophesy and warn of terrible fates before they occurred. The Greens, unlike Cassandra are able to do a lot with a little, and in the wasted power of Australian Politics where most of the electorate should not be allowed to vote as they are incapable of exercising reason nor common sense, and instead trade insults as the ‘Duopoly’ wants.

No, Deb is a lovely lady, who came and visited me while I was locked up for protesting against the ‘atrocities’ of the Federal Magistrates and Family courts.

Yes fellow Plebs, these institutions steal children, (even after the government apologized for the Policy of the Stolen Generations) our children, expect us to bow to them as they do it, and gain considerable profit from said exercise.

No Deb is a lovely green that has had to put up with a lot of abuse from a lot of drongos, and will be sadly missed from ACT politics.

There is no such thing as 100% probable because it can never be until it has happened. All we can ever do is plan for what we think will happen.

There is a slim possibility that global warming is a natural cycle but simply putting your head in a bucket and chanting so others don’t hear or believe it the overwhelming majority scientific opinion about it is moronic.

barking toad3:59 pm 07 Mar 07

90% was the best the zealots could come up with.

I theorise 00.000000%

If you send me money to plant trees for you I’ll happily hold a shovel looking stupified.

But will you have, or are you just stoopid ?

You will have contributed to water purification, oxygen production, CO2 depletion, and any number of emissions soaking, animal habitat, erosion mitigation, and soil superstructure.

And of course, you too will be holding a shovel looking stupefied.

Of that I’m 90% certain. 90% in my books gives it a very high probability of it happening as I just said it. What does a 9 in 10 chance mean to you ?

barking toad2:19 pm 07 Mar 07

Astro, I tested that theory once and it was eminently provable.

No one has proved that human produced carbon is the cause of global warming. Because it can’t be done.

The political document released by the IPCC recently was a summary for decision makers. The real report will be released in May after the scientists have adjusted it to ensure everything agrees with the political statement. Great scientific consensus.

Even the policy statement produced by the zealots talks about a probability of 90%. Nothing proven.

While you hippies are continuing to hurt Gaia by using electricity and driving cars I am prepared to do my bit to help. Send me money amd I will plant trees to off-set your carbon foot print.

As we go into the next cooling period I will, of course, chop these down for my fireplace which, according to gorebal alarmists, will emit carbon and cause gorebal warmening. It’s a win win situation. You’ll feel smugly happy believing you’ve made a difference and I’ll be laughing ‘cos I’ve ripped you off.

Found an intesting series of articles from a candian perspective.

“The Deniers — The National Post’s series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science”

located here

and i hope that link works – i know how cranky jb can get…

i spoke to a geologist this morning who says that in age terms, man is a blink in earths history. she also said that 20 years of turning off cars and not burning coal for power could be undone with one mt pinatubo eruption.

Yes she is. Unbeknownst to the twit staffers she has, she has infiltrated the social greens and then actively sought to wreck the party and turn it more (insert any avaliable political party here that actively lies and cheats), so when it gets into power there’s already a seed of destruction planted.

It’s all covered in several Hollywood movie plots…

astro, natural balance means that the impact of the minority, that being BT, myself etc, don’t actually affect things on such a global scale as we might imagine in our delusions of megalomania.

Widescale change needs – and is, taking place that negates any idiot out there with their bonfire on a conservation day, multiple of hundreds fold.

Idiots, frankly, generally don’t find themselves in a position where they can do widescale damage…

and scientific theory also suggests that plummeting from a great height into a hard surface is not very good for your continuing healh, barking toad. care to disprove that one as well? just for balance, you understand…

what will it take to convince imbilciles like you that a) there is a problem and b) we need to do stuff about it or there will be detrimental consquences. there is NO dispute among those who research this stuff for a living, usually through a driven passion for the field (s’not like science pays very well…)

i don’t intend to die of dehydration and/or starvation because idiots act like bogan school kids and do the opposite of what is required just to be a dickhead…

barking toad6:57 pm 06 Mar 07

Gorebal Warmening is a fact. As is Global Cooling.

The cycles have been happening for millions of years and will probably continue to do so.

To say that warming is primarily caused by human activity is a great big tree hugging hippie piece of crap that is nothing more than a theory the ‘proof’ of which relies on computer climate models with inputs based on getting the desired result.

We’ll go into a cooling phase sometime in the not too distant future and the hippies will blame said cooling on humans and their CO2. That will also be a great big tree hugging hippie piece of crap.

Can’t wait for earth day or whatever the zealots call it when they want all electrical devices turned off for an hour or so at the end of March.

I’ll be turning everything on, start the car and light the barbie (wood, not gas) to provide balance.

Proving global warming with fact is what we are all hoping will not happen.

Don’t forget you’re left holding the shovel as well Ralph…

as opposed to the fine ‘science’ supporting the scaremongers.

much of which is ‘speculation’ and not ‘fact’.

Shhhhhhhhh, they’re getting paid off by the big oil companies too. That really is laughable.

Fine list of other scientists here.

Sorry it’s OT and I’m getting sick and tired of it. I’m a proud economist, libertarian and climate change denialist.

I asked a friend who works and studies in the area about the fraser institute – the authors of the so-called doco on the argument against climate change and received this reply (slightly editied to remove identifying material and some non-related comments):

[dunno how to make the links link, but you can cut n paste urls…]

The Fraser institute recently produced in independent IPCC summary for policy makers’ that got touted as refuting the latest IPCC findings (or at least pointing out that we shouldn’t quite trust the IPCC). This report has been cited by a number of conservative columnists running the anti IPCC/bad for the economy line. The institute is linked with the Institute for Economic affairs.

In 1999, the Fraser Institute sponsored two conferences on the tobacco industry: “Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation” and “Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation.” {Ibid]

More recently, the Fraser Institute has led the campaign to deny the science behind and the dangers of climate change, with several of its fellows and authors signing letters to political leaders and writing Op Eds to that effect. ExxonMobil donates to the Fraser Institute for “climate change” work.

Professor Ross McKitrick, author of the popular book that denies climate change “Taken By Storm” and known for his opposition to the Endangered Species Act in Canada, is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.


See also here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/fraser-institute-fires-off-a-damp-squib/

Note that the authors of the independent summary include Ross MckIntrick and William Kinnimonth. The latter is a key figure in the Lavoiser group:

William Kininmonth is a known Australian climate change skeptic. His only listed qualification is “Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute” [1], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for “Kininmonth, William Robert”, and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [2]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth. and

William Kininmonth, MSc, M.Admin — whose most recent paper is “Don’t be Gored into Going Along” in the Oct-Nov issue of Power Engineer. To be fair, he did publish a paper on weather forecasting, back in 1973.

Overall, the FI are a free market think tank, conservative and privately funded which and they’re entitled to their opinion. However, in my personal opinion they very clearly have an agenda and are in no way impartial, so be careful quoting as a source because it is in no way a credible one…..they’ve got some key points wrong on the science (see the real climate link)

If you want more detail google McIntyre and McKintrick (ones an economist and ones a statistician) – they tried to refute Mann’s hockey stick and were found out to be incorrect and using dodgy techniques – ie, they’re discredited in CC circles (Soon and Belarus is similar studies to M & M that have also been discredited). Kinninmonth pops up all over the place and is an Aus ‘skeptic’, not really credible (lots of info on web), Bob Carter, paelontologist at JC uni in QLD, not peer reviewed in this areas I think? Lindzden and Singer are two US names that pop up a lot. Discredited reports include House of Lords Committee report, Fraser institute, the Oregon petition (Ginger spice signed it!) and there’s a few more out there. [reply ends]

So, can you find me any (more) ‘reputable’ scientists? maybe ralph and bonfire can scrounge up another couple. Aren’t there plenty of them?

Don’t you mean Gerbil Warming?

well the black sea filled when the landbridge between asia minor and europe collapsed.

the filling of the black sea is beleieved to have formed the basis of the epic of gilgamesh, mans earliest recorded (written) story.

which came from earlier oral story telling.

gilgamesh bobbed up in a later work of man called ‘the old testament’ as the story of noah.

you know. world being destroyed by a great flood.

hang on a mo….

perhaps noah was the first victim of goblin warming ?

“1000 years ago the Mediterannian was empty and there was a land bridge between Spain and Africa.”

Say Maelinar, I’m no geologist, but surely that’s not right – an empty Mediterranean 1000 years ago?? Are there some zeroes missing?

see what happens when you blaspheme Ralph ?

green ideology is becoming a religion.

for softheads.

Gee, all I do is present reason and rational differences of opinion, and you degenerate it to personal insults. I also gave a link presenting an assessment of the IPCC’s report from a panel of scientists who don’t agree.

Anyway, I’m bored now and it’s already way off topic.

if it’s your house – aussie yobbo, of course I’ll know because of the vb cans and the holden in disrepair in the front yard, I’ll let you be the cynic with the shovel.

On account of your such a tool, it should be a good match.

Next time I’m on a roof shovelling through a foot and a half of snow in the middle of summer on a 35 degree day, I’ll think of how ironic your pathetic argument seems.

That’s right because such ‘extreme weather events’, like last weeks hailstorm, are more ‘proof’ of Goblin Warming.

Are you willing to bet your house on next week’s weather forecast? Why should we be betting billions of dollars on something which is much less certain and predicated on models with flawed economic assumptions and only basic representations of atmospheric dynamics?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that – tks Seepi

It’s no excuse to lord it over less developed nations to pay the price of industrial development on account of we’ve already fcuked the system up by building our own industrial revolution.

They’ve got just as much right as us to develop their land, and we should be helping them do it, in as environmentally conscious way as we can, rather than sit in our comfortable boxes and tell them they can’t do it from afar.

It’s absolutely ludicrous to think that the pollution we caused is any different to the pollution they are potentially going to cause, on the basis of the environment is already at capacity because we’ve already been there and fcuked it up.

Just becuaswe Industry and China and doing worse than us in conservation is not a reason to do nothing.

If we can become a best practice model it will give them something to go on. And once we are doing the right thing we can put pressure on Industry. If we all do nothing then nothing will ever change.

+/- factors, educated guesses and a lot of rubber bands and Duct tape Ralph.

Hiding behind the excuse of ‘we haven’t been monitoring for long enough’ isn’t an excuse either.

Next time I’m on a roof shovelling through a foot and a half of snow in the middle of summer on a 35 degree day, I’ll think of how ironic your pathetic argument seems.

The hole in the ozone layer is related buster, an appreciation of the protective field that shields us from the harmful effects of being so close to the sun, and the resultant change due to the gaping hole in it, is a contributing factor to the rise in temperatures.

And yes, the hole is largely attributed to man-made factors such as HFC and CFC’s.

SPF 2000 anybody

Hole in the ozone layer and global warming are two separate issues.

how did they accurately measure the temperature in the year 1007

I thought you said yesterday that you were well read in the science of it all bud?

Exactly, if they can’t properly measure temperatues in 1007, how can a computer model that can’t even scratch the surface of complex fluid dynamics predict temperatures 100 years from now?

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt8:44 am 06 Mar 07

“Whoever said “I’d rather live in a society than an economy” was right on the money. “

Easy to say in the good times.

BTW, how did they accurately measure the temperature in the year 1007 ?

1000 years ago the Mediterannian was empty and there was a land bridge between Spain and Africa.

Within the gaping pit now known as the Mediterannian, it was a hot gaping hole in the ground where volcanic matter spewed out into the atmosphere constantly.

Understandibly, it was a little bit hotter because of their local situation.

Also undertandibly, is when the damwall broke between Spain and Africa, the place cooled down a bit.

While I’m not about to go changing my lightbulbs while industry is allowed to continue doing what they are doing because they brought out the Government a long time ago, I’m on the agreeance side of the fence that of course, with all the stuff we’re pumping into the atmosphere, that there are consequences to those actions.

SPF 2000 anybody ?

I don’t care anyway.

I’m sharpening my sword to get all steel dawn on your hienies.

Whoever said “I’d rather live in a society than an economy” was right on the money.

‘I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,’ says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. ‘Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.’

perhaps he is not reputable….

Astrojax, I think some of the experts you dont think exist have made a movie….


“The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology…”

..but what would they know…

This is where Ralph’s ‘The Fraser Institute’ is coming from:

“Climate change activists are exaggerating the certainty in the linkage between human action and climate change and advocating policies that offer no environmental gain, but a lot of economic pain. These prescriptions are likely to deprive society of the economic productivity it needs to protect environmental quality.”

Economics rules, OK?

what we have here is a perfect example of green religion: there is only one ‘true’ view – all others are ‘discredited’.

wonderful grounds for debate…

I just provided a link above, that shows a report by reputable scientists who disagree. There are plenty of them, by the way.

Bonfire wrote:

“this report you link to is not accepted as a FACT it is a collection of views.

there are other views: “

There are no other views, Bonfire, outside the sensationalist media. If you convesre within the climatology scientific community and governments that make policy based on the science, I don’t think you’ll find dissent. Show me a reputable scientist who disagrees, Bonfire, then tell me there are ‘other views’ [that I need to take anything like seriously…]

(let’s hope we have a global show in 100 years, Ralph. If views like Bonfire’s hold sway, that scenario is less than likely…)

Agree. There are many reputable scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming. Consensus science can be extremely dangerous.

There is a ground-breaking paper being published within weeks which provides solid evidence linking solar activity and cloud formation.

For you Maelinar, here’s a link to a report by a panel of scientists casting doubt on the IPCC’s report.

The IPCC report is also based upon flawed economic assumptions.

Anyway, this whole debate is getting tiresome. We should be more concerned about who is running the global show 100 years from now, I hope it continues to be the west.

If you knew whom I work for, you may want to reconsider your estimation.

The science is good, and it’s been ratified. Why else would you explain such a sudden turnaround by JWH ?

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt4:02 pm 05 Mar 07

There’s plenty of evidence that humans are affecting our environment, but exactly how and to what level this is occurring is, truly, not known. ‘Greenhouse gases’, ‘global warming’, ‘carbon credits’ are all great buzz words, but very few people actually understand what they really mean. They are generally used by the media and politicians to fear-monger, so as to get people on side.

I think many scientists agree that humankind is having a global impact, but the true nature of that impact cannot yet be determined. It doesn’t stop dogooders from preaching, and companies from using it for advertising, but it really needs to be kept in perspective.

I for one drive a V8 because I think Canberra needs a beach. What are YOU doing to help this cause?

yeah i see it goes all the way back to – wait for it – 1750!!!!

what a convenient point to start measurements from. its in historical records that there were mini-ice ages in europe in the last 1000 years.

vineyards in britain, wheat grown in greenland etc.

this report you link to is not accepted as a FACT it is a collection of views.

there are other views:

global warming may or may not be occurring.

global warming may be a natural event, cyclical in nature.

im not saying we shouldnt take advantage of technology to celan up our polluting ways, but to ascribe to green religion and ignore science – or even worse – make religion into accpeted science via gerrymandered UN bodies – is not a good idea.

there is simply not enough evidence to support the manmade global warming theory.

Here’s the report confirming that it’s actually, infact, human caused global warming.

For information only, it’s got nothing to do with the anti-christ.

I think the accepted position is both.

Natural and Human added.

No, I don’t think Deb is the anti-crist, obviously we are talking about the nouvo Greens, the liberals.

They are pacifist, how many liberals are in the front line?

Who isn’t Ecumeist these days?

Anyone with heart is going to do the Opposite of what the liberals tell them, they will do anything to hold power even unite religion.

Yeah, my money is on John Howard.

Sure, there have been changes in the earth’s climate in the geological past [ie huge time scales] but there is no [ie none] doubt among all [is every one] leading and reputable scientists that the current change in the earth’s climate (which is all we’re worried about here, no?) is at least in part [and in an extensive part] due to the interventions of you and me, Bonfire. You and me. And a few billion other humans…

Also, why is it the case that such people that are yet to be persuaded of the fact of the matter of human causes in climate change are so eager to deride the efforts to alleviate it, when those same efforts, in any case, would lead to less smog and pollution and a healthier [in all the circumstances] lifestyle for more people? Isn’t it all win-win anyway?? (I ask metaphorically musing…)

That said, John Howard is getting all green and cosy… an anti-christ PM? ah, but this is RiotACT [ie concerned with Canberra] and li’l ol’ Johnny H has nothing to do with that..!

im not wrong, but you cant prove you are right maelinar.

iirc there have been several ice ages and global warming events – predating the rise of the primate.

its hubris to suggest we can control these cycles.

but, i (and this is a tough one) agree with seepi.

Bonfire, I’m not going to even bother with the scientific evidence behind why you are wrong. I spend my daily working life reading through the science and can assure you, upon my professional reputation, that global warming exists, and it was caused by humans.

I appreciate the pun you provided as an example however, and there are those out there who will believe anything you pump at them, I think they also regularly watch ACA, TT and Big Brother as well, and regularly SMS vote on hot issues on Sunrise on 7, not that I’m steriotyping.

A cautious or sensible approach would be to take precautions against global warming just in case it is true.

scant evidence??? geez bonfire, where you been? after 15years of trying to shoot it down, the weight of evidence from a myriad of respected and verifiable sources shows that we, as human beings, are having a drastic effect upon the planets climate.
why as a species are we so bent on destroying the world?

a lot of green mantra is religious in nature.

theres scant evidence for many of their claims – such as ‘global warming’ yet they believe in it, thay have faith.

faith is the central component of any religion. that way the religion masters/priests/shamans/witch doctors can make up any bizarre claim they like and the believers believe it.

DarkLadyWolfMother12:27 pm 05 Mar 07

An Anti-Christ who is a pacifist? That’s just Evil.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.