Kevin Rudd a 'foul-mouthed' PM, author says

Jul 13, 2008 Full story: www.news.com.au 118

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd is a foul-mouthed MP who launches into expletive-ridden rants in his office when things go wrong, an explosive new book, Howard's End , ...

Full Story
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#81 Jul 20, 2008
JepJep wrote:
<quoted text>
well we can obviously see that you're not an economist since mst of the times australia has had economic down terms so has australia... and it just so unfortunately happens to also be when the ALP gets in.
LOL - just a coincidence that the economy turns downward every time the ALP gets into power, huh? Amazing! Of course their social engineering, big spending, small business hating policies have nothing to do with it.

And the middle class pays - this time it will bear the financial burden of Rudd's climate change nonsense.

I may not be an economist, but you're a fantasist.
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#82 Jul 20, 2008
JepJep wrote:
<quoted text>
well thats also true but i am saying... all those people who are skeptical about climate change should realise even if climate change isn't true... wouldn't you rather have actually DONE something about it and then realised it wasn't real, rather tan it being true and then not doing anything and practically dooming the earth.
You think if Australia doesn't go along with Kyoto and pick up the tab for China and India, the earth is doomed?

“A world full of hypocrites”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#83 Jul 20, 2008
Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
You think if Australia doesn't go along with Kyoto and pick up the tab for China and India, the earth is doomed?
Regardless of what we believe, there is absolutely no doubt, when you look at the air, our streams, our oceans, mans abuse has made very sure, this earth is doomed.

It's all driven by greed and we're all in our own way, greedy, so we're all contributing.

How does one stop everyone on earth from sealing our fate?
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#84 Jul 20, 2008
wallabyedward wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of what we believe, there is absolutely no doubt, when you look at the air, our streams, our oceans, mans abuse has made very sure, this earth is doomed.
It's all driven by greed and we're all in our own way, greedy, so we're all contributing.
How does one stop everyone on earth from sealing our fate?
I don't know, but the Kyoto Treaty isn't it.

Russian scientists apparently reject the idea that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. I don't pretend knowledge in this area, but there are so many scientists who disagree with the global warming theory.

Andrei Kapitsa (famous Russian geographer) stated:

"The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round."

Russian researchers studying ice cores in Antarctic made this discovery - the ice cores were recovered from the depth of 3.5 kilometres. Analysis of ancient ice and air bubbles trapped inside revealed the composition of the atmosphere and air temperature going back as far as 400,000 years.

Kapitsa says:

"We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2"

According to Russian studies, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.

"Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler,” says solar physicist Vladimir Bashkirtsev.

“We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2,” says academician Kapitsa, who worked in Antarctica for many years. Russian studies showed that throughout history, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.

Vladimir Bashkirtsev (solar physicist) says:

"Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler".

The full story:

Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/20080...

It seems to me that Kevin Rudd is using this to promote himself on the world stage.
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#85 Jul 20, 2008
Sorry I screwed up that post a bit- shouldn't post when I'm in a hurry.

“Ngali”

Since: Jun 08

Perth

#86 Jul 20, 2008
Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, but the Kyoto Treaty isn't it.
Russian scientists apparently reject the idea that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. I don't pretend knowledge in this area, but there are so many scientists who disagree with the global warming theory.
Andrei Kapitsa (famous Russian geographer) stated:
"The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round."
Russian researchers studying ice cores in Antarctic made this discovery - the ice cores were recovered from the depth of 3.5 kilometres. Analysis of ancient ice and air bubbles trapped inside revealed the composition of the atmosphere and air temperature going back as far as 400,000 years.
Kapitsa says:
"We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2"
According to Russian studies, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.
"Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler,” says solar physicist Vladimir Bashkirtsev.
“We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2,” says academician Kapitsa, who worked in Antarctica for many years. Russian studies showed that throughout history, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.
Vladimir Bashkirtsev (solar physicist) says:
"Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler".
The full story:
Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/20080...
It seems to me that Kevin Rudd is using this to promote himself on the world stage.
Putting aside the science of global warming, which is obviously contentious, what about the other pressing issues that the Kyoto protocol attempts to address?
Namely the end of oil as a cheap energy source and pollution.

Even if the science is flawed about the why - the end result of enforced efficiency, alternative energies and reduced pollution seem to more than warrant the steps being taken.

And can we please leave the politics of it aside as well. Kevin Rudd's no more in this for political points than the rest of the world.

“A world full of hypocrites”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#87 Jul 20, 2008
Dee wrote:
Sorry I screwed up that post a bit- shouldn't post when I'm in a hurry.
The problem with the information you've posted, is that to most, it's like reading their power bill, it just isn't understood.

This is why I'm a little cynical about the whole thing.

Why isn't it being explained in a simpler way?

It's meant to confuse, that's why.

Rudd is a politician, even Howard was leaning towards doing something, even though we all know he didn't mean a word of it.

They're about being accepted and voted for, which is why I just don't believe anything any more.

I can see, and have witnessed the change in our weather. As an ex farmer, every minute of every day, the weather determined what I did, so I'm fully aware it's not at all like it once was.

BUT, is it something that would have happened anyway, or have we caused it?

I think it's possibly a little of each, and if it wasn't for all the instant, very costly solutions, I may have believed what's being asked of us was legit, but deep down, I smell greed, I smell manipulation, and I smell bullshit.

I've lived with these stories since the 1960's, and just like Peter Garrett, all I ever see are those who fill our heads with all this crap, eventually profiting from it, by either nailing some ECO job in a National Park, or as Garrets done, getting into some cushy job in Politics.

I'm making the necessary changes to my lifestyle to ensure no matter what, I'm fed, warm or cool, and clothed, after that, like most on the planet, I'll just have to wait and see.

Bring back honesty, get rid of hidden agendas, and stop greed, maybe then we can possibly stop the perceived damage, but whilst any of those things exist, this train will roll on, out of control, until the inevitable disaster.
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#88 Jul 20, 2008
wallabyedward: "The problem with the information you've posted, is that to most, it's like reading their power bill, it just isn't understood."

They can tell us anything really - very few people understand this theory, and if scienists themselves can't agree, how are we supposed to make an informed decision. Meanwhile:

Indian leaders have announced that India will be increasing its CO2 emissions by twenty times in the coming years.

"India has had the fastest growth in emissions, which have tripled since 1981. The increase in emissions from India and China reflects the rapid industrialization and economic growth currently happening throughout Asia. Since 2000, carbon dioxide emissions in Asia have grown five times faster than emissions in the rest of the world. The region, which produced less then 10 percent of global emissions in 1970, now accounts for almost a third of the world total."
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/20...
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#89 Jul 20, 2008
ngali wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside the science of global warming, which is obviously contentious, what about the other pressing issues that the Kyoto protocol attempts to address?
Namely the end of oil as a cheap energy source and pollution.
Even if the science is flawed about the why - the end result of enforced efficiency, alternative energies and reduced pollution seem to more than warrant the steps being taken.
And can we please leave the politics of it aside as well. Kevin Rudd's no more in this for political points than the rest of the world.
"Kevin Rudd's no more in this for political points than the rest of the world"

Adopting an issue is a great way to ensure a future career post-politics - look at Al Gore. Malcolm Fraser trawled for a UN position while he was PM and I believe it was on Bob Hawke's wish list (he got whatshername instead). I don't believe Kevin Rudd is any less self-serving than the other political snakes.

Its very noble for policitians to sacrifice Australian's jobs for something that may not even exist, they get paid just the same. This could easily happen in Australia:

"Killing Jobs to Save the Climate
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/...

The price of European emission permits is rising so rapidly that German companies are threatening to leave the country. Thousands of jobs could be lost. And the environment may, in the end, be no better off....

"If that's the shape the trading will take, we will simply move our cement operation to Ukraine," a cement factory manager shouted into the lecture hall. "Then there won't be any trading here, nothing will be produced here anymore -- the lights will simply go out here."

It's worth reading.

“Ngali”

Since: Jun 08

Perth

#90 Jul 20, 2008
People lost jobs when the industrial revolution come into being too, when British colonialism collapsed, under Thatcherism and Reganomics free market economics and globalism.

Some jobs will inevitably be lost in large socio-political changes. That's the nature of change.

Being a national leader will always ensure a comfortable existence post politics. It's more than short sighted to say then that whatever a politician does is solely for their personal career on the lecture circuit.
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#91 Jul 21, 2008
ngali wrote:
People lost jobs when the industrial revolution come into being too, when British colonialism collapsed, under Thatcherism and Reganomics free market economics and globalism.
Some jobs will inevitably be lost in large socio-political changes. That's the nature of change.
Being a national leader will always ensure a comfortable existence post politics. It's more than short sighted to say then that whatever a politician does is solely for their personal career on the lecture circuit.
"It's more than short sighted to say then that whatever a politician does is solely for their personal career on the lecture circuit."

You're a far nicer and more trusting person than I am .. I automatically assume that people seek public office for their own betterment. There have been a few exceptions, but not many. To be fair, a lot of pols probably start out with good intentions and the aim to change things, but they usually change along the way.

They can't lose. They get paid in opposition, and retire with a massive taxpayer-funded superannuation, and usually seats in several corporations.

“A world full of hypocrites”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#92 Jul 21, 2008
ngali wrote:
People lost jobs when the industrial revolution come into being too, when British colonialism collapsed, under Thatcherism and Reganomics free market economics and globalism.
Some jobs will inevitably be lost in large socio-political changes. That's the nature of change.
Being a national leader will always ensure a comfortable existence post politics. It's more than short sighted to say then that whatever a politician does is solely for their personal career on the lecture circuit.
I won't argue, I'll simply slip away quietly and chuckle to myself at your naivety.

A politician acting for the peoples good, lol, now I've heard it all, lol.

They are nothing but puppets for the Corporations, they only act in the Corporations interests.

The people only matter at election time, when they lie to get our votes.

If this isn't so where you live, please tell me where that is, because your politicians will have to be seen to be believed.
Dee

Kellyville, Australia

#93 Jul 21, 2008
The Western world cut its throat when it allowed corporations to dominate - some corporations are bigger than some countries. Altogether, they constitute an invisible government.

Some corps. command more resources than the govt and can insist that the govt. meet their demands, even if those demands are against the interests of the population.

The corporate system is comparable to the feudal system in the sense that the few are in control of the many.

We are pretty much ruled by an hereditary feudal elite - that's why voting for a political party and expecting them to fix anything is dreaming.

“A world full of hypocrites”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#94 Jul 21, 2008
Dee wrote:
The Western world cut its throat when it allowed corporations to dominate - some corporations are bigger than some countries. Altogether, they constitute an invisible government.
Some corps. command more resources than the govt and can insist that the govt. meet their demands, even if those demands are against the interests of the population.
The corporate system is comparable to the feudal system in the sense that the few are in control of the many.
We are pretty much ruled by an hereditary feudal elite - that's why voting for a political party and expecting them to fix anything is dreaming.
I agree.

“Ngali”

Since: Jun 08

Perth

#95 Jul 21, 2008
Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's more than short sighted to say then that whatever a politician does is solely for their personal career on the lecture circuit."
You're a far nicer and more trusting person than I am .. I automatically assume that people seek public office for their own betterment. There have been a few exceptions, but not many. To be fair, a lot of pols probably start out with good intentions and the aim to change things, but they usually change along the way.
They can't lose. They get paid in opposition, and retire with a massive taxpayer-funded superannuation, and usually seats in several corporations.
So your position is that Australia has become a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol (only valid for four years in any case) because Kevin Rudd thinks there's a payday in it for himself?

Does this logic extend to all the other national leaders who also signed?

I swear Dee, this is the most cynical and illogical of world views. You're spouting an ill formed conspiracy theory here.

“Pinoy Pride!! Sino ka??”

Since: Mar 08

Melbourne, AUS

#96 Jul 23, 2008
Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL - just a coincidence that the economy turns downward every time the ALP gets into power, huh? Amazing! Of course their social engineering, big spending, small business hating policies have nothing to do with it.
And the middle class pays - this time it will bear the financial burden of Rudd's climate change nonsense.
I may not be an economist, but you're a fantasist.
well please explain then why the US was in recession then in the 70's 80's and 90's? all while the ALP was in power. And also i would like to remind you, it is not only Rudd who is following the climate change movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessio...

but maybe you're also forgetting that the economy started to decline while howard was still in office in 2007.

“Pinoy Pride!! Sino ka??”

Since: Mar 08

Melbourne, AUS

#97 Jul 23, 2008
Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
You think if Australia doesn't go along with Kyoto and pick up the tab for China and India, the earth is doomed?
why do we need to have kyoto to see that their is something wrong in the world? if you haven't noticed you must be pretty blind.

Sure the economy is pretty important, but whats the point of having an economy when if we really don't clean up the enviroment, even if there is no climate change. having polluted rivers, rubbish swimming everywhere and deforestation isn't a very good thing. remember the world can surivive with a bad economy but no economy can survive with a bad earth.
Dee

Rosebery, Australia

#98 Jul 23, 2008
ngali wrote:
<quoted text>
So your position is that Australia has become a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol (only valid for four years in any case) because Kevin Rudd thinks there's a payday in it for himself?
Does this logic extend to all the other national leaders who also signed?
I swear Dee, this is the most cynical and illogical of world views. You're spouting an ill formed conspiracy theory here.
Why are you always so melodramatic? There's a REALLY REALLY big difference between brewing up a conspiracy theory and forming an opinion of someone's motives.

I happen to think that Kevvie has adopted climate change as his issue with future prospects in mind. No conspiracy theory there.

"this is the most cynical and illogical of world views"

Cynical maybe, but not illogical. If you wish to believe that those in government and the ruling elite act in the best interests of the people, go ahead, that's the beauty of democrasy. Just dont expect me to agree with you.
Dee

Rosebery, Australia

#99 Jul 23, 2008
JepJep wrote:
<quoted text>
well please explain then why the US was in recession then in the 70's 80's and 90's? all while the ALP was in power. And also i would like to remind you, it is not only Rudd who is following the climate change movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessio...
but maybe you're also forgetting that the economy started to decline while howard was still in office in 2007.
"the US was in recession then in the 70's 80's and 90's? all while the ALP was in power"

Since the ALP was not in power in the US, I fail to see your point.

“I Didn't Hit You”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#100 Jul 23, 2008
JepJep wrote:
<quoted text>
well please explain then why the US was in recession then in the 70's 80's and 90's? all while the ALP was in power. And also i would like to remind you, it is not only Rudd who is following the climate change movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessio...
but maybe you're also forgetting that the economy started to decline while howard was still in office in 2007.
It obviously wasn't because Labour was in power in Australia, was it? Little old Australia's Government causing a US recession for up to 3 decades? They hardly even knew who we were until the mid-80's.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The University of Findlay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Corbin, Hooks Set for Run-off in Treutlen Count... (Jul '08) Aug '11 yep 379
Mom's smoking tied to oral birth defect (Jul '08) Jun '11 MyAdvocates 6
Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice ... (Jul '08) May '10 LuLu Ford 452
Springdale Har-Ber coach arrested in rapes (Jul '08) Apr '10 player 18
Cold Case: Investigators try to identify girl f... (Jul '08) Jan '10 Saddened 54
Seven Coronation Lakalaka will not include Tata... (Jul '08) Oct '09 Da Man 100
Cyprus airport bus service to be introduced (Aug '08) Aug '09 Anna 10
More from around the web