Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "ABC'S Paul Barry 'exaggerates and distorts at times'" video.

@freibuis Nonsense that the ABC treats both sides equally. Example: how much noise did the ABC make on 'same sex marriage' when Rudd/Gillard/Rudd were in office? Answer virtually none. Now Rudd may have been hard to swing, but Julia Gillard would have been easy to swing with a bit of pressure to legalizing same sex marriage. No, not a peep out of the ABC. BUT ... the instant Tony Abbott won office, then it became endlessly the biggest game in town to the ABC. Night after night after night, on every ABC current events type program The reality is the issue had NOTHING to do with gay rights to the ABC, because if it was they would have stated up when Gillard was PM. To the ABC it was just an means to work on unseating the Liberal Government. By taking this purely political stance, the ABC effectively made a decision to delayed same sex marriage becoming law by about 6 years.
2
@freibuis The only people who think the ABC is impartial are people who think the 'sensible center' is just a fraction to the right of communism. Community sentiment only shifted toward same sex marriage because of the relentless campaign mounted by the left wing media e.g. channels 7/9/10, ABC and SBS (which commenced virtually the day Tony Abbot took office). Imaging how hard it would have been for Penny Wong to vote AGAINST the legalization of same sex marriage at the Labour conference when it was on the agenda when Julia Gillard was PM.
1
@freibuis Honestly, you've lost me on the left/right question. But regarding human induced climate change, virtually everyone agrees man has an affect on the climate. Man started affecting the climate 4000 years ago when we cleared the great forests of Asia and replaced them with methane producing rice-paddies. That man induced climate change is the 'debate' is just a deliberate misrepresentation of the concerns of many by the left-wing social warriors masquerading as people genuinely concerned about the environment. Judith Curry, is a highly qualified climate scientist with way more integrity than the fraudulent Michael Mann. She believes in AGW, yet she is called a 'climate denier' simply because she believes a lot of current climate science lacks basic academic rigor. Same criticism as Professor Peter Ridd, again a highly qualified reef scientist (no matter what the hate brigade say). Bjorn Lomberg believes in AWG, yet he is also called a 'climate denier'. Simply because he believes trying to address rising CO2 emissions under our current approach is just a massive cost for next to no environmental impact. Many believe current approaches are destined to fail. How can just sticking in a bunch of windmills and solar panels possible be adequate when the world population will double in just over 60 years, the third world has a right to climb out of poverty and is becoming a rising middle class, and the first world continues its ever increasing environmental footprint pretending banning plastic shopping bags is going to achieve anything (just look around, it is). Well it has, sales of plastic rubbish bin liners have skyrocketed. Even the most basic scrutiny should surely indicate sticking in a bunch of windmills and solar panels must fail. The 'rent seekers' like Malcolm Turnbull's son, Ross Garnaut, and the big energy players will be the only winners. To me the debate is really about where will we get the best environment outcome for our dollar, not put the whole burden on those who can least afford it, and bring about an orderly transition that doesn't punish working people. THAT is the real debate people who generally care about the world they live in are trying to have. The current climate change push is actually a hindrance to true and direct environmental action e.g. preservation of habitat, getting enough water into the Murray Darling system to satisfy BOTH farmers and the environment. If they have to complete for a limited resource the environment will lose every time. Don't hold you breath waiting for the ABC to discuss these types of 'meaty' issues.
1
Just watched a video of the boss of Suncorp Insurance complaining how much 'climate change' has adversely affected their profitability. Claims sever weather events have got much worse since he started work with them many years ago, due to 'climate change' and this is driving a big increase in the cost of claims. Wouldn't you think with all the highly paid actuaries that work in a major insurance company like Suncorp at least one of them could have sent the boss this web link http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml before he went on Sky News (or whatever the original source was) making a fool of himself. Cyclones, THE major weather event that adversely affect Queensland have become fewer in both number and intensity over the past 50 years. The major reason for the very large increase in claims is population growth, leading to new houses being build in unsuitable historic flood plains e.g Townsville flood, or people in places like Brisbane building underneath existing houses that were raised originally, for the very reason of being out of historic floods. Nothing to do with 'climate change'.
1