Thread: if you dont believe in global warming sign this

I'm sorry for the venemous rant yesterday. I get a bit out of control on this and similar issues. I'm politically middle of the road and rail against extremists on either side.

The reason I get so cranky is this is a social justice issue for me. As I mentioned I am constantly bewildered at how readily people will put being heard and getting their way ahead of the real needs of the vulnerable people in society. Some of you will remember the Hawke Keeting government in the early 80's destroying the textile industry in Australia. For the sake of economic rationalisn I saw hundreds or people, mostly women from the poorest backgrounds thrown out of thier minimum wage jobs with little hope for alternative employment. This sort of thing happens again and again, for the sake of idealogies and egos.

Self confessed cranky old man

Using economic levers like the ETS do have some merit providing they are linked to programs that actually bring about change. You actually need to provide the direction, some solutions and a time frame and then use a lever like an ETS as a prod to get things moving. On its own an ETS may do little, and dry conditions and CO2 warnings seem to be giving sellers of water and power the opportunity to push up costs without doing much to reduce the problem.

We are possibly the worlds worst polluter per capita, producing twice as much CO2 as the Europeans, five times the Chinese and marginally more than the North Americans.

Some of that can be put down to our coal fired generators and some to poor (inefficient) house design. Our heavy industry is in decline and we are cutting back on land clearing so in some ways reductions are occuring.

We do need to protect those on low incomes, solar hot water and double glazing should probably be standard and rather than hoping it will happen the government needs to do more in building standards and retrofitting old homes. That especially means helping those on lower incomes to make changes that reduce their costs and power needs.

If we can bring down the cost of LED globes and ban appliances that consume power on standby we could probably knock a minimum of 25% off home power bills. Solar hotwater, reduction of drafts in homes, and better understanding of where heat is lost would bring further savings.

There is a lot that could be done without huge cost, but in the end someone is going to have to make the decission to bring an end to our dirtiest coal fired generators, and do more about alternatives.

Instead we bring on line a desal plant that uses massive amounts of power from generators that use massive amounts of water to produce that power. Wouldn't capturing urban runoff to feed our parks, and gardens along with rainwater tanks have been worth considering. We would use more of what we currently waste and reduce CO2 emmissions at the same time.

We remain locked into the silliness of pretending we need not do anything, but why should the rest of the world bother when the dirtiest users of CO2 choose to do so little. If a supposedly well off country with one of the worlds most solid economies can sit on its hands where is the obligation on anyone else to get moving.

Im with Tea lady all the way, if she is ever my way she is welcome to drop in for a cuppa and,if given warning, Ill make a batch of scones. This issue dragged on in the other forum, it is a two sided fight and has turned into something other than climate. My advice to all is drop it, its never solved as it has politics jammed in the mix. Anyway Australia has no choice, we can be in, and fight on the inside, or out and be dictated to. In the scheme of things, Australia lives by selling to other countries, if we start giving them the rude finger they aint gonna buy from us.

And to see rrobor reasons look here
Emission Trading - Renovate Forums
and read the 475 posts that got nowere , people have mindset on this new tax and no one will change their views
or if you disagree with the ETS you can sign the petition from hugie's first post but lets not go another 475 posts of bias

.

Originally Posted by johnc

Most of the world has moved on from these purile anti global warming arguements.

Yes because their political/business masters told them to.. If everyone jumps over a cliff do we do it as well???

Many years ago everyone thought the world was flat... Even today billions of people believe in an entity where there is absolutely no proof of it's existence other then handed down legend..

People for the most part are not rational nor logical and generally believe whatever they are told to believe..

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Well said and the heart of the matter. I remember some interviews with Barnaby Joyce in the early days where he calmly stated that he would at the maximum see two terms in office as the effect of Canberra was corrupting and he didnt want to end up just another piece of apparatchik. Well guess whats happened.

He hasn't done two terms yet has he???

Senate terms are eight years, not four..That is why only half the senate gets voted out/in every federal election...

Originally Posted by johnc

We are possibly the worlds worst polluter per capita, producing twice as much CO2 as the Europeans, five times the Chinese and marginally more than the North Americans.

Statistics prove nothing, and you have manipulated them to make a point...

Why didn't you say we produce something like 3% of the worlds CO2??

Why didn't you say we are the fifth or sixth largest country with an extremely small population??

How much of the worlds food do we produce??

How much of the worlds coal do we produce??

How much of the worlds iron ore do we produce??

Originally Posted by .RC.

Statistics prove nothing, and you have manipulated them to make a point...

Why didn't you say we produce something like 3% of the worlds CO2??

Why didn't you say we are the fifth or sixth largest country with an extremely small population??

How much of the worlds food do we produce??

How much of the worlds coal do we produce??

How much of the worlds iron ore do we produce??

Because the first two are nonsense (its about 1.4 to 1.5% if you believe the Libs and Nats, and we make up something like .3% of the worlds population), and the last three may well make interesting statistics if you provided some figures but do not bear directly on the question. All of mans endevours have some bearing on resource use, and various emissions, but whats your point. We don't as far as I know include exported coal or iron in our CO2 calculations just the stuff we use. What bearing does food have in the calculations?. Quite frankly if thats about all you can manage why bother posting inuendo without rational support.

I have noted some earlier posts on the fact that this has been done to death in the renovation forum, and see little point in adding fuel beyond this post. It is a shame this topic can't be a discussion on what is and is not drawn in and what various proposals will do rather than people getting all fired up and posting meritless accusations.

Originally Posted by damian

While your at it take a good long look at the enviroment movement. They are a mix of thieves and self gratifying morons. Mentalists, not enviromentalists. The first type are out to line thier pockets at anyone's expense that they can manage to con, the latter sit around sipping their late's in their inner city slums complaining about what everyone else is doing, and offering no sensible solutions.

Oh dear, this is why this debate never goes anywhere (Dont take it personally Damian, I read your apology but want to make another point). There is a undercurrent of violent agreement about the need to reduce resource wastage and therefore cost. What is skewing perceptions is the very successful wedge politics being waged to neutralise the need for calm rational action. It is divide and conquer. The longer we argue about caracatures of various positions in this debate (left / right, green / industrialist etc) the less real action needs to be taken and the better chance of us re-electing the same stooges (no matter what party they claim to represent) who got us into this mess in the first place. Their lackies are the media who spew that same wedge vitriol to ensure their personal ratings dont slip. The best way to eff their whole game is to actually talk to each other and see that we have the same agendas. I think the way the debate is conducted is more damaging than the climate change itself.

As a business owner and employer I know that there will be more to pay for years of mismanagement by governments of all flavours, and it will pass through the whole economy. And my staff want more money, and my kid needs tutoring if he is going to get through school, the car is 5 years old and is starting to need work. Ive got the effin chinese breathing down my back undercutting me on jobs that arent even worth a grand. If we are going to get rid of anything lets get rid of the WTO and all of the free trade areas and agreements, oops my rant...

The best environmental work in Aus at the moment (IMO) is coming from the Uni of NSW. Leaders in Cogeneration, Solar panel technologies, etc. Their website is worth looking at to see what solutions are being proposed. See also the World business council for sustainable development World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) check out who is in it and what they are trying to do.

Finally, Australia's ETS has nothing to do with the Copenhagen Conference. The conference is an attempt to get a world wide agreement to limit the amount of carbon going into the air. Any decision taken must be implemented by the governments of the countries of the world. An ETS is only one way of doing this and fits with the current free market philosophy that the "L" parties subscribe to. There are lots of other ways of incentivising economies to reduce carbon consumption. The "L"'s are too lazy/scared to publicly canvas the rest. I thought Turnball's suggestion of a straight carbon tax was one of the better ones but it only got a very limited airing. The government has been trying to push the legislation through before Copenhagen to give it some negotiating leverage as Australia is such a small player. But it has never had the numbers in the Senate, it aint gonna happen.

I would make a terrible pollie, Id tell the lot to eff of and then go down to the shed and ruin some nice timber.

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Oh dear, this is why this debate never goes anywhere (Dont take it personally Damian,

If we are going to get rid of anything lets get rid of the WTO and all of the free trade areas and agreements, oops my rant...

I won't take it personally And I agree with most of what you just posted. I'll have another go at making myself clear, as I realise I don't always communicate well what I have tried to say.

If you bother to study history we have always since the industrial revolution and possibly before reached a point where the community has jacked up and forced polluters to back off. It happened in Victorian Britain, it happened in the 70's, it's happened all along. The notion put by the rabid mentalists that "it's time to start doing something about the enviroment" is pure absurdity. If you pull them up they admit to previous enviromental controls (and sometimes claim credit for them) but they continue to try and perpetuate the misinformation. Obviously the socialists don't have a monopoly on propoganda and misinformation but over the last 30 years they have become uncommonly prolific and expert at it. I saw a story on the news the other day about 2 stroke outboards and the proposal to ban their sale in queensland. Every piece of information in the story was incorrect. Every single piece.

I made a point of mentioning some of things being done or that could be done above. It would be really nice to see more solutions put forward and debated rather than the tow the line stance by our government and media. I suppose if you give people choices they might start to doubt your rhetoric or, heaven forbid, think for themselves. This is the essence of my objection to the global warming propoganda. It's based on fear and obedience. They don't want solutions, they don't care who they hurt, they just want obedience and aceptance.

This is not and never has been a scientific debate. The mentalists bandy about the word to give themselves credibility, and a minority of amoral PhD's will say and do anything for a research grant. This has always been a political debate between an ideaolegy that wants to destroy western civilisation and one that wants to exploit nature until it's obliterated. In the middle are the rational beings looking for a workable compromise, but we get no profile in the media because concensus and agreement make poorer ratings than a good punchup. Barnaby Joyce has learned this and flowered up his speach to get exposure. He is neither fruitcake nor fool, he is representing his constituents as best he can.

In a perfect world we would assess the cost benifit of the options to hand and the likelyhood of sucess of investing in emerging technologies and research, then we would provide information and options to the population to take up as they see fit. That approach would result in real pollution reductions, signifigant and measureable. That ain't no where near what's happening. Instead a few amoral people will make tones of money and the vulnerable and voiceless will get screwed again.

I suppose it's confusing that I refer to the mentalists as the collective of thieves and thick pseudo-socialist/enviromentalists who are so willing to embrace the dogma. It's the people and the process that makes me so angry, not the essential sentiment that looking after our enviroment is a good idea, which in my opinion should be self evident. You need to always remember that the people who get on TV are just another type of politician, always remember that through every word they utter.

As for the world bank/WTO and such you really should watch the "yes men", a movie made some years back by a bunch of activists. Absolutely hysterical, and mostly because as Homer Simpson once famously said "because it's true"...

And xkcd rocks. I remember that frame and laughed long when it was first published.

Originally Posted by johnc

All of mans endevours have some bearing on resource use, and various emissions, but whats your point. We don't as far as I know include exported coal or iron in our CO2 calculations just the stuff we use.

But it emits a shed load of CO2 with their mining... This is why it is totally unfair to say we are the biggest emitters, blah blah blah...

If we stopped all mining and processing and agriculture our emissions would plummet.. You would also be dead as you have starved to death...

If everyone wants to reduce emissions, why is it today will see extreme amounts of electricity use??? Why do people need to turn the aircon and emit huge amounts of CO2 rather then toughing out the heat..

Why even get slightly concerned about global warming.....were all going to choke on our waste long before global warming gets us.

Even if you dont believe in human influenced climate change do something for the planet and adopt a less wasteful lifestyle.

Originally Posted by .RC.

He hasn't done two terms yet has he???

Senate terms are eight years, not four..That is why only half the senate gets voted out/in every federal election...

I stand corrected, Barnaby Joyce's term started 01.07.05 it expires 30.06.11

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

Why even get slightly concerned about global warming.....were all going to choke on our waste long before global warming gets us.
.

I think more than that, our government will have workshopped, seminared and consulted about AGW until we are destitute. Then they'll try and sell off the national parks, the police service, courts.....