Australian
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Oct 13
15:32
Joined:
Date Joined:
30 Apr 12
I've been thinking about this for the last few years ever since the 2009 fires in Victoria, some of which were deliberately lit.
Bushfires inspire fear. Fear for one's life. Fear for one's property. They completely disrupt everyday life in areas affected. They tie up emergency services, sometimes for weeks at a time. They cost the lives of emergency personnel and members of the public. They reduce entire towns to ashes. These towns take years to rebuild, if indeed they rebuild at all. They attract the attention of the whole nation and become the number one issue on new bulletins for weeks at a time.
Isn't it time that the perpetrators of these atrocities were treated as the terrorists that they are?
Other countries have suicide bombers. Other countries have planes that get hijacked and flown into buildings.
We have bushfires ... and every year without fail our army of volunteers and professional firefighters goes to war against an invasion of rampant flames. EVERY FREAKIN YEAR.
Our terrorists are too gutless to take their own lives in their act of terrorism. Instead they light fires and hope they don't get caught so they can look on at the chaos they've created.
I know a lot of our perpetrators are kids ... but so what? If you were walking through Syria or some other sh1t hole and got blown up by a 10 year old Al Qaeda suicide bomber, would the fact that the kid was 10 years old make it any less an act of terrorism.
These bushfires are, in my opinion, an act of terrorism ... and, as such, an act of war on this country. Treat them the same way you would treat any enemy combatant.
Bushfires inspire fear. Fear for one's life. Fear for one's property. They completely disrupt everyday life in areas affected. They tie up emergency services, sometimes for weeks at a time. They cost the lives of emergency personnel and members of the public. They reduce entire towns to ashes. These towns take years to rebuild, if indeed they rebuild at all. They attract the attention of the whole nation and become the number one issue on new bulletins for weeks at a time.
Isn't it time that the perpetrators of these atrocities were treated as the terrorists that they are?
Other countries have suicide bombers. Other countries have planes that get hijacked and flown into buildings.
We have bushfires ... and every year without fail our army of volunteers and professional firefighters goes to war against an invasion of rampant flames. EVERY FREAKIN YEAR.
Our terrorists are too gutless to take their own lives in their act of terrorism. Instead they light fires and hope they don't get caught so they can look on at the chaos they've created.
I know a lot of our perpetrators are kids ... but so what? If you were walking through Syria or some other sh1t hole and got blown up by a 10 year old Al Qaeda suicide bomber, would the fact that the kid was 10 years old make it any less an act of terrorism.
These bushfires are, in my opinion, an act of terrorism ... and, as such, an act of war on this country. Treat them the same way you would treat any enemy combatant.
Show More
Framing domestic issues and policing around it being a "war against this or that" and or using language and changing Laws to support this Mantra IE:"Terrorist" only leads to a lessening of human rights and freedom of movement for the greater community.
The people who start bushfires are arsonists not terrorists.
The people who start bushfires are arsonists not terrorists.
What's the story with the army - they were doing explosive exercises near where a substantial fire started or something - I presume that's been discounted as a cause? People obv very worried over there as it's not even near the hight of b/fire season is it? Good luck to any with relos involved.
got to blame some of this on the greenies, look what the greenies did to victoria, re black saturday.
well i did hear on the grapevine a local in the blue mountaing started a SEX toy business, he got a bargain he thought when he purchased 1,000 BLOW UP ARAB SEX DOLLS.......
apparently the fcukers blew up
apparently the fcukers blew up
military will be in a spot of bother - some explaining to do
Megsy - seeing as you obviously don't know the Greens policy here is the key bit
http://greens.org.au/policies/environmental-principles
An effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management that will protect biodiversity and moderate the effects of wildfire for the protection of people and assets, developed in consultation with experts, custodians and land managers.
Megsy - seeing as you obviously don't know the Greens policy here is the key bit
http://greens.org.au/policies/environmental-principles
An effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management that will protect biodiversity and moderate the effects of wildfire for the protection of people and assets, developed in consultation with experts, custodians and land managers.
OK, so it's not terrorism ...
... it's a military coup !
I feel so much better.
... it's a military coup !
I feel so much better.
Cant even give those couple of kids who were starting fires a good caning, worlds gone nuts
with due respect womble, the black saturday fires were so intense through the failure of the greens who ran local councils failure to reduce vegetain tonnage per acre, its a known fact.
there was a huge investigation into that awful Black Ssaturday tragedy where that statement was made Megsy yes ...
---
Prescribed burning was identified by many commentators after Black Saturday as the key fuel reduction measure that should be increased in our forests.
David Packham, a bushfire specialist from Monash University, was quoted in The Australian as saying: ''The green movement is directly responsible for the severity of these fires through their opposition to prescribed burning."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/fuelling-rational-debate-20120118-1q6gz.html#ixzz2imNDlJ00
---
but the saddest statement imo came from a Climate scientist ... (people who often just use computer models and rarely get the opportunity to get 'on the ground' where the fires are ... and have been)
---
It is interesting to compare our research results with opinions expressed after Black Saturday. Soon after the fires,
Professor David Karoly, a climate scientist from Melbourne University, was reported in The Australian as saying: "Climatic conditions experienced before the Black Saturday bushfires were so extreme that fuel reduction would not have made any difference."
This statement was not supported by our data. We found that 87 per cent fewer houses were destroyed on Black Saturday where fuels surrounding them were at minimum levels.
(same article)
---
Prescribed burning was identified by many commentators after Black Saturday as the key fuel reduction measure that should be increased in our forests.
David Packham, a bushfire specialist from Monash University, was quoted in The Australian as saying: ''The green movement is directly responsible for the severity of these fires through their opposition to prescribed burning."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/fuelling-rational-debate-20120118-1q6gz.html#ixzz2imNDlJ00
---
but the saddest statement imo came from a Climate scientist ... (people who often just use computer models and rarely get the opportunity to get 'on the ground' where the fires are ... and have been)
---
It is interesting to compare our research results with opinions expressed after Black Saturday. Soon after the fires,
Professor David Karoly, a climate scientist from Melbourne University, was reported in The Australian as saying: "Climatic conditions experienced before the Black Saturday bushfires were so extreme that fuel reduction would not have made any difference."
This statement was not supported by our data. We found that 87 per cent fewer houses were destroyed on Black Saturday where fuels surrounding them were at minimum levels.
(same article)
The terrorist thing is a tad over the top but we are way too lenient. No way in this country can claim ignorance about the potential for death and destruction in relation to bushfires. We will all never agree about the punishment of a 10 year old, too many trains of thought on such an issue, but for an adult, throw the fecking key away should people die due to a deliberately lit bushfire. Heinous act.
confuscious say ...
climate scientists have head in air but we live on ground
climate scientists have head in air but we live on ground
thank you Thebus for that, supports my arguement, womble must be a swinging voter between the greens and labor, i guess you need more trees to swing
funny thing about climate change being blamed.
black friday in 1939 which wiped out more than black saturday fires were on Parallel with each other, both had 3 straight days of 45-46 degrees with extreme winds.
so how would these scientist explain 1939 ?
black friday in 1939 which wiped out more than black saturday fires were on Parallel with each other, both had 3 straight days of 45-46 degrees with extreme winds.
so how would these scientist explain 1939 ?
cheers megsy
nowadays ... if it gets hot its climate change ... if it gets cold its climate change ... if there's a drought its climate change ... and if it gets wet it's climate change
like backing every runner in the field ... the winner is covered
and that wouldn't bother me one bit ... to be honest ...
but it's when they then use the ... CC argument ... to go hunting for your sovereign cash
when you read the Stern Report that the economic gurus refer back when money and climate change is discussed by the UN ... well as best as i can make out they are originally talking about ... "risk management" and "reducing the eventual cost to the globe via disasters ... assessed out to infinity"
now .. if they planned to hold these accumulated funds in trust ... so that the money could be used when a disaster hit (like an insurance company does with their risk appraisals) ... or used to pump into the development of an alternative power sourcre ... then again i could live with it
but the money ain't gonna be held in trust for the globe's disasters out to infinity
and it isn't even going to be audited ... they are going to let Wall Street handle all the money first ... who will take their 'cut' (the vig) ... and then provide a balance sheet telling everybody how much is left ffs
i have ZERO trust in the process & zero trust in the facilitators ... don't tax / trade ... do something real please
shame about the environment
nowadays ... if it gets hot its climate change ... if it gets cold its climate change ... if there's a drought its climate change ... and if it gets wet it's climate change
like backing every runner in the field ... the winner is covered
and that wouldn't bother me one bit ... to be honest ...
but it's when they then use the ... CC argument ... to go hunting for your sovereign cash
when you read the Stern Report that the economic gurus refer back when money and climate change is discussed by the UN ... well as best as i can make out they are originally talking about ... "risk management" and "reducing the eventual cost to the globe via disasters ... assessed out to infinity"
now .. if they planned to hold these accumulated funds in trust ... so that the money could be used when a disaster hit (like an insurance company does with their risk appraisals) ... or used to pump into the development of an alternative power sourcre ... then again i could live with it
but the money ain't gonna be held in trust for the globe's disasters out to infinity
and it isn't even going to be audited ... they are going to let Wall Street handle all the money first ... who will take their 'cut' (the vig) ... and then provide a balance sheet telling everybody how much is left ffs
i have ZERO trust in the process & zero trust in the facilitators ... don't tax / trade ... do something real please
shame about the environment
ELVIS should SUCK up GREENIES with his BIG HOSE and drop them on bushfires so they can see the result,up close, of their idealogical CRUSADES and then DIE in a terrifying inferno while we all CHEER and have ORGIES
1939 was a hell of along time ago - not so long ago Canberra, Black Saturday and now the NSW fires + some others amongst that
i.e. they are becoming more frequent - even you guys would have to agree with that
Megsy - I agree there are pockets of greens that go over the top and would share a small part of the blame for Black Saturday but the national policy of the party is as quoted above
i.e. they are becoming more frequent - even you guys would have to agree with that
Megsy - I agree there are pockets of greens that go over the top and would share a small part of the blame for Black Saturday but the national policy of the party is as quoted above
ideological that should read sorry
Sorry wombleoz don't agree with that.
Sorry wombleoz don't agree with that.
i remember in the 70's the government were giving farmers free bullets to kill there sheep and cattle due to drought, there was even talk of towing a ice berg to sth australia at the time.
and in the 70's we even had floods in melbourne, i do remember elizabeth st like a white water river and flemington race course was 6 feet under water.
climate change my @rse
and in the 70's we even had floods in melbourne, i do remember elizabeth st like a white water river and flemington race course was 6 feet under water.
climate change my @rse
true megsy ... australia's history has been dotted with major & severe events
events that if they happened today would have the climate change vultures out in droves
could you imagine the climate change uproar if this happened today
-------
The 'Federation Drought', 1895-1902
In the five years leading up to Federation in January 1901, there were intermittent dry spells throughout Australia.
By spring 1901, very dry conditions were being experienced across all of eastern Australia.
Rivers in western Queensland dried up and the Darling River almost ran dry at Bourke in New South Wales.
-----------
South-eastern Australia, 1952
In June 1952, torrential rain fell over south-eastern Australia where the ground was already saturated from good autumn rains.
Major flooding occurred on every river in the Gippsland area of Victoria and adjacent southern coastal New South Wales.
Further severe flooding occurred in October and November 1952 in south-eastern Australia.
events that if they happened today would have the climate change vultures out in droves
could you imagine the climate change uproar if this happened today
-------
The 'Federation Drought', 1895-1902
In the five years leading up to Federation in January 1901, there were intermittent dry spells throughout Australia.
By spring 1901, very dry conditions were being experienced across all of eastern Australia.
Rivers in western Queensland dried up and the Darling River almost ran dry at Bourke in New South Wales.
-----------
South-eastern Australia, 1952
In June 1952, torrential rain fell over south-eastern Australia where the ground was already saturated from good autumn rains.
Major flooding occurred on every river in the Gippsland area of Victoria and adjacent southern coastal New South Wales.
Further severe flooding occurred in October and November 1952 in south-eastern Australia.
a beautiful 'you-tube' megsy describing the range & diversity of our wonderful country ...
and i had not read that report from the 1890's natural disasters megsy before ... wow ... Mackay down to the Illawarra
i have kept the link ... all our children should read this report
(in the Regatta Hotel near Milton Qld they have massive pictures of the floods on their walls ... just amazing scenes)
and i had not read that report from the 1890's natural disasters megsy before ... wow ... Mackay down to the Illawarra
i have kept the link ... all our children should read this report
(in the Regatta Hotel near Milton Qld they have massive pictures of the floods on their walls ... just amazing scenes)
just dont show a greenie, he or she will argue differently 
well they're not so bad in general i guess lol ... everyone has a little piece of the puzzle ... and in total we understand most of our country and its environment and its place in the wider world
but when one side comes along ... and says ... forget the history of your country as you don't know your country ... oh my
because at present it seems that ... every incident of bad weather, good weather, wet weather, dry weather is gonna be called climate change
and don't do anything real to address an issue ... just hand over your sovereign wealth to us ... then imho people are entitled to be somewhat sceptical
if there was proper discourse ... on either side ... for a resolution then the support of the people might be more forthcoming
to dictate ... and now worse as is "their" plan apparently ... to just use everyday disasters ... to then jump on twitter or give a speech to CNN declaring an event a perfect example of the worst climate change incident possible is approaching the vile
.. and all this ... BEFORE ... local authorities can even have a look at the disaster completion evidence ... and BEFORE the grieving of those involved is even allowed to subside
... Megsy .. could you IMAGINE the uproar from those in Climate Science if those events of 1893 happened today ... it was be a religious experience for alarmists, exaggerators and the political opportunists ... which would dwarf anything we have seen from them so far
real dialogue attempting real solutions ... not just grabbing for money (and letting Wall Street tell us what is left over) ...
it might surprise everybody just how many people do want see a betterment for the environment and the planet at large
maybe one day
it's not about forgetting history or ignoring events of the past - it's about accepting that these events are happening more frequently now
it's no good burying our heads in sand, we should try and do something
it's no good burying our heads in sand, we should try and do something
sheesh womble it was happening more frequently back in 1893 too, read megsy's link its not fiction , its what was actually happening then , today is NO different
I note that not once do you ever have ANYTHING to say about the Wall St sham every single time Thebas mentions it
I note that not once do you ever have ANYTHING to say about the Wall St sham every single time Thebas mentions it
sheesh womble it was happening more frequently back in 1893 too, read megsy's link its not fiction , its what was actually happening then , today is NO different
I note that not once do you ever have ANYTHING to say about the Wall St sham every single time Thebas mentions it
I note that not once do you ever have ANYTHING to say about the Wall St sham every single time Thebas mentions it
twice stated and twice correct
.. the capatilist side know the co2 tax / trade is a scam ... and has nothing to with saving the environment
but evidence now shows the socialist side see it in a similar way also
even a statement from the left that ... the EU might blackmail australia over trade ... just to get another sucker player (with a pocketful of cash) into their money and environment neutral & losing ponzi plan
---
The (Gillard) Labor government warned about the possible imposition by the European Union and other economies of “green tariffs” on Australian exports unless measures were taken to promote non-fossil fuel based energy sources.
At the same time, Gillard has promoted the opportunities that would open up for Australia’s banks and financial institutions when the carbon tax transitions to an ETS in three years.
Emissions trading schemes were first promoted in the US in the 1980s as a “free market” alternative to imposing regulatory restrictions on the operations of corporate polluters.
The transformation of carbon into a new commodity, through the European ETS and related international mechanisms developed under the Kyoto Protocol, has generated a highly lucrative new field of operations for financial speculators.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/carb-j06.html
----
so if the right see the fake for the environment scam ... and the socialist left see the fake for the environment scam .. then who is left (no pun meant sorry) believing the scam ?
it's about the time the sceientific community and the real world had an open discussion where all sides can have their say and question ... with the hope being that a REAL PLAN to help the planet comes together in a confluence of ideas
.. the capatilist side know the co2 tax / trade is a scam ... and has nothing to with saving the environment
but evidence now shows the socialist side see it in a similar way also
even a statement from the left that ... the EU might blackmail australia over trade ... just to get another sucker player (with a pocketful of cash) into their money and environment neutral & losing ponzi plan
---
The (Gillard) Labor government warned about the possible imposition by the European Union and other economies of “green tariffs” on Australian exports unless measures were taken to promote non-fossil fuel based energy sources.
At the same time, Gillard has promoted the opportunities that would open up for Australia’s banks and financial institutions when the carbon tax transitions to an ETS in three years.
Emissions trading schemes were first promoted in the US in the 1980s as a “free market” alternative to imposing regulatory restrictions on the operations of corporate polluters.
The transformation of carbon into a new commodity, through the European ETS and related international mechanisms developed under the Kyoto Protocol, has generated a highly lucrative new field of operations for financial speculators.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/carb-j06.html
----
so if the right see the fake for the environment scam ... and the socialist left see the fake for the environment scam .. then who is left (no pun meant sorry) believing the scam ?
it's about the time the sceientific community and the real world had an open discussion where all sides can have their say and question ... with the hope being that a REAL PLAN to help the planet comes together in a confluence of ideas
some will not read the entire article from the socialist left .. so here is a further snippet of the leftist understanding of the fake gillard co2 tax scam
---
This is all a contemptible hoax.
What has been billed as a major “progressive” environmental and social reform is in fact a regressive pro-business measure that does nothing to address the climate change crisis.
The entire official “debate” surrounding the carbon tax takes on a more and more unreal character.
Certain “inconvenient truths” are passed over in silence in the media—above all the fact that contrary to Gillard’s claims, carbon emissions in Australia are set to increase under the new tax regime.
According to the (Gillard) government’s own figures, national emissions will rise from 582 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020.
A nominal 5 percent reduction in emissions will be registered via the purchase of dubious carbon credits on the global market that supposedly represent emissions-reducing schemes in other countries.
-----
World Socialist Website
Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
----
ffs maybe i'm a commie
---
This is all a contemptible hoax.
What has been billed as a major “progressive” environmental and social reform is in fact a regressive pro-business measure that does nothing to address the climate change crisis.
The entire official “debate” surrounding the carbon tax takes on a more and more unreal character.
Certain “inconvenient truths” are passed over in silence in the media—above all the fact that contrary to Gillard’s claims, carbon emissions in Australia are set to increase under the new tax regime.
According to the (Gillard) government’s own figures, national emissions will rise from 582 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020.
A nominal 5 percent reduction in emissions will be registered via the purchase of dubious carbon credits on the global market that supposedly represent emissions-reducing schemes in other countries.
-----
World Socialist Website
Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
----
ffs maybe i'm a commie
At the same time, Gillard has promoted the opportunities that would open up for Australia’s banks and financial institutions when the carbon tax transitions to an ETS in three years.
what do bankers have to do with carbon reduction and why is it an opportunity ffs?
what were you thinking Julia?
aussies hate bankers
what do bankers have to do with carbon reduction and why is it an opportunity ffs?
what were you thinking Julia?
aussies hate bankers
I was reading that and thought same thebas , increase of emissions wtf?
just a money shuffling exercise NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
just a money shuffling exercise NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
the bankers will take a cut of any trading scheme - unfortunate but the way it is - doesn't change the fact that pricing pollution is still the best way to reduce it
unproven womble
the Stern report .. which the tax nonsense come from is quite specific
it is about risk management .. not reduction of 'pollution'
and is clealry states that it ... WON'T WORK ... unles everyone country on earth participates and that the price is a constant for all participants
could you imagine a scheme where Europe has $6 a tonne ... australia has $21 a tonne .. and india has 4 cents a tonne
when i want to buy carbon offsets will i buy from australia or india ... LOLOLOL
Stern was specific ... not the EU or australia have read it .. and want to just start there own nonsense
fake for the environment ... a scam on those who DO believe change should happen
the Stern report .. which the tax nonsense come from is quite specific
it is about risk management .. not reduction of 'pollution'
and is clealry states that it ... WON'T WORK ... unles everyone country on earth participates and that the price is a constant for all participants
could you imagine a scheme where Europe has $6 a tonne ... australia has $21 a tonne .. and india has 4 cents a tonne
when i want to buy carbon offsets will i buy from australia or india ... LOLOLOL
Stern was specific ... not the EU or australia have read it .. and want to just start there own nonsense
fake for the environment ... a scam on those who DO believe change should happen
this is an accurate economic assessment of the planned ETS ... which of course is WORSE than the trick TAX scam
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
Without a global carbon-pricing system, national or regional carbon-pricing schemes would be prohibitively expensive if they are to achieve the projected benefits and, therefore, would not be sustainable.
The high cost means that a scheme like the one Australia has legislated is not viable, and even regional carbon pricing schemes like the European ETS will not last.
The ‘ball-park’ analysis presented here suggests Australia’s ETS would cost $12 for every $1 of projected benefit, to 2050.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
Without a global carbon-pricing system, national or regional carbon-pricing schemes would be prohibitively expensive if they are to achieve the projected benefits and, therefore, would not be sustainable.
The high cost means that a scheme like the one Australia has legislated is not viable, and even regional carbon pricing schemes like the European ETS will not last.
The ‘ball-park’ analysis presented here suggests Australia’s ETS would cost $12 for every $1 of projected benefit, to 2050.
or from a current assessment of Stern in the UK
---
It's astonishing to re-read Stern's government-commissioned report today and be reminded that the 'bedrock' of climate economics itself rests such a flimsy base.
But at the time, the watchdogs didn't bark.
Only a few of Stern's economic peers, when they finally got the chance to examine his logic and mathematics, were critical, and their voices were confined to academia, argues Lilley, referring to a Yale Center for the Study of Globalization seminar held the year after the review's publication.
Lilley writes that the report received a "comprehensive battering" from attending environmental economists.
Lilley also contended that British media had "amplified uncritically" the report's "most stark and dramatic conclusions".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/04/beyond_stern_climate_morality/
---
It's astonishing to re-read Stern's government-commissioned report today and be reminded that the 'bedrock' of climate economics itself rests such a flimsy base.
But at the time, the watchdogs didn't bark.
Only a few of Stern's economic peers, when they finally got the chance to examine his logic and mathematics, were critical, and their voices were confined to academia, argues Lilley, referring to a Yale Center for the Study of Globalization seminar held the year after the review's publication.
Lilley writes that the report received a "comprehensive battering" from attending environmental economists.
Lilley also contended that British media had "amplified uncritically" the report's "most stark and dramatic conclusions".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/04/beyond_stern_climate_morality/
WWF (or one of those groups) was on the radio yesterday saying that with targets needing to be 20 - 25% not 5% it would be too expensive to only buy permits in Australia and were happy for Australian business to buy some of their offsets from overseas. Makes perfect sense - as long as the scheme is legitimate it still reduces the overall amount of pollution being produced
Price triggers work it's not rocket science ffs
Price triggers work it's not rocket science ffs
and back in 2011 from the United Kingdom (where it looks more likely they will also dismantle their own fake-for-the-environment co2 tax system)
----
And a report by Carbon Retirement has said that the tax, which is due to come into force next month, may fail to reduce overall pollution levels.
The report draws on data from the government and its independent committee on climate change which suggests overlap between this and other emission reduction schemes may limit its effectiveness.
The report forms part of responses to the government's consultations on the measures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12649143
-----
the discussion on reductions should not stop .. just the methodology on how reduction could be achieved
practically & economically ... the current co2 tax-trade setups are innefficient and are in vogue as someone 'doing something' when in essence they are 'doing nothing'
change will come .. alarmism must stop .. and REAL dialogue must take place
i will find an AlG interview transcript for you where he states without question that he (and others) are and should use the ALARMIST rhetoric to achieve change .... what a tool and what a disgrace
----
And a report by Carbon Retirement has said that the tax, which is due to come into force next month, may fail to reduce overall pollution levels.
The report draws on data from the government and its independent committee on climate change which suggests overlap between this and other emission reduction schemes may limit its effectiveness.
The report forms part of responses to the government's consultations on the measures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12649143
-----
the discussion on reductions should not stop .. just the methodology on how reduction could be achieved
practically & economically ... the current co2 tax-trade setups are innefficient and are in vogue as someone 'doing something' when in essence they are 'doing nothing'
change will come .. alarmism must stop .. and REAL dialogue must take place
i will find an AlG interview transcript for you where he states without question that he (and others) are and should use the ALARMIST rhetoric to achieve change .... what a tool and what a disgrace
Missing logic of Australian prime minister's denial of climate change link to bushfires
The popular climate sceptic debating trick used by Tony Abbott fails the logic test
Imagine a teacher who wanders into a classroom full of five-year-olds, sits down, pulls out a packet of cigarettes and starts to smoke them, exhaling puffs of cancer-inducing haze that waft into the little kids' faces.
"Please stop that," pleads one of the children. "My mummy says smoking gives you cancer."
"Rubbish," replies the smoker. "People have been dying of cancer ever since humans have walked the Earth. How did the cavemen die of cancer before cigarettes were invented, eh?"
Clearly, our cancer-stick smoking friend is employing a flawed, dishonest and ridiculous argument. We know that smoking increases the risk of cancer and other nasty diseases among the general population. The fact that Captain Caveman couldn't have had a 20-a-day habit is irrelevant.
The fact that a postmortem can't identify exactly which cigarette killed you, is also of little comfort.
Suggesting that an outcome – in this case death from cancer – can't have several different causes is a logical fallacy. This would be like claiming guns can't kill people because people were also murdered before guns were invented.
But as ridiculous as these examples are, it is this same wafer-thin and intellectually dishonest debating trick that has been deployed by Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his environment minister, Greg Hunt, in recent days to dismiss the link between human-caused climate change and bushfires.
Earlier this week, Abbott said in an interview with the Washington Post:
Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We've had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we've recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic [sic] global warming.
Abbott's argument was the same one he used last week, when he suggested that because bushfires happened before humans raised carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by 40%, we shouldn't think this could have anything to do with bushfires happening now. He told radio listeners:
We have had bad fires since almost the beginning of European settlement, I think the first massive fires in Victoria were back in the 1850s.
Between these statements, Hunt told the BBC he had consulted Wikipedia "just to see what the rest of the world thought".
He reported that the Wikipedia entry "opens up with the fact that bushfires in Australia are frequently occurring events during the hotter months of the year. Large areas of land are ravaged every year by bushfires. That's the Australian experience."
As I outlined last week, scientists have been studying the links between bushfires and climate change for more than a quarter of a century.
As the Guardian has reported, the Australian government's own environment departmental website says there's a "growing and robust body of evidence" showing the number of extreme weather events will likely increase under climate change, and that Australia is already experiencing a rise in the number of these events, including bushfires.
However, Abbott dismissed with absolute certainty any suggestion that the recent bushfires in New South Wales could have anything to do with climate change. In an interview with climate sceptic News Corporation columnist Andrew Bolt, Abbott went further, saying such links were "complete hogwash".
This argument from history used by Abbott and Hunt is a version of one of the most popular of all talking points used by climate change sceptics and denialists – that "the climate has always changed" and so why should we think humans can cause the rapid changes being observed in recent decades.
A study published in the journal American Behavioral Scientist looked at 203 opinion articles written by 80 different US conservative columnists between 2007 and 2010 and found the argument that "the climate has changed before" was one of the most popular talking points.
Study authors Shaun Elsasser and Riley Dunlap, of Oklahoma State University, wrote:
Unlike the scientific literature, where debunked claims and findings can no longer be employed, in the "denialosphere" arguments never disappear – they are continually recycled. The result is an enormous number of arguments.
The most popular argument put by sceptical columnists was "there is no scientific consensus" (there is) followed by "it's cooling" (it's not) and "ice isn't melting" (it is).
Popular debunking website Skeptical Science also looks in detail at climate sceptic myths and ranks "climate has changed before" as the most popular of all denier talking points.
This is not the first time that Abbott has tried to argue that because certain climatic events might have happened before the industrial revolution, we shouldn't think that burning fossil fuels could contribute to changes in the climate now.
In 2010, Abbott let this logical fallacy loose on a classroom of school kids in Adelaide, telling them:
OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the dark ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.
At least he didn't blow cigarette smoke in their faces.
The popular climate sceptic debating trick used by Tony Abbott fails the logic test
Imagine a teacher who wanders into a classroom full of five-year-olds, sits down, pulls out a packet of cigarettes and starts to smoke them, exhaling puffs of cancer-inducing haze that waft into the little kids' faces.
"Please stop that," pleads one of the children. "My mummy says smoking gives you cancer."
"Rubbish," replies the smoker. "People have been dying of cancer ever since humans have walked the Earth. How did the cavemen die of cancer before cigarettes were invented, eh?"
Clearly, our cancer-stick smoking friend is employing a flawed, dishonest and ridiculous argument. We know that smoking increases the risk of cancer and other nasty diseases among the general population. The fact that Captain Caveman couldn't have had a 20-a-day habit is irrelevant.
The fact that a postmortem can't identify exactly which cigarette killed you, is also of little comfort.
Suggesting that an outcome – in this case death from cancer – can't have several different causes is a logical fallacy. This would be like claiming guns can't kill people because people were also murdered before guns were invented.
But as ridiculous as these examples are, it is this same wafer-thin and intellectually dishonest debating trick that has been deployed by Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his environment minister, Greg Hunt, in recent days to dismiss the link between human-caused climate change and bushfires.
Earlier this week, Abbott said in an interview with the Washington Post:
Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We've had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we've recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic [sic] global warming.
Abbott's argument was the same one he used last week, when he suggested that because bushfires happened before humans raised carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by 40%, we shouldn't think this could have anything to do with bushfires happening now. He told radio listeners:
We have had bad fires since almost the beginning of European settlement, I think the first massive fires in Victoria were back in the 1850s.
Between these statements, Hunt told the BBC he had consulted Wikipedia "just to see what the rest of the world thought".
He reported that the Wikipedia entry "opens up with the fact that bushfires in Australia are frequently occurring events during the hotter months of the year. Large areas of land are ravaged every year by bushfires. That's the Australian experience."
As I outlined last week, scientists have been studying the links between bushfires and climate change for more than a quarter of a century.
As the Guardian has reported, the Australian government's own environment departmental website says there's a "growing and robust body of evidence" showing the number of extreme weather events will likely increase under climate change, and that Australia is already experiencing a rise in the number of these events, including bushfires.
However, Abbott dismissed with absolute certainty any suggestion that the recent bushfires in New South Wales could have anything to do with climate change. In an interview with climate sceptic News Corporation columnist Andrew Bolt, Abbott went further, saying such links were "complete hogwash".
This argument from history used by Abbott and Hunt is a version of one of the most popular of all talking points used by climate change sceptics and denialists – that "the climate has always changed" and so why should we think humans can cause the rapid changes being observed in recent decades.
A study published in the journal American Behavioral Scientist looked at 203 opinion articles written by 80 different US conservative columnists between 2007 and 2010 and found the argument that "the climate has changed before" was one of the most popular talking points.
Study authors Shaun Elsasser and Riley Dunlap, of Oklahoma State University, wrote:
Unlike the scientific literature, where debunked claims and findings can no longer be employed, in the "denialosphere" arguments never disappear – they are continually recycled. The result is an enormous number of arguments.
The most popular argument put by sceptical columnists was "there is no scientific consensus" (there is) followed by "it's cooling" (it's not) and "ice isn't melting" (it is).
Popular debunking website Skeptical Science also looks in detail at climate sceptic myths and ranks "climate has changed before" as the most popular of all denier talking points.
This is not the first time that Abbott has tried to argue that because certain climatic events might have happened before the industrial revolution, we shouldn't think that burning fossil fuels could contribute to changes in the climate now.
In 2010, Abbott let this logical fallacy loose on a classroom of school kids in Adelaide, telling them:
OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the dark ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.
At least he didn't blow cigarette smoke in their faces.
i have cancer of the oesophagus ... and my economist says lets chop of my legs
yeah ... great analogy
yeah ... great analogy
According to the (Gillard) government’s own figures, national emissions will rise from 582 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020.
if the toxic tax was working as supposedly planned (maybe it is , get the $$ in f c u k the environment) why are emissions still going to rise ???
if the toxic tax was working as supposedly planned (maybe it is , get the $$ in f c u k the environment) why are emissions still going to rise ???
"People have been dying of cancer ever since humans have walked the Earth. How did the cavemen die of cancer before cigarettes were invented, eh?"
So that proves that cigarettes do not cause cancer....RIGHT??????????????????????
So that proves that cigarettes do not cause cancer....RIGHT??????????????????????
You have just been busted using the most flawed dishonest arguments to support your denial-ism.
So that proves that cigarettes do not cause cancer
cancer is usually confined to an organ or part of the body ... if you wish to continue with the same analogy
methods used to help a patient address the cancer
it is equally ridiculous to say to a patient that ...
you have smoking induced cancer ... but we you not going to stop smoking .. in fact smoke more and more and more
we will make the cigarette packets cost but if you smoke more than your cap then you purchase tobacco offsets from someone else who doesn't smoke ... so you can smoke more
ffs lol .. if there is a problem .. stop the problem .. don't fall for the tax-trade trick as a resolution
cancer is usually confined to an organ or part of the body ... if you wish to continue with the same analogy
methods used to help a patient address the cancer
it is equally ridiculous to say to a patient that ...
you have smoking induced cancer ... but we you not going to stop smoking .. in fact smoke more and more and more
we will make the cigarette packets cost but if you smoke more than your cap then you purchase tobacco offsets from someone else who doesn't smoke ... so you can smoke more
ffs lol .. if there is a problem .. stop the problem .. don't fall for the tax-trade trick as a resolution
Suggesting that an outcome – in this case death from cancer – can't have several different causes is a logical fallacy.
big al can trade cancer credits for a fee............
and to address a problem .. by making the person with the problem continue doing what caused the problem ... and just purchase offsets from someone who is not doing it ... is .... well lunancy or a trick
afl still wont address the bankers scam ...............EVER he's in on it ........BUSTED
and from aL ... the guru of alarmism himself
lucky he is not set up to make a profit from it all ... or his case would really be ... BUSTED
---
Al gore over-representing ?
http://grist.org/article/roberts2/
There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality.
And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions.
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem.
Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
----
straight from the money makers mouth himslef .. read and digest it again
an over-representation of factual presentations
would you buy a used cigarette packet from this charlatan
lucky he is not set up to make a profit from it all ... or his case would really be ... BUSTED
---
Al gore over-representing ?
http://grist.org/article/roberts2/
There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality.
And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions.
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem.
Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
----
straight from the money makers mouth himslef .. read and digest it again
an over-representation of factual presentations
would you buy a used cigarette packet from this charlatan
"People have been dying of cancer ever since humans have walked the Earth. How did the cavemen die of cancer before cigarettes were invented, eh?"
So that proves that cigarettes do not cause cancer....RIGHT??????????????????????
So that proves that cigarettes do not cause cancer....RIGHT??????????????????????
what Persians u on afl?
we are talking climate change and the bankers scam (associated)you point BLANK refuse to answer repeatedly
not cancer which has NOTHING to do with anything here
we are talking climate change and the bankers scam (associated)you point BLANK refuse to answer repeatedly
not cancer which has NOTHING to do with anything here
Cancer knows no boundaries.... It will destroy a whole body given time....
just like excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
just like excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
How did the cavemen die of cancer before cigarettes were invented, eh?"
ffs i like your jokes
now ... to continue this nonsens ... cavemen used to sit around a fire cooking their 'catch of the day' (a bbq lol)
it's well established fact that ... burning smoke from a fire ... is a carcinigen
caveman breathes in fire ... thinks to himself ... now if only i could package my own fire and carry it with me
sadly succumbs to cancer before establishing his business plan
.... ffs i have no idea what you are talking about afl lol ... so i must include my own jokes
ffs i like your jokes
now ... to continue this nonsens ... cavemen used to sit around a fire cooking their 'catch of the day' (a bbq lol)
it's well established fact that ... burning smoke from a fire ... is a carcinigen
caveman breathes in fire ... thinks to himself ... now if only i could package my own fire and carry it with me
sadly succumbs to cancer before establishing his business plan
.... ffs i have no idea what you are talking about afl lol ... so i must include my own jokes
And excess CO2 in our own bodies is a contract with death as well.
FACT.
FACT.
Extreme weather isn’t linked to climate change
By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) - 10/01/13 10:14 PM EDT
Those who want the U.S. to pursue policies to cut carbon emissions by making our energy more expensive often falsely associate severe weather events with climate change. Even President Obama resorted to these tactics when he linked a warming climate to “more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes,” in a recent weekly address.
But there is little science to support any connection between climate change and more frequent or extreme storms. And contrary to climate models, climate change has been far less severe than predicted.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to human-caused climate change.
Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The U.S. currently has gone seven years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. This is the longest streak ever recorded.
Government data also indicate no association between climate change and tornado activity. Whether measured by the number of strong tornadoes, tornado-related fatalities or economic losses associated with tornadoes, the latter half of the 20th century shows no climate-related trend.
The data on droughts paint a similar picture. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….” IPCC’s draft report also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.
So if science doesn’t support a link between extreme weather events and climate change, why do so many media and politicians keep making exaggerated claims?
To drum up support for costly, unnecessary regulations and subsidies, activists stretch the truth. They want people to believe that these policies will decrease the intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods. But that’s a scare tactic that needs to stop.
Unfortunately, with activists and the mainstream media, there is no room for reasoned, logical debate. Anyone who questions the planet’s sensitivity to CO2 or the extent to which humans contribute to climate change is labeled a climate change “denier.”
Climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles and human activity. But scientists still disagree about how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change the Earth is experiencing.
But understanding the causes of climate change is critical to developing a serious and effective solution.
With emissions increasing in developing nations and decreasing in the U.S., America’s contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations is increasingly insignificant. In fact, data from the Energy Information Administration show that between 2005 and 2012, the U.S. cut carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent. At the same time, global emissions increased by 15 percent. And even the EPA concedes that substantial cuts to America’s emissions are unlikely to affect future temperature changes.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent more than $77 billion on climate research between 2008 and 2013. Despite dire forecasts, nearly all major temperature records show that global temperatures have held steady for the last 15 years.
Across the board, our most sophisticated climate models have overestimated warming. A recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990s to the actual amount of warming experienced. Out of 117 predictions, only three were relatively accurate. The other 114 overestimated temperature rise. As a respected climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, John Christy, said “The Earth system is just too complex to be represented in current climate models.”
We are fortunate to have a beautiful planet and, as a global community, we should promote policies that protect our environment. But we must set aside partisan rhetoric and focus on the facts.
President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency recently released carbon pollution standards for new power plants that, even the EPA admits “will result in negligible CO2 emission changes.” These regulations will increase the price of electricity and gasoline in the U.S. Why pursue unnecessary costly regulations that will hurt working families for no significant environmental benefit?
A better approach is to place a higher priority on fundamental research that will enable new energy technologies to become more cost-effective. In order to impact global emissions, we must shift from costly subsidies and regulations to research and technological solutions that will be used not only here, but around the world. In other words, let’s set aside the fiction and focus on a real solution.
Smith has represented Texas’s 21st Congressional District since 1987. He is chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, and he serves on the Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.
By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) - 10/01/13 10:14 PM EDT
Those who want the U.S. to pursue policies to cut carbon emissions by making our energy more expensive often falsely associate severe weather events with climate change. Even President Obama resorted to these tactics when he linked a warming climate to “more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes,” in a recent weekly address.
But there is little science to support any connection between climate change and more frequent or extreme storms. And contrary to climate models, climate change has been far less severe than predicted.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to human-caused climate change.
Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The U.S. currently has gone seven years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. This is the longest streak ever recorded.
Government data also indicate no association between climate change and tornado activity. Whether measured by the number of strong tornadoes, tornado-related fatalities or economic losses associated with tornadoes, the latter half of the 20th century shows no climate-related trend.
The data on droughts paint a similar picture. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….” IPCC’s draft report also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.
So if science doesn’t support a link between extreme weather events and climate change, why do so many media and politicians keep making exaggerated claims?
To drum up support for costly, unnecessary regulations and subsidies, activists stretch the truth. They want people to believe that these policies will decrease the intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods. But that’s a scare tactic that needs to stop.
Unfortunately, with activists and the mainstream media, there is no room for reasoned, logical debate. Anyone who questions the planet’s sensitivity to CO2 or the extent to which humans contribute to climate change is labeled a climate change “denier.”
Climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles and human activity. But scientists still disagree about how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change the Earth is experiencing.
But understanding the causes of climate change is critical to developing a serious and effective solution.
With emissions increasing in developing nations and decreasing in the U.S., America’s contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations is increasingly insignificant. In fact, data from the Energy Information Administration show that between 2005 and 2012, the U.S. cut carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent. At the same time, global emissions increased by 15 percent. And even the EPA concedes that substantial cuts to America’s emissions are unlikely to affect future temperature changes.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent more than $77 billion on climate research between 2008 and 2013. Despite dire forecasts, nearly all major temperature records show that global temperatures have held steady for the last 15 years.
Across the board, our most sophisticated climate models have overestimated warming. A recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990s to the actual amount of warming experienced. Out of 117 predictions, only three were relatively accurate. The other 114 overestimated temperature rise. As a respected climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, John Christy, said “The Earth system is just too complex to be represented in current climate models.”
We are fortunate to have a beautiful planet and, as a global community, we should promote policies that protect our environment. But we must set aside partisan rhetoric and focus on the facts.
President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency recently released carbon pollution standards for new power plants that, even the EPA admits “will result in negligible CO2 emission changes.” These regulations will increase the price of electricity and gasoline in the U.S. Why pursue unnecessary costly regulations that will hurt working families for no significant environmental benefit?
A better approach is to place a higher priority on fundamental research that will enable new energy technologies to become more cost-effective. In order to impact global emissions, we must shift from costly subsidies and regulations to research and technological solutions that will be used not only here, but around the world. In other words, let’s set aside the fiction and focus on a real solution.
Smith has represented Texas’s 21st Congressional District since 1987. He is chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, and he serves on the Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.
the science is NOT settled
anyways another beautiful day in paradise in gods own country brilliantly governed unlike the disastrous rudd/Gillard/rudd years
life just doesn't get any better than this ....
cough cough damnit i'm having trouble breathing with ALL these invisible fumes everywhere
anyways another beautiful day in paradise in gods own country brilliantly governed unlike the disastrous rudd/Gillard/rudd years
life just doesn't get any better than this ....
cough cough damnit i'm having trouble breathing with ALL these invisible fumes everywhere
CO2 is a normal component of blood, and a necessary one as it is the chemical that stimulates the respiratory centre at the base of the brain so that we continue to breathe. But too much in the blood (hypercapnia) is poisonous and leads to death. We see this in terminal lung disease. So CO2 is both normal and necessary in correct amounts for normal respiration, yet deadly in excess. The same applies to our planet.
I think you guys should get your CO2 levels at the base of your brains checked..
There seems be something amiss with your arguments.
There seems be something amiss with your arguments.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539