Barnaby Joyce

[artme]

I see the Senate clown is at it again! Did you read his comments about Cate Blanchet??

[ColW]

Not that surprising from a polly that knows nothing about Cate Blanchet,
carbon or power bills, pity we can't turn the likes off at the wall but they seem
to have their own UPS.

[Grommett]

Barnaby who :?
About what :?
Is he ever relevant, or just the mad uncle at the table :no:

[fxst]

cate who????? oh the one that thinks she is one of us:D
Sorry what was the question
Pete

[Sturdee]

I see the Senate clown is at it again! Did you read his comments about Cate Blanchet??

Actually I agree with Barnaby.

She may be a good actress :roll: :no: but she no longer lives here so she should involve herself with US politics and leave us alone.


Peter.

[artme]

Actually I agree with Barnaby.

She may be a good actress :roll: :no: but she no longer lives here so she should involve herself with US politics and leave us alone.


Peter.

:o:o

[Big Shed]

Actually I agree with Barnaby.

She may be a good actress :roll: :no: but she no longer lives here so she should involve herself with US politics and leave us alone.


Peter.

Peter, I don't want to get involved in whether Cate Blanchett should or shouldn't be involved in this, but she is entitled to an opinion.

Born in Melbourne and since 2006 she has been a director (together with her (Australian born husband) of the Sydney Theatre Company. They live in Sydney with their 3 children

[Christopha]

Peter, I don't want to get involved in whether Cate Blanchett should or shouldn't be involved in this, but she is entitled to an opinion.

Born in Melbourne and since 2006 she has been a director (together with her (Australian born husband) of the Sydney Theatre Company. They live in Sydney with their 3 children

Maybe she does and is but she can stop trying to inflict her opinion on the subject on those who, unlike her, aren't millionaires.

[mic-d]

I can't see any difference between what people are having her do (or what she is doing, if you want to put it that way) and the retailers who are conducting a media campaign in opposition to the plain packaging of cigarettes or the mining companies who are currently conducting a sweetening campaign saying how wonderful they are because of their efforts during the recent natural disasters. It's a free country and all these things should be allowed (whether one agrees with them or not) - as should the senator's comments - because it just reveals what he actually thinks about free speech and the right of citizens to own their opinion.

[AlexS]

Maybe she does and is but she can stop trying to inflict her opinion on the subject on those who, unlike her, aren't millionaires.
So only impoverished idiots are allowed to give us their opinion?
I'm sure those who are against Cate sharing hers would think differently if they agreed with her.
I disagree with Barnaby Joyce's opinion, but I'm quite happy for him to show what a dill he is by spouting it.

[mic-d]

Barnaby likes to play the man not the ball, it's his refuge. He did the same thing with the AGW debate on Q&A a while ago when he refused to acknowledge Tim Flannery as a climate expert because he first trained as a paleontologist, and apparently it is impossible to learn new tricks. Applying his own logic, what right does he have to be a politician when he trained as an accountant, not a political scientist:D

[jimbur]

What amused me was when he suggested that she stick to what she does well. Perhaps he'll find something he's good at one day.
Cheers,
Jim

[rrobor]

I agree with mic-d to an extent. but really who cares what a poly says or any other begger. Cripes we all were born with grey cells between the ears, Let whoever waffle about the reality or otherwise of climate change, smoking or whatever. Guess what we all have a vote and every so often we get the chance to tell Barnaby he is correct or he is a dill, why ruffle the feathers, it aint that time yet. To quote Robert burns from his poem. The cotters wife. When husband was late home from the pub Wife was sitting by the fire. "Brewing her wrath to keep it warm".

[Toymaker Len]

Good on Cate for standing up and leading. Just as it was with the GST both sides of politics privately agree that a carbon tax is necessary and inevitable. What we see in public are the opposition fighting for donations from mining companies and votes from the ignorant.

[Waldo]

I totally agree with Barnaby.

[Master Splinter]

I dunno, if I had an income similar to Cate's (#63 on the Forbes list) I wouldn't be bothered if I had to stump up an extra grand or two a year on electricity, I dare say she would drop that much on a dress and makeup for a Hollywood awards ceremony.

Anyway, her $10,000,000 North Shore house has solar panels, so she's probably getting the 60 cent per killowatt feed-in tarriff that non-solar NSW residents have to pay for, so she's really not worried by the increase.

Call me when she subdivides her 4,000 square meter block to make an affordable housing estate.

[Sebastiaan56]

Well the whole attack just shows what Barnaby thinks of those who dare to disagree with him. Free speech isnt treasured in Australia, at best it's tolerated. She has done well for herself, of course she is entitled to speak her mind. I just find it curious that the ads were interspersed with mining company ads last night.

What used to be dealt with by debate is now a matter of competing ads stripped of facts and heavily scripted feel good messages. It is the purvey of the shock jocks, the media barons and their lackies. The shameful campaign against establishing limits on pokie gambling is another great example.

[Gra]

Well the whole attack just shows what Barnaby thinks

I see a flaw in your argument..... :)

[artme]

Good result artme! The possum has been well and truly stirred!:D:p

[AlexS]

I see a flaw in your argument..... :)
:clap::clap::clap:

[Sebastiaan56]

:roflmao:

[Waldo]

Taking a side track here. The argument against the pokies isn't what it is trying to do, but the massive costs that will be incurred - even by the RSL club in Windor's electorate with only 15 pokies (which if you saw the Lateline episode with Wilkie, who hasn't got a clue as to the cost of the infrastructure required) they have to either retro fit as yet technology that doesn't exist or develop new pokie machines that also yet don't exist and all be wired up to a national framework - all so licence holders who have set their own bet limits can be monitored.

That's the problem.

Now back to our regular programming. :U

[damian]

I'm a big fan of B Joyce. I agree with most of what he says. As for how he delivers his message he's taken a leaf out of Katter's book.

Australia has a mostly left leaning media. In order for a conservative to get air time he has to put on a show. Yes they ridicule him, yes they pick out the sound bite that makes him look a clown, but given a choice between no air and that he's chosen the latter.

Unfortunatly the left leaning in our society have bought in to their dogma as fanatically as the worst religeous nutters. Deny the church of global warming and your a "sceptic" (as if that's a bad thing) or a "flat eather". They are rather worse than religeous fanatics because they believe they are superior, better educated, better informed. You often hear them refer to themselves as "progressive". Despite time and again the chicken littles being proven wrong they continue to bark panic and demand we submit to mad lefty schemes, afterall without fear what sway can they hold over us ?

The truely greatest logcal fail of all is that a bunch of inner city yuppies (the greens power base) who live as far from nature as they can get, presume to dictate to us who have gone out of our way to live close to it how we should deal with the enviroment. For some reason they assume people like me live in the bush only to clear fell and wreck all we love, but I suppose if your view of nature is one of rainbows and butterflys and cute furry animals skipping hand in hand among the flowers you wouldn't want it interrupted by the reality of terror, starvation, disease and slow painful death that is the real life of most wild animals. Just make yourself feel better by being enraged at other peoples percieved misdemeanours.

No doubt some of you will assume me a conservative. I'm not, I'm politically middle of the road. I react to the socialist propoganda because it has had such prevalence these last 15 years. If the conservative view ascended I'd question it just as vigorously. Extremism and fanaticism is always bad.

[Waldo]

Very well written. :2tsup:

[ColW]

terror, starvation, disease, death are the direct consequences of deforestation, introduced species, dimished gene pool and biodiversity loss within ecosystems disrupted by human activity, our environment doesn't need to be "dealt with" we are every bit a part of it, if we continue to destroy it we will suffer the same fate, and do everyday in less fortunate areas of the globe. There is no "being proven wrong" , on this the science is settled.

I doubt the National's leader of the senate ever has to struggle for media coverage, the position itself entitles such an assurance,

Barnaby Joyce is an accountant which means he's entrenched in mainstream economic theory and practice, problem is economists never factor in payment to the environment for services rendered, a carbon tax, ETS, price on carbon or however it's labelled is such a payment and as token as it may be, it's about a new language in economics that reduces profit and holds us accountable to our environment, that's why it's hated, end of story.

[Waldo]

As this argument intensifies, let me bring this in ABC The Drum - Harden up Greens, the game is changing (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/20/3222324.htm)

In particular I refer to the transcripts of the interview between Bob Brown and Chris Ullman..

BROWN: We are going to compensate households but Tony Abbott will not. He's going to put all the money in from households into the big polluters, estimate $720 per household by the end of this decade and - either that or reduce 100,000 jobs in the country or start closing hospital wards and schools to fund the big polluters.

We will not do that.

INTERVIEWER: That $11 billion that you're talking about is money that he would forego in the mining tax, and I noticed you started your budget and reply speech just there. How would you replace the $50 billion a year in export income which comes by way of coal - an industry that you'd shut down?

BROWN: Well, a lot of that money is bouncing straight back out to shareholders overseas. Now what we're...

INTERVIEWER: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating job, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.

BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...

INTERVIEWER: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.

BROWN: Treasury...

INTERVIEWER: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...

BROWN: I'm sorry...

INTERVIEWER: ..available to you.

BROWN: I'm sorry, Chris, Treasury has no intention to shut the industry down. it tends to- it tends...

INTERVIEWER: No, but you do.

BROWN: No, I'm not.

INTERVIEWER: Didn't you say back in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?

BROWN: No, I did not. You're looking at the Murdoch press, where I said back in 2007 we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line.

INTERVIEWER: It wasn't the Murdoch press, it was a comment piece that you wrote. So you want to phase out the coal industry?

BROWN: The world is going to do that because it is causing massive economic damage down the line through the impact of climate change.

INTERVIEWER: But the question-

BROWN: No, let me...

INTERVIEWER: The simple question is how do you replace $50 billion worth of export income?

BROWN: You go to renewables over the coming decades and you do that by exporting... Look, Germany did this. It's closed its coal mine. It's closing its nuclear power stations. It's gone into exporting renewables - including using Australian technology...

Imagine if Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott or Warren Truss had given this interview. None of them would have seen the mild exchange as anything unusual. (And, by the way, there was no indication Senator Brown himself was upset, it is the camp followers who are all bent out of shape).

Second all of the post-interview scrutiny would now be on the answers not the questions. When you ponder the answers, the implications are profound.

This is a tax with wider implications, and one that certain parties have absolutely no idea of the costs or damaging effects that will be borne as a result of it.

[nine fingers]

This debate reminds me of when all those ham actors were singing
" IT'S Time" When Whitlam stood for Prime Minister, you know what happened to him. NF.

[damian]

terror, starvation, disease, death are the direct consequences of deforestation, introduced species, dimished gene pool and biodiversity loss within ecosystems disrupted by human activity, our environment doesn't need to be "dealt with" we are every bit a part of it, if we continue to destroy it we will suffer the same fate, and do everyday in less fortunate areas of the globe. There is no "being proven wrong" , on this the science is settled..

Spoken like a true convert.

Science isn't settled, it can never be. The language of religeon is one of absolutes.

Animal suffering isn't necessarily about human intervention. Pick up any bandicoot and you'll almost certainly find a nest of ticks sucking it dry. Wander round my backyard and look at the dead possum with it's hairless tiny baby lying on the ground beside it, killed in territorial dispute by another possum. happens all the time and isn't related to food nor territory availability. They breed beyond the available space always and kill off the weaker individuals. Nature is about struggle, survival and death. happens all the time everywhere inlcuding where there aren't humans for 100's of miles.

But I guess that doesn't sit well with your fairytale view. Gotta get those bears dancing hand in hand...



I doubt the National's leader of the senate ever has to struggle for media coverage, the position itself entitles such an assurance,

Who is the current leader of the National Party in the parliment ? And don't google it.




Barnaby Joyce is an accountant which means he's entrenched in mainstream economic theory and practice, problem is economists never factor in payment to the environment for services rendered, a carbon tax, ETS, price on carbon or however it's labelled is such a payment and as token as it may be, it's about a new language in economics that reduces profit and holds us accountable to our environment, that's why it's hated, end of story.

So it's ok for Kate Blanchet to have her say but not an accountant elected by the people of Queensland, not once but twice, to represent their views ?

The carbon tax is hated because:

1. It will harm people less well off than I am, who will suffer in a very real way because of the increase in their cost of living.

2. It won't change anything apart from making you and people like you feel good about yourself.

3. All the catastrophic forecasts rely on positive feedback and carbondioxide as a driver of climate change. There is a very strong argument against positive feedback and the notion of CO2 as a driver is at the very least ambigious. ALL the disaster models written 10 years ago have been shown to be wildly wrong over this 10 year period. None of them are even remotely close to what's actually happened. I guess I'm old fashioned and out of touch, because throughout the signifigant part of my life that I did scientific research I trusted data over models every time.

Guess I'm just not progressive....

Note, again, that I am no advocate of pollution. If we were discussing measures to reduce pollution my position would be very different. The problem with this issue is it's religeous zealotry built on lies, and the result won't help the enviroment it'll just make "greenies" feel good about smiting the heritics and those sinnful polluters.

I don't want my country to become a socialist theocracy.

[Sebastiaan56]

Good to see all of the carefully considered entrenched positions are the same a couple of years after we began these kinds of deliberations.


Australia has a mostly left leaning media

I think you will need to justify this claim Damian. Between Murdoch, Fairfax and Macquarie Radio I think the right is well represented in the Sydney basin. We even get fed Andrew Bolt's revolting puke regularly here. If you mean the ABC it is hardly the dominant news and opinion force in Australia. Look at the ratings. I dont know what the media landscape is like where you are.

Interestingly, Tony Abbot pulled back somewhat from Barnaby's pronouncement today by saying that Cate Blanchet had a right to say what she wanted and that to introduce a carbon tax would require a mandate by election and therefore the Prime Minister should call and election post haste (and at about that speed BTW). What fascinates me about this is the attack dog role that Barnaby so obviously relishes. The tactic is as old as Parliment itself. The leader sends an attack via a high profile subordinate and gauges the reaction to the attack. If it is favourable he endorses it and carries on the rallying cry. If it is not favourable he softens the tone just as he has just done in this case. The interesting bit is that Tony was John Howard's attack dog for years. This is partly why he (Tony) is having such a hard time changing his image. Remember his attacks on Bernie Banton?

Here in NSW Barry O'Farrell blew it a couple of weeks age with his attempt to cut the Solar Feed in tariff's. He should have got one of his minions to canvas the idea first. It would have saved him a lot of face.

Waldo, (I cant resist a good aside either) you and I both know my comments were directed at the billboards about "unaustralian to need a license to gamble". Since when do The Club Associations and companies like Ainsworth decide what is Australian? But I have to agree that the bureaucracy will be formidable and the risk of unauthorised sharing of personal information alone should kill it the way its proposed.

[ColW]

Spoken like a true convert.

thanks for the compliment :)


Science isn't settled, it can never be. The language of religeon is one of absolutes.

irrelevant, Global Climate Science is not a religion, in general religion has no bearing on this at all.


Animal suffering isn't necessarily about human intervention. Pick up any bandicoot and you'll almost certainly find a nest of ticks sucking it dry. Wander round my backyard and look at the dead possum with it's hairless tiny baby lying on the ground beside it, killed in territorial dispute by another possum. happens all the time and isn't related to food nor territory availability.

turn over the soft belly of a carbon intensive industry eg mining and you'll find a proportionate amount of parasites present, and look at the many local supportive industries killed off in a battle of survival of the "fittest" financial leverage, eg WA miners seeking operational capital from China in return for dumping local supportive industries, (engineering etc) then declaring record profits after crying poor all over the media prior to the last election, the outcome, unemployment, increased cost of living, less resources for our descendants.


But I guess that doesn't sit well with your fairytale view. Gotta get those bears dancing hand in hand...

I have no illusions about the nature of Nature it's known as evolution, cruel, cold but very effective.


Who is the current leader of the National Party in the parliment ? And don't google it.

relevance?


So it's ok for Kate Blanchet to have her say but not an accountant elected by the people of Queensland, not once but twice, to represent their views ?

I'm sure Barnaby Joyce does a stand up job representing the views of his electorate in the state of QLD when he knows what they are. As the National's Senate Leader he represents the views of the National Party I'd be guessing but i'll say I doubt very much his views in this case actually represent the majority of the voting public in the State of Queensland


The carbon tax is hated because:

1. It will harm people less well off than I am, who will suffer in a very real way because of the increase in their cost of living.

prices are rising anyway because of increased expenditure on infrastructure
particularly in the case of power. the impact on food costs will be minimal in terms of a carbon tax, however transport cost will drive food prices up due to the eventual price rises in fuel as demand further reduces the global supply, we gotta get those lychees in Vic supermarkets after all right?


2. It won't change anything apart from making you and people like you feel good about yourself.

I'm a business owner, there have been times in the past decade where i have chosen to forgo profit in order to retain employees, being well aware that this would disadvantage my ability to live the most comfortable life possible in the future. This doesn't sit easy with me, it doesn't make me feel good about myself but i've done it nonetheless, problem is I don't see any other choice


3. All the catastrophic forecasts rely on positive feedback and carbondioxide as a driver of climate change. There is a very strong argument against positive feedback and the notion of CO2 as a driver is at the very least ambigious. ALL the disaster models written 10 years ago have been shown to be wildly wrong over this 10 year period. None of them are even remotely close to what's actually happened. I guess I'm old fashioned and out of touch, because throughout the signifigant part of my life that I did scientific research I trusted data over models every time.

there was a model written 100 years ago that has been proven to be wrong, significantly underestimating the impact of CO2 saturation in the atmosphere, it hadn't forecast the impact of deforestation, environment degradation, or the ability of the oceans/planet's ability to absorb CO2 at the rate we release it.

there is strong consensus amongst the majority of scientists in the field of climatology that our global temperature is trending upwards, that CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels is driving that trend

The strong argument against CO2 contributing to warming is the result of a mostly (non-scientific) minority getting an equal representation in the media as the majority, an unlikely occurance without the help of self interested, powerful backers eg. exxon mobile.


Guess I'm just not progressive....

progressivism is a form of change through governmental action, it's roots come from reformers interested in helping people facing harsh conditions both domestically and in the workplace, a worthy aim by anyone's standards.

Idealogically it's the aim of anyone who enters politics including Barnaby Joyce


Note: As I said the carbon tax is a token, it won't fix our environmental problems, won't come anywhere near it, it may even destroy our global economy as we know it now, our descendants will be living in a completely different world and will need a new economical language that doesn't ignore the constraints of our environment, environmentalism has essentially failed,
the push for clean renewable energy is being stymied at every turn, (no money to be made there) if ever there was a time for a single global environmental monoculture it's right now.

P.S Cate Blanchet rocks! :)

[Lignum]

The only thing missing is a pig and good soundtrack

[Greg Ward]

It's about time we had another good old fashioned ding-dong.
And there's plenty of them around, (or is that ding-a lings?)

Now I'm from the bush and we have plenty.
This is how we see this carbon pollution thingy.

Apparently the greenies rule now and I can make a fortune from selling carbon credits

I've been in touch with Marrickville Council and they have said they will buy all the credits I can sell.

The deal with carbon credits is I just cut down the 2000 acres of tree forests I've got and replant them with blue gums and then measure the annual capture of carbon and get paid $20/tonne.

Sounds good to me.

And with global warming, my new trees will grow faster.
That's a win for everyone,

well..... apart from the current bushland, and little animals and such, but maybe I can capture them all and send to Marrickville Park.

Now. About the carbon tax.
I propose that all in favour pay double or triple. That will enable them to place their principles where there mouths (or fingers) are, and as they are around 30% of the population, that will balance.
The rest of us who are agin it, don't pay anything.

So again a win-win.

The left wingers can then really have the high moral ground and thus become more smug and condescending.
And the rest of us poor buggers can get on with trying to make a living with a stupidly high dollar and a stupidly ineffective Government .

Greg

[Sebastiaan56]

Hey Col,

Unfortunately this subject has been hashed and rehashed numerous times here and the positions of the protagonists are well known and frankly, a bit worn. Nothing so far has been able to sway opinions and as usual these conversations degenerate into the personal and unfortunately sometimes vindictive. There is a lot of parroting of shock jocks that goes on and a bit of lying as well.

Here are some reasons to consider why mere statement of facts and established methodologies will never work. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iISI7ifh-AjUE3ejyC1wQmwFrMFw?docId=CNG.61c886c438708471a9f4ea23070fa70c.3a1 The conversation is unwinnable which bodes poorly for the future of the species Im afraid.

Me, Ive given up all animal products, I have solar panels, solar hot water, insulation, drive a Prius, an organic home garden and a water tank. One day I'll pay it off. Then I can be smug, until then Im a mug like the rest of the debt laden.

[springwater]

A chestnut called Smokey
YouTube - ‪Mustering the electorate‬‏

[Geoff Dean]

Peter, I don't want to get involved in whether Cate Blanchett should or shouldn't be involved in this, but she is entitled to an opinion.

Born in Melbourne and since 2006 she has been a director (together with her (Australian born husband) of the Sydney Theatre Company. They live in Sydney with their 3 children

So, Cate can have an opinion, but Barnaby can't?

[ColW]

Good article Sebastiaan, talk about evolution

"Just trying to keep the conversation lively" William Hurt - The Big Chill
another actor! God forbid!

[Big Shed]

So, Cate can have an opinion, but Barnaby can't?

Can't recall me saying that, did I?

FWIW, I think anyone can have an opinion on this, even you Geoff:2tsup:

[Geoff Dean]

Can't recall me saying that, did I?

No but the inference was there.

[Big Shed]

No but the inference was there.

You can "infer" whatever you like Geoff, I was merely correcting Peters' statement regarding Ms Blanchett's residential status.

Whether I agree or disagree with her opinion is entirely irrelevant.

And you can "infer" from that whatever you wish:rolleyes:

[watson]

:whs:

Imply....Infer.......where's my Funk & Wagnells??

[Waldo]

It's about time we had another good old fashioned ding-dong.
And there's plenty of them around, (or is that ding-a lings?)

Now I'm from the bush and we have plenty.
This is how we see this carbon pollution thingy.

Apparently the greenies rule now and I can make a fortune from selling carbon credits

I've been in touch with Marrickville Council and they have said they will buy all the credits I can sell.

The deal with carbon credits is I just cut down the 2000 acres of tree forests I've got and replant them with blue gums and then measure the annual capture of carbon and get paid $20/tonne.

Sounds good to me.

And with global warming, my new trees will grow faster.
That's a win for everyone,

well..... apart from the current bushland, and little animals and such, but maybe I can capture them all and send to Marrickville Park.

Now. About the carbon tax.
I propose that all in favour pay double or triple. That will enable them to place their principles where there mouths (or fingers) are, and as they are around 30% of the population, that will balance.
The rest of us who are agin it, don't pay anything.

So again a win-win.

The left wingers can then really have the high moral ground and thus become more smug and condescending.
And the rest of us poor buggers can get on with trying to make a living with a stupidly high dollar and a stupidly ineffective Government .

Greg

I'll vote for that. :2tsup:

[watson]

Nah......Nah.....Nah.......
Please don't start this here.
Have a look at our sister forum Renovate Forums (http://www.renovateforum.com).
On the same subject..over 7000 posts and 90000 views.
Renovate Forums (http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/emission-trading-77931/index154.html#post844590)

Just have a look, and you'll see why I'm saying ......Please.....Not here too.

[Waldo]

:2tsup:

[Master Splinter]

Well, as I see it, Barnaby is being paid for his opinions, as he is (at least in theory) representative of some part of the Australian electorate.

Celebrities like Cate, however, are representative of nothing more than their own overinflated self-worth (and Prius driving smugness), and if she wants to actually make a difference in that way, she should give up making movies and run for a political office where she actually has a mandate to provide policy.

[Sebastiaan56]

Well, as I see it, Barnaby is being paid for his opinions, as he is (at least in theory) representative of some part of the Australian electorate.

Celebrities like Cate, however, are representative of nothing more than their own overinflated self-worth (and Prius driving smugness), and if she wants to actually make a difference in that way, she should give up making movies and run for a political office where she actually has a mandate to provide policy.

Ahem, I thought Australia was a democracy...... I thought the citizens got to decide.....

[damian]

First let me say I enjoy reading your posts Sebastian. You and a few others here are what I might label the rational left.

I don't like being lied to and I don't like being dictated to and I don't like it comming from either the socialists or the conservatives. I don't like religeon wrapped up as science. Unfortunately when I type I sometimes come across as more agressive than I ahd intended to. I do try to prevent this but as always I'm human.



Good to see all of the carefully considered entrenched positions are the same a couple of years after we began these kinds of deliberations.

To quote spinal tap, "majesty of rock, the":

The more it stays the same the less it changes.....




I think you will need to justify this claim Damian. Between Murdoch, Fairfax and Macquarie Radio I think the right is well represented in the Sydney basin. We even get fed Andrew Bolt's revolting puke regularly here. If you mean the ABC it is hardly the dominant news and opinion force in Australia. Look at the ratings. I dont know what the media landscape is like where you are.



I have heard this said many times.

I accept I've been consumed by a somewhat irrational hatred of the labor party over these last 12 years because of what they have done to my home state of queensland and latterly to the nation, but until recently I was a devoted independant/democrat (pre 2000)/minor party voter, yet everywhere I look I see the labor/greens getting a much better run in coverage than the conservatives who seem to be derided and lampooned at every turn. I suppose perception is a felxible thing. Every time BB poked his head out prior to the last month or so the reporters did everything short of intercourse....

I accept Tony Abbott comes across as an escapee from a really creepy asylum and to be honest my partner and I were practically on the floor a couple of years ago laughing at the idea that TA became leader of the opposition let alone PRIME MINISTER. I think it's the most telling fact of all that the electorate came within 1 seat of picking him over the alternatives.




Interestingly, Tony Abbot pulled back somewhat from Barnaby's pronouncement today by saying that Cate Blanchet had a right to say what she wanted and that to introduce a carbon tax would require a mandate by election and therefore the Prime Minister should call and election post haste (and at about that speed BTW). What fascinates me about this is the attack dog role that Barnaby so obviously relishes. The tactic is as old as Parliment itself. The leader sends an attack via a high profile subordinate and gauges the reaction to the attack. If it is favourable he endorses it and carries on the rallying cry. If it is not favourable he softens the tone just as he has just done in this case. The interesting bit is that Tony was John Howard's attack dog for years. This is partly why he (Tony) is having such a hard time changing his image. Remember his attacks on Bernie Banton?



I think your giving them waay too much credit for being organised. I think BJ is playing his own game and Tony is managing the "issues" he creates as best he can. You have to understand the sort of people who go into politics are totally obsessed with power, and they really aren't very bright, which is why they need armies of minders and consultants to help them appear vaguely human in public.




Here in NSW Barry O'Farrell blew it a couple of weeks age with his attempt to cut the Solar Feed in tariff's. He should have got one of his minions to canvas the idea first. It would have saved him a lot of face.



I though that was done by labor before they were chucked out ? I thought it went from 60c to 20c last december or something ?

FWIW I think encouraging solar is just about the best thig the government could do. It's popular, not that expensive in the scheme of things and allows us to suppliment peak loads at point of use in a country short of water but with an abundance of sunshine.

And just to clarify I support anyone having a say on this, although you could argue that people in priveliged positions and no responsibility should be mindful of that. I refer to my first point above though, I object to lies and propoganda wherever they come from.

In case anyone wants to do some reading on the issues pertaining to global warming/climate change/pillaging your wallet by taxing the air we breath (no bias there :) )

Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)

Note this is a "sceptic" site but if you scroll down and look on the right side there are links to a variety of sites giving all sides of the story. Poke about and decide for yourself.

The Science of Doom (http://scienceofdoom.com/)

is listed as pro agw. It's hard going but he's written some very complete tutorials to explain some of the issues. I especially like some of the atmospheric physics articles.

[Waldo]

If you mean the ABC it is hardly the dominant news and opinion force in Australia. Look at the ratings. I dont know what the media landscape is like where you are.

I don't rate the commercial networks as the bearers of news. Even when they do have a political news story it is to their own view. The ABC and SBS news don't win ratings, but they do report the news in detail and from both sides.

I've grown into an old man and also watch Lateline and Q&A, I read the ABC news throughout the day. I don't care for special reports or news that you know what is going to be on in two days time e.g 7 or 9.

So, although I swing one way politically, I like to get all views from real sources to form my opinions. :shrug:

I didn't watch 7 news last night, well I did for a few minutes, but I always turn to 24 for the real headline news before I put on 7, just so SWMBO can watch the weather and I can have a snooze, but I bet all they showed of Dillard last night at the girls school was her commenting on another girls hair colour.

[Sebastiaan56]

Dont tell anyone else Waldo but for international news you cant beat Al-Jazeera.


I think your giving them waay too much credit for being organised. I think BJ is playing his own game and Tony is managing the "issues" he creates as best he can. You have to understand the sort of people who go into politics are totally obsessed with power, and they really aren't very bright, which is why they need armies of minders and consultants to help them appear vaguely human in public.

:roflmao: you're getting worse than me Damian.

[damian]

Just shows you don't know me well. I AM much much worse.

I am reminded of an event many years ago. I was an avid democrats voter and considered joining the party. I got invited to the celebration dinner after one of the elections. All was fine until the politicians got up and gave their speaches. It was then I realised the democrats were just as bad as all the others. I wasn't shocked when they shafted us on the gst...

Whenever I'm near a politician or an "executive" type I can't help but feel like I've waded into a sewer...they truely are a breed apart...

[Sebastiaan56]

Im a member of a business networking group and we had a local hopeful from the Libs roll up to convince us to vote for him. He lost me the moment he opened his mouth and said that his goal was to support small business. To be fair we have never had any other hopefuls come through the group, probably a good thing. We hold each other accountable which of course is anathema to that profession...

[Sturdee]

Ahem, I thought Australia was a democracy...... I thought the citizens got to decide.....

That is the main problem. We didn't get to decide on this issue. :((:((:((:((:((

Before the election Labour promised no carbon tax so the issue wasn't discussed or voted on. Then Ms Gillard changed her mind and now is hell bent on wrecking our economy with an ill conceived and stupid tax on carbon dioxide and not the Carbon that they claim.

Further lies by the government.

In the commercial we are asked to say YES, but when will the government give us the opportunity as they won't hold an election or a referendum?


Peter.

[Waldo]

:whs:

[Geoff Dean]

:whs:

[rrobor]

There is another post by Rod Dyson in the renovative forum to cover this crap,
This question has turned into pure politics, The ultra right clinging to their share portfolio and herding their sheep trying to sell their slamt. Whilst the left muster the greenies to bolster their numbers.
In the other forum a Doctor posts if you believe that. More likely an add mob paid by Gina, Why so, What doctor would spend hours filtering stuff for the Renovative forum.
Looking at reality, it is likely we are stuffing the planet up. It now comes down to who cares and who does not
As hurracanes increase Tornadoes increase, Earthquakes inrease and Volcanoes increase. If I was religious I would say someone is trying to tell us something. As I am not, I believe it just might be our stuff up. How long do you want to wait to find out.

[Geoff Dean]

The thing is, we were lied to by Juliar during her job interview (election campaign).

I'm pretty sure if I went for a job interview and said x and then proceeded to do the exact opposite, I wouldn't have a job any more.

As for climate change, it has been happening from the day that planet earth winked into existence as a molten lump of rock. It is just going thru a different phase at the moment.

[Greg Ward]

I think earthquakes and volcanoes may have a little more power behind them than anything us little ants can muster.
Tornadoes and storms, and other superficial surface weather events..... I'll accept that we little ants need our bottoms smacked perhaps.
Greg

[artme]

What have earthquakes and volcanic activity to do with the carbon tax and climate change.:? :o

As far as I know we do not, and cannot, influence these!

Volcanic activity may well have an effect on climate, as they spew out massive amounts of atmospheric "pollutants"

.What can we do about this? Plug the bloody things? tax countries with active volcanoes? ( Just a side issue for another red herring )

[rrobor]

Perhaps so, perhaps not. If the sea rises what happens to the pull of gravity. Im sure I dont know, do you?. When I was a child in Scotland we got eaten by horse flies. Within a few years they were gone, Why, I dont know. All I see is a far more violent earth. Each year its worse. Floods Hurracanes and the like. Yep every so often you get a one of,f but each year getting several one offs around the planet just has to be viewed as something else. So scoff if you must but note this. I wrote something similar in another forum 10 years ago. So far my predictions of worsening disasters are correct in that time. Try proving me incorrect.

[Greg Ward]

Hmmm.
I think the dinosaurs once had a sage that said the sky would fall and after several million years it did.
If you list every disaster (so called) of the last 10 years and look back in recent history, you will find another that was worse, so that proves?
Absolutely nothing apart from the fact that as our life expectancy is around 80 years, we can only relate to time within that limit, we struggle to understand a thousand years and a million is beyond our comprehension. As for a billion.... forget it
So let's not look at 10 years as anything of import please, please.
Thanks
Greg

[rrobor]

perhaps you dont understand my point. I dont limit this to 10 years. Next year there will be no improvement, no respite, the horror goes on. Sure thats not quite accurate, there will be swings and roundabouts but the trend will remain, it will get worse.
People dont want to look at reality, it will cost them. People believe in what is comfortable, what is taught and not what is real. For example, In Scotland the lesser horseshoe bat is dying out. Do a search, its thought its due to pollution. Sounds like an arguement for me to prove something but its incorrect. This little bat survives under slates on the north side of poorly insulated houses near the chimney of a fire that doesnt go out over winter. People believe this poor little begger hibernates hanging upside down. Slating a farm roof, there is your answer.
What is the point, The point is once you understand every angle, you see the simple truth. South side the slates heat with the sun, north they stay cool etc etc
Trying to find every angle of climate change involves sea salinity, water weight currents,+ gravity and a multitude of other things. people may waffle as to this or that, but the simple truth is we dont know enough to be sure. When that happens, why take risks

[ColW]

Is a broken promise a Lie?

In the election campaign ALP policy was for an emmisions trading scheme
hence there will be "no Carbon Tax."

but the ALP didn't win outright and part of romancing the independants and greens
was bringing it to the table.

I suppose had the ALP considered the possibity of forming a minority Government
with greens and independants when the claim was made then it would be a lie.

[Greg Ward]

I think I understand, but I also think it's time to leave this discussion and have a beer and watch the news and Masterchef...... yes I know more horror, but the sun will rise tomorrow... and the day after.... and


The real problem will come in around 4 billion years when the sun becomes a red giant.
Now that will stir a bit of global warming.

Please share a beer with me tonight.

Greg

[jimbur]

The relationship between the broadcast media and politicians is unhealthy to say the least. Politicians are fitting their public comments in to a format designed to advertise consumer goods, short, catchy and only allowing one viewpoint. It's an insult to the electorate and to representative democracy.
We are now in a position where you can watch numerous television channels 24 hours a day which naturally has resulted in numerous outlets for extended garbage.
We should add one more channel, broadcasting parliament whenever it is sitting. Let's see them jeering, sneering, sleeping on their seats or not being there at all. Then we'd have no excuse to say we didn't know what was going on in our name.
They might even lift their game if they knew that all the insomniacs in their electorates were watching.
cheers,
JIm

[rrobor]

You know you ultra right liberals really hiss me poff. What is a lie, is it a core or non core promise. Polititians do as they must. God knows what Abbot promised to get his bum on the chair, it didnt happen. Get over it. Gillard is what we got. We got 4 years of that, Abbot is a dead duck, too right to get anywhere. If You are liberal , go left my son. Push labor left and you win. Abbot Is ultra right wing. I remember him on a Sunday " How do you do. " Saw communism under every blade of grass. Abbot is his little clone, yesterdays man. Gillard, is not much better, will never be a shining star. Please Australia there is better out there, the bunch of drones in Canberra at the moment need culled.
As to global warming Greg may repeat that in another 10 years if he dare but I doubt that. I wish he was correct, I can not prove otherwise, but my gut says in the next 10 years we will see nature claim many thousand more lives in an ever expanding violent cycle. May I prove to be incorrect.

[artme]

I think an increasing population and population density magnifies the effects of natural disasters.

We also have much more instant and wider reporting of things than when I was young, in my teens and even in my tenties and so our awareness is well and truly at a higher level.

Bigger disaters have happened in the past many things we see today. Witness Vesuvius, and Santorini.

That is not to say this could not happen again, and the loss of life would be far greater. But these events still ave nothing to do with a carbon tax, and only tangentially with climate change.

[rrobor]

A carbon tax is about you and I burning a finate resource faster than it can be created. Please tell me why have you a greater right to live than your grandfather had, or for that matter your grandson.
We have but one planet, one resource, Do you want to be the fat pig who lets the future starve or burn. Do you want to not risk that, Or can your be that little more concervative and admit that it seems there are a few clouds, so lets take the brolly with us. Guess what, If I am wrong the planet will not suffer. If you are wrong it will.

[Greg Ward]

I've had my beer and one for you as well.

The universe is above my comprehension, so I only focus on those things I can comprehend and thus I enjoy timber and trees, cutting down, cutting up and free standing; beautiful women and just ordinary ones as well, good food, especially potatoes and butter, and the sun rising every day.

Worrying about the negatives of life is OK if you enjoy that, but I'd rather think positive.

Global warming has lots of negatives, but please consider the positives as well.
Russia will become the grainbowl of the world, the world will gather more rain and thus there will be more productive land to plant corn, higher temperatures will lead to more male infertility and thus drop the population.
In Scandinavia, the dark and cold nights cause immense social problems. A warming earth will make more Swedes happier.
And not least, the Gold Coast will be under water!.

Please lighten up, yes it is serious, but we can also enjoy life while we slowly come to grips with change that society and nature will bring.

There were more massive changes to society last century through several world wars. In reality, compared to what our parents endured, we are in reality very lucky, with or without Cc

Greg

[artme]

A carbon tax is about you and I burning a finate resource faster than it can be created. Please tell me why have you a greater right to live than your grandfather had, or for that matter your grandson.
We have but one planet, one resource, Do you want to be the fat pig who lets the future starve or burn. Do you want to not risk that, Or can your be that little more concervative and admit that it seems there are a few clouds, so lets take the brolly with us. Guess what, If I am wrong the planet will not suffer. If you are wrong it will.

Whatever gave you the ideas about me that you have just expressed?:?:?

I am on record in these forums as saying exactly what you say:" we have but one planet, one resource" Couldn't agree more!

To infer what you have is insulting!!

[rrobor]

I inferred nothing and insulted nobody. You was used as referring to everybody, Why should I wish to single out anybody. What I did imply was a carbon tax would aid in reducing our greed. Not your greed or my greed, we all are guilty and we all should take stock. You stated that there is no evidence of disasters happening due to climate change. That is an opinion, one I disagree with. If you feel insulted that my opinion differs from yours, so be it.

[artme]

Read again my friend!!

I said there was no evidence that earthquakes and volcanic activity were influenced by climate change. I have said that it is possible that volcanic activity does effect the climate.

I was just looking for another post of mine that I wished to refer you to but it appears that it vanished into cyber space. In that post I stated that my house is insulated,I have PV panels on the roof, I have 10 000 litres of stored water and I am an avid recycler. I made thepoint that if we all did at least this much we would be on the way to making this orb a better place.

[damian]

Looking at reality, it is likely we are stuffing the planet up. It now comes down to who cares and who does not
As hurracanes increase Tornadoes increase, Earthquakes inrease and Volcanoes increase. If I was religious I would say someone is trying to tell us something. As I am not, I believe it just might be our stuff up. How long do you want to wait to find out.

Perhaps without realising it your skating very close here to my position. There are a couple of key points of difference though.

The 20th century, the only one most people remember, was abnormally calm both in terms of geological and extreme weather events. We have good reliable historical records of extreme weather going back a couple of thousand years (5 in fact if you study what is left of the ancient records). If this century trends back toward the long term average then we will see more hurricanes, volcanic eruptions etc than we are used to in our lives to now. This is ripe fodder for all manner of alarmists, not just the agw mob.

Now the point your making above as I read it is about pollution, deforestation and "civilised" human acitivity broadly. If I have interpreted that right you get no argument from me. If you want to look at wilderness restoration here or overseas I'm right on board. You want to look at sustainable managment of fisheries count me in. Want to look at air pollution ? I'm right there.

But...

If I get involved I'll want to apply the rigorous system engineers (should) apply to every problem. First understand what's happening, next consider courses of action, consider the outcomes of same then formulate and apply a plan of action. Retest in an appropriate time frame.

The reason I rail against this global warming stuff is that isn't what happened. The scientific process was corrupted and obfuscated, the politicians and the finance industry have appropriated the issue for their own ends, it is increasingly obvious to even the casual observer that the proposed actions will not yield good outcomes for the enviroment and will hurt working and middle class people a lot.

So if you want me to walk alongside you as we rail against enviromental destruction jump on the anti coal seam gas wagon, I'll be right there and plenty angry. By the time queensland's water table (and the great artesian basin) are loaded with methane and benzene and much of our farming land is poisoned the politicans will be long gone to their cushy well paid jobs, pockets stuffed with dirty cash, having looked after their mates, and we will be left to pay, as always.

Finally let me say it again. If you accept our elections are not rigged then in our democracy we get the government we deserve. We all feel good giving the politicians a good flogging, but someone voted for them, and if your looking for someone to blame it's the disinterested voters who are bought with spin and pork. This applies equally to all facets of politics, not just the left. I suppose it starts with education, but what we need more than anything is engaged well informed electorates. It is this failure that has brought us to this place, the politicians are just a symptom.

[rrobor]

I posted in this thread to show several things.
First/ There are always pigs in the trough those who only care for self.
Second/ This argument is now political, Abbot on the ultra right, Gillard on the left.
Each will have their bleating flock of followers.
Third/ If the sea rises due to ice melt at the poles, there must be an effect on gravity,
If the sea becomes less salty the currents change. If currents change the wind changes, it must. This is logic.
What I don’t know is what the effects will be of these changes and neither does anybody else
If these changes are correct and it seems more likely they are, should we not take steps to address them
And last These political arguments in a forum such as this get nowhere. Nobody changes their mind, they just go on and on in endless circles. From calling the PM a liar and ignoring the non core promises because it suits the bias. To the ridiculous green movement of hot air and little thought..

[Wood en I]

Check this out.

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

The politics:

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.

The science:

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

The modeling:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.

For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.

Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:

[AlexS]

And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:
Who is David Evans funded by?

[RETIRED]

Put it back on topic please.

[Wongo]

So what’s wrong with her giving an opinion of what she believes in, as long as she puts it into practice?

People who cry about how expensive their electricity bills are should really rethink the way they live their life. The levels of carbon dioxide emissions last year was at a record high. What the hell is wrong with everyone? Can't we stopping consuming? Trust me it doesn’t harm to use less and you should try it too. How many KW do you use per day?

[Greg Ward]

Up on the farm, we just burn wood to keep warm.

That saves on electricity, perhaps it doesn't save the planet, but it saves us having to go the bed to keep warm as the poor old pensioners have to do under current and future rising electricity prices .......and they don't have the pleasure of being able to cover their roof tops with rebated solar scheme panels as they simply don't have the funds.

I guess they can all sit near to their new set top boxes in future and watch TV in bed as well.
Greg

[Ian Smith]

People who cry about how expensive their electricity bills are should really rethink the way they live their life. .........

Ah but you see Wongo there's the rub ...apparently up here in the Sunshine state our power bills will be increasing by over 6% this year because.....wait for it ...we used LESS power last summer and the reason/excuse is that they need to charge more to keep their revenue stream going to maintain the network..


My BS meter is off-scale but I'm not sure exactly why. All I can be certain of is that there's a stinking pile of it somewhere is this mess

Ian

[Wongo]

But aren't you glad that you produced less CO2?

[Ian Smith]

But aren't you glad that you produced less CO2?
Ohh....over the moon!!! At this rate I'll go broke paying for stuff I don't use.

[Wongo]

Paying for stuff I don't use?? That's an interesting way to look at it.

[Ian Smith]

Paying for stuff I don't use?? That's an interesting way to look at it.
I'll not be drawn into a debate that I, and I suspect most others, don't fully understand.

I notice that if you own a pool (I don't) there's going to be some sort of concession on your power bill so there goes my CO2 savings :((

I accept there's climate change and I'll do what is within reason to look after this place but I'm agnostic as to what is causing it.
There's' far too many agendas

Ian

[silentC]

People who cry about how expensive their electricity bills are should really rethink the way they live their life. The levels of carbon dioxide emissions last year was at a record high. What the hell is wrong with everyone? Can't we stopping consuming? Trust me it doesn’t harm to use less and you should try it too. How many KW do you use per day?
Wongo, I have reduced our consumption by about 8 to 10 kwh per day, but our bills have gone UP.

That's because the price of electricity has increased from 15 cents per kwh 6 years ago to 22 cents per kwh today. And it's going to go up by another 50% over the next 5 years. We will cut back and cut back but there is only so far you can go without radical changes to the way we live. We'll need to re-open the local abbatoirs because no-one will be able to afford refrigeration. We'll be reading by candle light and washing our clothes by hand. That's where it is heading.

What frustrates me about this carbon tax debate is the inability of some to separate out the two issues of a) do we need to do something and b) what is the best thing to do. They seem to think that if you are against the carbon tax, then you are a climate change denier. The argument goes "we need to do something so we should support the carbon tax". Wrong. We need to do something but the carbon tax as proposed by the Gillard government is not necessarily the best thing to do. Even if you believe that there's anything at all we can do to change what's happening, which many don't, and many believe it's too late.

I happen to think that it is a largely ineffectual policy designed to create the appearance of doing something without actually doing anything at all. It's just a big money-go-round - as someone put it on Q&A the other night, just a big pile of money being burned. Taxing from the top, compensating at the bottom, how is that going to change anyone's behaviour. It makes no sense to me at all. Julia Gillard tried to explain how it would work and the best she could do was "the person with the extra $250 compensation in their hand might decide to spend it on something different". What the? In all seriousness, if anyone here can explain how it will work, I'm sure plenty would like to hear it.

No you can count on government getting this way wrong. It will push prices up and people will suffer and lose their jobs. You could almost handle the downside if there was going to be an upside, but as far as I can see, there won't be one.

If they put it to the vote, it will fail. It's like the republican referendum: a lot of people voted against it, not because they didn't want a republic, but because they didn't like the model that was proposed. This is the same.

[rrobor]

With no carbon tax finding alternate means of energy will not happen. Sure there are silly things, If I generated power from my roof and sell it to the grid that is deemed as income and as a pensioner I would be penalised. So my means is by insulation and reducing loss. Pulling plaster off the walls and retro insulating room by room etc. People look at tax as some form of horror. The super tax on mining shouted down etc. If you look at Denmark today you will find they taxed north sea oil and built a massive future fund which now works similar to the Nobel prize. The pool is large enough to run infrastructure ad infanitum Australia feeds her wealth to trough feeders who wish to pay no tax.
The UK did the same and now the UK is on the brink of being broke as the oil runs out.
I repeat 10 years ago I stated on another forum that the world nature patterns would get more violent, It has and it will not stop.
What proof is there? there is no conclusive proof. But there is none to prove the otherwise ito be correct. Job loss has been the great call, In the middle ages in the UK weavers smashed looms. In Australia shearers went against wide combs. The sky is yet to fall in. Jobs come and go, My trade is gone as many others have gone before, its evolution and that will not stop

[ColW]

A chap said to me recently "we've seen the best of life in this country" I suppose he was talking about our lifestyles as opposed to our standards of living. There's much concern about the elderly in our society being reasonably able to change their ways, they have set routines and spend much of their time indoors and of course a limited income, but they've also come from a different time "the good old days, that weren't so good" and are equiped with frugality and other survival techniques, such as knowing how to make sacrifices, going to bed to keep warm I doubt would be a new experience for them, nor would growing their own food to supplement diet, or stitching a hole in a garment, or owning 1 appliance until it dies, etc etc. It doesn't take much to see that their old lifestyle was actually pretty good, sustainable even.

Consumerism tells us that "there is never enough" and that "what we buy won't keep us happy for very long, and that it's not about what we need, it's about what we want, what we deserve. There is so much sh#t out there to make us happy, it makes my head spin, when they switched off the analogue TV here recently 6000 units hit the tip in 2 months, thankfully much of the components can be recycled, thankfully I live in a reception poor area and didn't watch much free to air stuff anyway, but i'll keep my old analogue to watch dvd's and give tele a miss for good, doubt i'll miss much.

So here's some free advice handed down from our parents and there's etc. stop buying sh#t we don't need, make do with what we have, and do what you can to help our environment. most people have changed to CF globes, many have gone much farther even to a point of stepping outside what's comfortable, one thing that is certain, we can't rely on Government alone to make the changes necessary, the environmentalist movement has been around for 50 years, about the same amount of time it's historically taken to move from one fuel source to another, eg wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to ?
we're 10 years into any serious kind of push towards renewables and at our current rate it'll take another 200, such is our dependence on fossil fuels,
we can't do much about the bile spewed forth daily from the "business as usual set" but we can ignore it, stop buying their sh#t and hopefully they'll just cannibalize themselves into extinction, of course jobs will be lost, the human toll of our lifestyle hasn't even been realised yet.

It's taken us decades to work out what sustainability actually means, i'm pretty sure most of the pollies still think it's just a handy buzzword, kinda like "feelgood" but no-one really feels good when it comes to this subject, not when were talking about our own races sustainability.

[Wood en I]

Who is David Evans funded by?

David Evans was funded by the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change)

What he is doing now I have no idea you would need to ask him.

[silentC]

If I generated power from my roof and sell it to the grid that is deemed as income and as a pensioner I would be penalised.
That's actually not true in NSW at least. If you take a cheque from the power company, then yes it is considered income if you are a pensioner (but not if you're not a pensioner, figure that out). However most or all energy suppliers pay the tariff in the form of a deduction from your bill. You only get a cheque if you ask for one.

Only history will show whether or not the carbon tax will stimulate any development of alternatives. It's a stick-poking exercise. I would much rather see legislation that forces companies to change, backed up by government grants and subsidies etc. I'm happy to pay for that.

Instead I'm going to be paying even higher prices for just about everything and that will be subsidising low income earners so that they too can pay their higher bills. More than half of the revenue raised is eaten up in compensation. Then what's left does what? Nobody knows. The whole scheme relies on industry finding alternatives. But if all they are going to do is pass the cost on to us, where is the incentive? We have a choice of one energy supplier where I live. Where is the competition? We already pay the highest rate in the state. They just keep applying to IPART for a price increase and they get it. A carbon tax is only going to exacerbate that.

Even if there's nothing we can do about climate change, it's still worthwhile doing something to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to reduce pollution, I just don't see this as the way to do it. Other countries like the UK are doing different things, we should be looking at them.

[artme]

When we were travelling through Turkey and Greece a few years ago I could not help but notice the number of solar hot water system, especially in Turkey. I remember thinking how this put our boasts about "leading the world in solar technology" to shame.

There are no susbsidies there to help people out, at least according to our tour guides.

Makes you wonder about our attitudes and expectations, does it not?

In Spain I made a comment on the number of places, particularly new buildings, that had PV panels and solar hot wter systems. In Spain it is mandated that you have these on all new buildings. Again no subsidy.

Ar we greedy out here or have we missed something??

[mic-d]

Consumerism tells us that "there is never enough" and that "what we buy won't keep us happy for very long, and that it's not about what we need, it's about what we want, what we deserve.

:damn: there was a Festool sale coming up to, but you guilted me out of it.:;
We would like to get solar but apparently you also need to get a smart meter and are worried about the results on the hip pocket and we've heard they emit increased levels of radiation :shrug:
My concern was that since I often work from my home workshop, most of our electricity consumption will be in the shoulder and peak period. It's a terrible way to think and of course the thing to do is put the environment first and get the panels. But what is happening with smart meter installation? If they aren't going to be phased in to everyone, why should I do my bit, swap to solar and then be punished by higher electricity charges? Yes I understand the solar will generate electricity and offset the higher tariff, but in the first place, why must we suffer the higher tariff for being responsible humans while others that continue to use the coal fired electricity do not :? I know the solar electricity is bought at a higher price than we'd buy electricity off the grid, currently, but who is to say that in the future this won't reverse? It's the difficulty in understanding the ramifications of even a simple thing like solar panel installation that has me wondering how I will ever understand if the carbon tax is the right thing to do.:?:?:?

[Waldo]

Wongo, I have reduced our consumption by about 8 to 10 kwh per day, but our bills have gone UP.

That's because the price of electricity has increased from 15 cents per kwh 6 years ago to 22 cents per kwh today. And it's going to go up by another 50% over the next 5 years. We will cut back and cut back but there is only so far you can go without radical changes to the way we live. We'll need to re-open the local abbatoirs because no-one will be able to afford refrigeration. We'll be reading by candle light and washing our clothes by hand. That's where it is heading.

What frustrates me about this carbon tax debate is the inability of some to separate out the two issues of a) do we need to do something and b) what is the best thing to do. They seem to think that if you are against the carbon tax, then you are a climate change denier. The argument goes "we need to do something so we should support the carbon tax". Wrong. We need to do something but the carbon tax as proposed by the Gillard government is not necessarily the best thing to do. Even if you believe that there's anything at all we can do to change what's happening, which many don't, and many believe it's too late.

I happen to think that it is a largely ineffectual policy designed to create the appearance of doing something without actually doing anything at all. It's just a big money-go-round - as someone put it on Q&A the other night, just a big pile of money being burned. Taxing from the top, compensating at the bottom, how is that going to change anyone's behaviour. It makes no sense to me at all. Julia Gillard tried to explain how it would work and the best she could do was "the person with the extra $250 compensation in their hand might decide to spend it on something different". What the? In all seriousness, if anyone here can explain how it will work, I'm sure plenty would like to hear it.

No you can count on government getting this way wrong. It will push prices up and people will suffer and lose their jobs. You could almost handle the downside if there was going to be an upside, but as far as I can see, there won't be one.

If they put it to the vote, it will fail. It's like the republican referendum: a lot of people voted against it, not because they didn't want a republic, but because they didn't like the model that was proposed. This is the same.

SilentC, I whole heartedly agree with you. :2tsup:

[Geoff Dean]

SilentC, I whole heartedly agree with you. :2tsup:

Don't do that, he'll have no one to argue with. :D :D :D

[Wongo]

I notice that if you own a pool (I don't) there's going to be some sort of concession on your power bill so there goes my CO2 savings :((

I agree, that is just crazy. If anything they should be paying more.

[Geoff Dean]

I agree, that is just crazy. If anything they should be paying more.

Nope, less suits me just fine. (I only put my pool in last year :D)

[silentC]

We would like to get solar but apparently you also need to get a smart meter
Is that the case in QLD? We had to get a new meter but only because the one we had couldn't handle solar. The new one is much the same as the old. It's digital and it reports usage in three blocks, so it is a "smart meter", but so was our old one. Our energy supplier charges us a fixed amount for the lot, irrespective of the period. I think we could elect to go on the smart metering scheme, but I don't think it's a good idea.

[Ian Smith]

I agree, that is just crazy. If anything they should be paying more.
I think it has something to do with peak vs off-peak loading and they'll probably put the pool pumps in the same category as your off-peak Hot water system.
That'll run the bloody things in the dead of night and off the neighbours.

Wouldn't it be a strange turn of events if, because the entire East Coast is essentially drawing of a common grid,in an effort to spread the load and reduce the peak, they introduce some time zones and Queensland ends up on some sort of daylight savings regime.

Ian

[ColW]

there was a Festool sale coming up to, but you guilted me out of it.

I think festool is exempt from the sh#t category

I was recently talking to lady who was returning from shopping for a new mixer
her old one, a kenwood, received as a wedding gift 51 years ago just died, she bought another kenwood knowing it would outlast her, anyway she said she'd used the old one at least twice week for the half century it was functioning.

On solar, here in Vic we don't get a choice on having a smart meter, it just gets installed, apparently i'm already paying for the one I don't have, there's also no income from PV input to the grid, it comes as credit to power bills, so if you're generating more than you use, the power company seems to have a free supply of power to sell off, a sly handed dis-incentive, the alternative I suppose is to expend even more and use batteries and power yourself, not independant of the grid but it seems fairer under the current system.

The State gov is also looking to install legislation to create a 2km buffer zone around wind farms, effectively if you live within 2km you get a say on whether one can be built (in your backyard) yet if it were a coal/gas generator you would have no say whatsoever, there's still a lot of resistance to change.

[mic-d]

Is that the case in QLD? We had to get a new meter but only because the one we had couldn't handle solar. The new one is much the same as the old. It's digital and it reports usage in three blocks, so it is a "smart meter", but so was our old one. Our energy supplier charges us a fixed amount for the lot, irrespective of the period. I think we could elect to go on the smart metering scheme, but I don't think it's a good idea.

I dug a bit further and found the opposite, you don't need to get one. I don't know who to believe so I'm going to call my sparky and find out if he knows and can do an installation.


I think festool is exempt from the sh#t category

I was placing it more in the deserve/want category than the crap category:U

[damian]

The new kenwoods aren't anything like the old ones. I own a mk2 and a mk3 and I've got my partners mk4 in the kitchen at the moment. The 4's went to italy and I think they are now chinese.

If she hasn't chucked her old one she should keep it. Parts are horrendous but they are worth repairing.

[damian]

When we were travelling through Turkey and Greece a few years ago I could not help but notice the number of solar hot water system, especially in Turkey. I remember thinking how this put our boasts about "leading the world in solar technology" to shame.

There are no susbsidies there to help people out, at least according to our tour guides.

Makes you wonder about our attitudes and expectations, does it not?

In Spain I made a comment on the number of places, particularly new buildings, that had PV panels and solar hot water systems. In Spain it is mandated that you have these on all new buildings. Again no subsidy.

Are we greedy out here or have we missed something??

I agree with that outcome. Whether it should be subsidised is a valid discussion we as a community should have, along with the fact that we have had incentives to do these things and now as we are told renewables are imperitive those incentives are being cut.

I am not saying we SHOULD have incentives, or should not, but I do find it somewhat ridiculous that they are run down as the rhetoric is ramped up.

[silentC]

If you live in NSW and you have solar panels, the topic is a bit of a sore point at the moment. In selling it's retrospective legislation, the NSW government has managed to turn solar panel ownership into something that is frowned upon by the average punter, almost something to be ashamed of. It has been painted as a scheme that is bringing "windfall profits" to greedy parasites. I think you would have to have rocks in your head to go ahead with solar power at present. If I'd known how it was going to turn out, I would never have done it.