Climate Change & Alternative Energy

[wendybr]

4 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

I'd be interested if there are stats to back up my believe, but on where young people get their climate change denial from. Most of them don't, generally (not all) young people do believe in climate change.. it's the older people that are the problem on this one.

Here's the optimist in me.

I believe that children are our future

Teach them well....

 

Show them the beauty ...

 

Here we agree!

Yay!

[StringerBellend]

2 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Here we agree!

Yay!

Sing it  with me sister "give them a sense of pride..."

[wendybr]

12 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

Sing it  with me sister "give them a sense of pride..."

Wot?

 

[marron]

19 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

 

 

If climate change isn't real then of course we shouldn't act.

 

I disagree strongly with this.

First of all - even the deniers mostly admit that it is happening, it's just they dispute whether it's man made (because they know better than all the scientists, the only explanation for which is that the scientists are ALL involved in a massive conspiracy).

Which means - yes, we should do something about it; it doesn't really matter the cause, it's happening, so, what can be done to try and limit the damage, protect people, etc etc. THere are differences of course then in terms of what should be done, but it should be SOMETHING.

Then, even for those whackos who think it ISN'T changing and can ignore that we haven't had a year below average in Australia for like 40 years or whatever it is and that natural disasters (like the worst one we've ever had this summer) aren't happening.... even then;

Fossil fuels WILL run out so it is smart economically speaking to be ahead of the 8-ball.

Living sustainably IS smart because it means we don't have to import as much, which is costly and doesn't do much for our local economies

Other places around the world clearly believe it IS happening, so if we can gear our industry towards the kind of technologies and approaches THEY want, it will also be a smart move.

 

Instead these ****heads are so hellbent on not being wrong in a debate they are going to **** us all.

[wendybr]

27 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

 

My point wasn't about debating people with a different opinion, I'm all for it and totally get that we need to do that (more on that later)

My point was that there are multiple points here 

1) Do you believe  Climate Change is real and impact by mans actions? i.e. a) Is the climate changing? b) Has man had an impact on this?

2) Therefore, should we do something about it?

3) What should we do?, and How should we do it?

Our seeking friend here is throwing up arguments about 2) (very dull ones), but like most deniers he is just throwing rocks hoping one hits. There is no point in debating 2) unless you agree on 1). 

If climate change isn't real then of course we shouldn't act. If our seeking friend and his mates don't believe in 1) then debating 2) with them is pointless as it is irrelevant.

 

--

Ok on my position on if you debate with people who have different opinion, my default position is to debate, you of all people should see that! However I have often said that "I'd rather slam my privates in debate, climate change with a denier" and that comes to I can give them every fact, figure, peer group reviewed paper and they won't believe it but instead they will

- refer to me some youtube clip, blogger, or a scientist with questionable qualifications in the field

- go down the usual list of arguments (like we only contribute < X%, or the climate has always changed)

and one by one I'll waste my life, watching or reading their evidence, and putting a reasoned argument together, and they will just come back with another even more boring argument... This goes on forever, not to say I shouldn't debate I should, but I'd still rather jam my cock in a car door than do it.

In short I agree that we should, I just don't like doing it with deniers.

 

OK...easy!

Football threads are

>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

[StringerBellend]

2 minutes ago, wendybr said:

OK...easy!

Football threads are

>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

You get my point though? 

[Midfielder]

13 minutes ago, marron said:

I disagree strongly with this.

First of all - even the deniers mostly admit that it is happening, it's just they dispute whether it's man made (because they know better than all the scientists, the only explanation for which is that the scientists are ALL involved in a massive conspiracy).

Which means - yes, we should do something about it; it doesn't really matter the cause, it's happening, so, what can be done to try and limit the damage, protect people, etc etc. THere are differences of course then in terms of what should be done, but it should be SOMETHING.

Then, even for those whackos who think it ISN'T changing and can ignore that we haven't had a year below average in Australia for like 40 years or whatever it is and that natural disasters (like the worst one we've ever had this summer) aren't happening.... even then;

Fossil fuels WILL run out so it is smart economically speaking to be ahead of the 8-ball.

Living sustainably IS smart because it means we don't have to import as much, which is costly and doesn't do much for our local economies

Other places around the world clearly believe it IS happening, so if we can gear our industry towards the kind of technologies and approaches THEY want, it will also be a smart move.

 

Instead these ****heads are so hellbent on not being wrong in a debate they are going to **** us all.

astute observation and very true..... I would also add as I posted before many of the vocal CCD are uneducated and often working class ... 

Its these people that need to be understood.... Bernie Sanders in the US is the perfect of understanding these people and taking to them... its needs skill and workable policy's not slogan singing...

Edited January 19, 2020 by Midfielder

[StringerBellend]

15 minutes ago, marron said:

I disagree strongly with this.

First of all - even the deniers mostly admit that it is happening, it's just they dispute whether it's man made (because they know better than all the scientists, the only explanation for which is that the scientists are ALL involved in a massive conspiracy).

Which means - yes, we should do something about it; it doesn't really matter the cause, it's happening, so, what can be done to try and limit the damage, protect people, etc etc. THere are differences of course then in terms of what should be done, but it should be SOMETHING.

Then, even for those whackos who think it ISN'T changing and can ignore that we haven't had a year below average in Australia for like 40 years or whatever it is and that natural disasters (like the worst one we've ever had this summer) aren't happening.... even then;

Fossil fuels WILL run out so it is smart economically speaking to be ahead of the 8-ball.

Living sustainably IS smart because it means we don't have to import as much, which is costly and doesn't do much for our local economies

Other places around the world clearly believe it IS happening, so if we can gear our industry towards the kind of technologies and approaches THEY want, it will also be a smart move.

 

Instead these ****heads are so hellbent on not being wrong in a debate they are going to **** us all.

I agree

My point was more that if you don’t believe it is real or that we can influence it in anyway then of a course a climate denying government wouldn’t spend money on something that they can’t influence.

Our seeking mate throws this <2% arguement out but he is just throwing stuff out as fundamentally he doesn’t believe it is real Anyway

obvioulsy it is real, obviously we can influence it and we should 

i

The subtly I missed out was, even if it isn’t proven to be real (it is) then acting on it just in case wouldn’t be the prudent thing to do. As if Science is right (which it is) then the cost of not doing something is far greater than doing something that turned out to be unnecessary (ie they were wrong)

We agree 

my arguement was clumsy and hard to make online 

Edited January 19, 2020 by StringerBellend

[marron]

My opening there makes it sound stronger than what it was, wasn't having a go at you.

I just think - even if it ISN'T real, many of the potential responses are actually prudent.

The people for whom they are NOT prudent tend to be billionaires with large investments in fossil fuel OR with an interest in keeping government out of their business.

Weirdly, many of the "it's a conspiracy types' believe that it is these very same billionaires who are pushing climate change because apparently they want government control over everything.

[sonar]

The thing is that there is a cost involved with any action or non action on CC. A market based ETS is the best way to reduce emissions. The Govt in 2012 introduced a scheme but that was rejected by the electorate in 2013 with the election of the conservatives.

That vote meant that the cost was shifted from the emitters who paid the tax to the taxpayer. At the moment....the planet is the one paying the price for that decision..

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by sonar

[wendybr]

2 hours ago, StringerBellend said:

You get my point though? 

No stamina!

 

[wendybr]

2 hours ago, StringerBellend said:

The subtly I missed out was, even if it isn’t proven to be real (it is) then acting on it just in case would be the prudent thing to do. As if Science is right (which it is) then the cost of not doing something is far greater than doing something that turned out to be unnecessary 

That's been the bottom line with me too...

EVEN IF the majority of scientists  are somehow wrong, we can't simply take no action...just in case they are right.

The consequences are too dire if we are skeptical,  do nothing, and are wrong.

That argument made no difference, tho.

 

[wendybr]

1 hour ago, marron said:

My opening there makes it sound stronger than what it was, wasn't having a go at you.

I just think - even if it ISN'T real, many of the potential responses are actually prudent.

The people for whom they are NOT prudent tend to be billionaires with large investments in fossil fuel OR with an interest in keeping government out of their business.

Weirdly, many of the "it's a conspiracy types' believe that it is these very same billionaires who are pushing climate change because apparently they want government control over everything.

Yep.

The conspiracy argument now  includes how elites want to control us, apparently.

I'm sure they do that in many respects already...but this is another string in their bow..........apparently.

[StringerBellend]

28 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Yep.

The conspiracy argument now  includes how elites want to control us, apparently.

I'm sure they do that in many respects already...but this is another string in their bow..........apparently.

Their arguemenrt Is like a child throwing its own poo

[Midfielder]

Stringer

The Alan Jones & Andrew Bolts of this world make their living out of the sky is falling. Despite falling crime rates these people would make you think stepping outside your front door is dangerous 

CC to them is ratings.

Bernie Sanders identified poor working class people who voted for Trump as people dissatisfied with government and looking for an anti establishment person. These are many of the folk that make up CCDs . This is where the next election will be w on or lost.

Many CCD folk are poor uneducated folk. Alan Jones audience is Western Sydney not the Northern Beaches or Bondi.

I hope Albio is up to the job it's so very important that the ALP win the next federal election.

Maybe the new David A movie will change some minds 

 

 

 

.

 

[Unlimited]

Also on whoever said that Australia only contributes like 1.3% of global warming and hence shouldn't do anything... wtf

By the time I get to shower at night, I'm only using like... maybe 2% of the water that day, but if my girlfriend hops in the shower after me and we're out of hot water, I'm gonna be single again lol

[StringerBellend]

32 minutes ago, Bones said:

Just don’t buy into the hysterical aspect of it and the accompanying simplistic theory that if I pay more tax that will fix it.

Ok, so you do believe in Climate Change and that it is caused by carbon emissions? That's a start.

So if we are agreed that climate change is real, and caused by carbon emissions, then do you think it wise to reduce carbon emissions, in attempt to slow or stop it? 

BTW I'm not sure where the simplistic theory of if you pay more tax it will fix it, as come from (unless you own a large power station)? I don't know of anyone who has put that forward as theory.

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by StringerBellend

[wendybr]

40 minutes ago, Bones said:

simplistic theory that if I pay more tax that will fix it.

Your minimal amount of tax dollars won't fix it, of course it wont.

But we all need to make a contribution.... globally

[StringerBellend]

20 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Your minimal amount of tax dollars won't fix it, of course it wont.

But we all need to make a contribution.... globally

Who’s asking him to pay more tax anyway? 

[sonar]

The tax cuts and concessions that were put in place when the ETS was introduced in 2012 were never repealed. So those cuts instead of coming from the payments from the emitters, now those same cuts and concessions have to come from the general taxpayers......the emitters pay nothing.

 

[Flytox]

5 hours ago, Midfielder said:

Stringer

The Alan Jones & Andrew Bolts of this world make their living out of the sky is falling. Despite falling crime rates these people would make you think stepping outside your front door is dangerous 

CC to them is ratings.

Bernie Sanders identified poor working class people who voted for Trump as people dissatisfied with government and looking for an anti establishment person. These are many of the folk that make up CCDs . This is where the next election will be w on or lost.

Many CCD folk are poor uneducated folk. Alan Jones audience is Western Sydney not the Northern Beaches or Bondi.

I hope Albio is up to the job it's so very important that the ALP win the next federal election.

Maybe the new David A movie will change some minds 

 

.

 

You do know that Albo is dropping the 45% emissions reduction policy?

Edited January 19, 2020 by Flytox

[Midfielder]

Whats not said often enough is who we are actually fighting... 

Jones & Bolt are pawns and their ego and rating drive them and that they have power...

The real fight is against about 8 large Oil producing countries and some of those in the middle east where oil is their major source of revenue.... Add the 7 big oil companies and roughly 50 mega big coal mining companies....  at best 100 countries, and corporations.... but these corporations are beyond corrupt and spin and spin and spin...

Imagine if oil was worth next to nothing who will fund terrorism to the extent it is today..... 

Next forget the fossil fuel industry  is the richest, biggest, industry with very powerful people not wanting to loss their wealth or more over not increase their existing wealth.

[Midfielder]

3 minutes ago, Flytox said:

You do know that Albo is dropping the 45% emissions reduction policy?

I have repeatedly said its not a left / right issue... we need a new government as the Libs of today will do SFA .... but we need strong leadership from the ALP and also a policy set and campaign that can win government ...

My analysis of why Shorten lost the election was because he took some crazy economic polices to the election, and on CC was great at quoting slogans but hopeless at the detail and debating CC almost as if he saw CC as a hot point to talk about but had little ability to discuss in detail... further his campaign was terrible 

As for Albo the jury is still out .... I want him to win but from what I have seen so far and its early days he does not fill me with confidence that he can win... mind you I thought the same about John Howard in his first year as opposition leader around 1994 or their abouts... [PS I understand he was the leader before but the last time he was the leader of the opposition I thought in the early days he was a gone-a and Keating would eat him alive] 

[wendybr]

18 minutes ago, Flytox said:

You do know that Albo is dropping the 45% emissions reduction policy?

What is the new target...and was it announced before or after the fires, Flytox?

[sonar]

It's effing hilarious when I hear people saying that a party that introduced a carbon policy that was working, got defeated at the ballot box because of it, should now have to be the ones to step up to do the dirty work on emission reductions again....while those that tore it down and are commited to do nothing get a free pass......ie the current govt.........what an effing farce.......

Edited January 19, 2020 by sonar

[Wanderboy]

6 minutes ago, wendybr said:

What is the new target...and was it announced before or after the fires, Flytox?

He hasn't announced the new time frame and only announced it today (or yesterday).

He's being a typical politician. No detail about anything until they think it might get them re-elected. Both sides are as bad as each other really.

It sickens me.

Oh, for the days of another Hawke or Keating. Even Howard to a lesser extent, despite his policies.

 

[StringerBellend]

Hard for him to commit to a target when he isn’t in power and what be for the next three years. Can’t commit to achieve something by 2025 when you won’t be in power until 2022-23, if the Libs don’t reduce emissions at all then labor are left with 2 years to do the lot. 

[theseeker]

20 hours ago, wendybr said:

Acolytes? Well that's  a new one.

Lol. If you say so.

I didn't hate Morrison.

I was frustrated at the election loss.... sure, but could see where the ALP had frightened away people.

I had no idea of the damage that election result could have brought.

Morrison had seemed sort of benign... compared Abbott, and I had been massively relieved that Dutton didn't claw his way to the top when he ousted Turnbull. That had seemed the best outcome.

I have NOT said I blame Morrison for climate change. That would be utterly absurd.

I DO blame him, and anyone who may have supported him, in refusing to even meet the fire chiefs,  and for sitting on his hands for 4 MONTHS, while the fires ravaged the country, and the states efforts were obviously inadequate.

Starting 9 months ago, he made an atrocious blunder. 3-4 months ago, he compounded it by not offering support,  and grinning his way through expressing his reluctance to offer support...."It's  not a Commonealth issue" <grins and shrugs>

When he finally decided he had to act, in response to howls of criticism here and internationally, he backed that up with a self promoting bullshit advertisement, simultaneously fund raising for the Liberal party.

How anyone who loves this country, whether left or right leaning, can not be disgusted and outraged by his performance, is beyond me.

See you don't get it.

Under the Australian Constitution there is a division of rights and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States and the various State empires and fiefdoms get their knickers in a big knot  when they feel there is Commonwealth intrusion on those rights and responsibilities.

It is well established that bushfires are a States responsibility. So Morrison had to initially tread carefully.

Notwithstanding that , he has intruded and money and assistance has flowed. Interestingly when some retired Fire chief named Mullins criticized  the Commonwealth NSW RFS Chief told the Sunrise program " We've had tremendous support from the Commonwealth and we got everything we asked "

Wendy , get over this unhealthy , irrational criticism of Morrison it's no good for you. Reminds me of Beer's unhealthy obsession  with FCB and Manfred.

As an aside why is the Midfielder with the Mariners logo posting on a Wanderers website ? Don't the Mariners have a website ?

 

 

[StringerBellend]

18 minutes ago, theseeker said:

See you don't get it.

Under the Australian Constitution there is a division of rights and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States and the various State empires and fiefdoms get their knickers in a big knot  when they feel there is Commonwealth intrusion on those rights and responsibilities.

It is well established that bushfires are a States responsibility. So Morrison had to initially tread carefully.

Notwithstanding that , he has intruded and money and assistance has flowed. Interestingly when some retired Fire chief named Mullins criticized  the Commonwealth NSW RFS Chief told the Sunrise program " We've had tremendous support from the Commonwealth and we got everything we asked "

Wendy , get over this unhealthy , irrational criticism of Morrison it's no good for you. Reminds me of Beer's unhealthy obsession  with FCB and Manfred.

As an aside why is the Midfielder with the Mariners logo posting on a Wanderers website ? Don't the Mariners have a website ?

 

 

So your happy with Morrison’s handling of the disaster? and his inaction on climate change? 
 

That is your expectation of a leader?

So Climate Change, do you believe in it?

do you think it is something that we should act on?

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by StringerBellend

[Burztur]

36 minutes ago, theseeker said:

See you don't get it.

Under the Australian Constitution there is a division of rights and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States and the various State empires and fiefdoms get their knickers in a big knot  when they feel there is Commonwealth intrusion on those rights and responsibilities.

It is well established that bushfires are a States responsibility. So Morrison had to initially tread carefully.

Notwithstanding that , he has intruded and money and assistance has flowed. Interestingly when some retired Fire chief named Mullins criticized  the Commonwealth NSW RFS Chief told the Sunrise program " We've had tremendous support from the Commonwealth and we got everything we asked "

Wendy , get over this unhealthy , irrational criticism of Morrison it's no good for you. Reminds me of Beer's unhealthy obsession  with FCB and Manfred.

As an aside why is the Midfielder with the Mariners logo posting on a Wanderers website ? Don't the Mariners have a website ?

 

 

I think its a bit cute to first say, "it's not my responsibility" and to now jump in and offer all this assistance. Does Morrison not know his role? Either Morrison does not believe it is his responsibility and is acting contrary to his view on the separation of powers or he does believe that the Federal Government has some role to play and did not offer this up on the first place. 

When the going gets tough, Morrison has gone to Hawaii. I think that's what people will remember of him during a national emergency.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Burztur