Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Midfielder

Climate Change & Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

The challenge for the ALP to win government is you are swimming against a tide of "talk back, Sky after dark, News major papers we have created a large group of people who no matter what you say and do simply refuse to accept the evidence." It's near impossible for Labor to win, you have to go back to Kevin 07 to find a labor leader that took government from the Libs and Hawke prior to that (others retained a Labor government). You need to be an exceptional leader to do it.

For all Rudds faults (and there where many) he was/is a great communicator. 

I'm a big Gillard fan but while she won an election it was still returning a labor government.

St Albo, patron saint of craft brewing vinyl issues of Radio Birdman, will struggle against the sheer tide of reality denying bullshit

New Ltd, Tele, Australia, 7, 9, Talk Back Radio, right wing nut jobs on twitter ….

Nail head...

However, Ch 10, the ABC, Fairfax, SBS & Ch 9 support CC...

The skill needed is use the media organisations that support CC and then win the debate .

An example I keep using is early in the election Bill Shorten loss the debate to the Libs over Electric Vehicles... the Libs SCREAMED the Labour man telling tradies they can't use their utes... 

This was a no brainier slam dunk for the ALP they could nay should have torn the Libs and talk back to shreds on EV and set the tone for the election... what it showed the screamed CC but new little as anyone half involved understand EV will be the most common car made from late 2020 and early 2030.

These are facts pertaining to EV's

China by 2040 all vehicles, ie trucks, buses cars etc all EV... they are 30% of the worlds new car sales.

Europe ... between 2039 & 2042 all countries to EV's 18% of the new car market

India ... different regions but between 2045 & 2048 all EV

Japan... all EV by 2041

In essence close to 70% of the new car markets are moving to EV by early 20240, given car last for say 10 years... from 2028 to 2032 car manufactures will only make EV.. or mostly EV's

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wendybr said:

You see, I don't like name calling either, Ossi.

It shuts down debate more quickly than anything else.

I have come to see there are many reasons why people think as they do...and it interests me.

Do I have one iota of expectation that I can influence someone on that side?

Nope. I know from experience. 

But I once COULD NOT understand deniers, COULD NOT!

And now I sort of do understand a range of their beliefs.

yes but he is an idiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, marron said:

The key is engaging.

Like many a troll/red piller/deep webber before them, our mate here will claim to engage without feels and with objectivity and then spout a few mistruths, maybe reel off some rhetorical rebuttals and then disappear. Although our mate doesn't seem to be even at that level yet, it's just the mistruth and disappear stage. 

In short, no engagement.

We'll see.

The "logic, and without feels" claim fascinates me.

I was going to ask our sparring partners how they feel about one billion incinerated animals (although that figure was around a week ago, and heaps more has burnt since).

And how they feel about millions of other creatures now potentially starving to death.

Does that thought...or do images of that...make them feel anything?

At all?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Also, in addition to the factors you mention,  the influence on younger people  who are deniers comes from the internet.

It's interesting...CC denial has the power of a religious cult, even though deniers will accuse climate change activists as treating the issue like religion.

Very true...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

yes but he is an idiot

:angry:  Oh do shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Midfielder said:

Nail head...

However, Ch 10, the ABC, Fairfax, SBS & Ch 9 support CC...

The skill needed is use the media organisations that support CC and then win the debate .

An example I keep using is early in the election Bill Shorten loss the debate to the Libs over Electric Vehicles... the Libs SCREAMED the Labour man telling tradies they can't use their utes... 

This was a no brainier slam dunk for the ALP they could nay should have torn the Libs and talk back to shreds on EV and set the tone for the election... what it showed the screamed CC but new little as anyone half involved understand EV will be the most common car made from late 2020 and early 2030.

These are facts pertaining to EV's

China by 2040 all vehicles, ie trucks, buses cars etc all EV... they are 30% of the worlds new car sales.

Europe ... between 2039 & 2042 all countries to EV's 18% of the new car market

India ... different regions but between 2045 & 2048 all EV

Japan... all EV by 2041

In essence close to 70% of the new car markets are moving to EV by early 20240, given car last for say 10 years... from 2028 to 2032 car manufactures will only make EV.. or mostly EV's

 

Fairfax is gone.. 9 may believe in CC but it is always going to back a Liberal government unless Labor agree to drop all media ownership laws..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Here we agree!

Yay!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

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

Wot?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

>>>>>>>>>>

:hi:

 

 

:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wendybr said:

OK...easy!

Football threads are

>>>>>>>>>>

:hi:

 

 

:lol::lol:

You get my point though? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Midfielder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by StringerBellend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by sonar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StringerBellend said:

You get my point though? 

No stamina!

 

:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/01/2020 at 8:00 PM, StringerBellend said:

You could say that of course, you’d be wrong though

You do believe in Climate Change don’t you? Separating politics, right and left, Morrison etc. You do believe in the science of Climate Change?
 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by StringerBellend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Flytox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...