Election 2016

[Spooks]

Is there any reason that Australia doesn't build a huge solar farm array? Of all the renewables available it seems to be the best option considering your rather sunny climate.

 

 

[M61A1]

Is there any reason that Australia doesn't build a huge solar farm array? Of all the renewables available it seems to be the best option considering your rather sunny climate.

 

Have a read of the linked article on post #89

 

 

[Spooks]

Cheers!

 

 

[Bruce]

At our holiday house on the farm , I seriously considered living off the grid. We have an unfair advantage there with unlimited firewood. Even so, the cost of the battery setup to supply power at night and on sunless days was prohibitive.

 

The same logic applies to a whole country.

 

So if you can't see how to go off the grid and onto renewables as a personal thing, you sure are asking a lot to think a country which has to find power for industry can do it.

 

Personally, I advocate nuclear power as the only hope to fight global warming while keeping our standard of living. Alas there is so much superstitious hostility to nuclear out there that this is unlikely to happen.

 

 

[Spooks]

Ironically, the extremists pushing the global warming agenda are also the ones who push the scare tactics on nuclear.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Don't know how you get "extremists" from "pretty much every scientist in the field".

 

 

[Bruce]

Spooks, I advocate nuclear as being the least worst energy source and I also reckon the evidence for global warming is irrefutable.

 

If you ever visit the vanishing glaciers in NZ you will see some telling evidence.

 

And I would advise against investing the family fortune in Australian ski resorts. The remaining ski runs are going uphill every few years but the mountains are not high enough to do this much longer.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Ironically, the extremists pushing the global warming agenda are also the ones who push the scare tactics on nuclear.

Who exactly are the "extremists pushing the global warming agenda"?

 

I'm always intrigued by the language used to describe those who agree with the overwhelming bulk of credible scientific evidence and qualified scientific opinion that industrial-age CO2 emissions are resulting in planetary greenhouse warming.

 

 

[Spooks]

Don't know how you get "extremists" from "pretty much every scientist in the field".

Are scientists involved in global warming extremist environmentalists who are against nuclear power? Don't know how you got that from what I wrote.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I think we have different definitions of "extremist".

 

If you went around detonating car bombs outside nuclear power stations or setting fire to their front offices, or assaulting nuclear workers, that would be extremist. Perhaps chaining yourself to a gate would, at a push, fall into the category too (though I'd define that as "pointless" and "a bit emo" rather than "extremist").

 

 

[Spooks]

I think we have different definitions of "extremist".

If you went around detonating car bombs outside nuclear power stations or setting fire to their front offices, or assaulting nuclear workers, that would be extremist. Perhaps chaining yourself to a gate would, at a push, fall into the category too (though I'd define that as "pointless" and "a bit emo" rather than "extremist").

Environmentalists Turn To Violence

 

Eco anarchists: A new breed of terrorist?

 

Eco-terrorism has been going on for a while.

 

In the UK I know of multiple people in the farming community who've had parts (wheels, grills etc ) loosened on their 4x4s/trucks/tractors as they're 'killing the planet'. I've friends involved in fracking / nuclear energy and they've suffered both intimidation and threats to their family. Personally, I had threats from the university 'green club' when I entered the car park in an RX8 while they were having a sit-in (found it comical more than anything)

 

Seems fairly extreme to me.

 

Whether or not man made global warming is happening (renamed Climate Change now) I don't know and don't really care, there's little I can do about it. However I would prefer a move to renewables regardless as long term it'll be a reliable and abundant energy source that'll raise the standard of living for everyone and remove reliance on the Middle East/Russia.

 

 

[Bruce]

Here's my problem with global warming... I can't find a denier who will bet with me.

 

Here's the bet: Every day warmer than the long term average, they give me $99. For every day colder I give them $100.

 

If the climate hasn't warmed they will get ahead $1 every second day on average. This will add up over the year.

 

So far, no takers. I wonder why not?

 

On renewables Spooks, I would like for you to be right, but so far it just aint so. The real thing missing is cheap storage.

 

To work my wife's fridge for just one day on battery power would need $7000 worth of batteries.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Environmentalists Turn To Violence

Eco anarchists: A new breed of terrorist?

 

Eco-terrorism has been going on for a while.

I'd suggest you'd find those particular groups are a very small minority, and I'd suggest you'd find 99.9% of people who are concerned about the environment are appalled by their tactics. The way you phrase it makes it sound like it is the norm for an environmentally (or climate change) concerned or aware person to be an eco-terrorist, rather than the exception. It is clearly not the norm.

 

Whether or not man made global warming is happening (renamed Climate Change now) I don't know and don't really care, there's little I can do about it. However I would prefer a move to renewables regardless as long term it'll be a reliable and abundant energy source that'll raise the standard of living for everyone and remove reliance on the Middle East/Russia.

This is a bit like saying "whether or not cancer is happening, I don't know and don't really care, there's little I can do about it". You may not personally have observed or noticed it, but others who have expertise and spend their lives studying the subject have. And you probably should care, because even though it may not be affecting you or anyone you personally know right at the moment (it usually takes many years to materialise and by then the damage is done), it may well do, and the consequences will likely be unpleasant if it does. There are even things you can do about it. There are steps you can take to sensibly reduce your risk, without going totally overboard.

 

"Renamed climate change now".

 

This is a myth, at least as far as the scientific or environmental community goes.

 

Back in 1956 the US Office of Naval Research sponsored a paper by Gilbert Plass titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". There are other examples too. The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used synonymously by scientists for over half a century.

 

The only time the terms have ever been politically manipulated was by US Republican political advisor Frank Luntz in 2003. He decided that "Climate Change" sounded less alarming to the public than "Global Warming", which sounded too frightening (although to scientists it makes very little difference) and so started much behind the scenes work to get "global warming" out of the vocabulary. Luntz's memo detailing how conservatives should manipulate voters' thoughts on the environment was leaked years ago. You can look it up on the web. It makes for fascinating reading. But never mind reading about it. Why don't you watch Luntz himself being interviewed about it here?

 

 

[dutchroll]

And another great excerpt from Luntz's memo:

 

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth,"

 

I know you want more of him, so here he is admitting that he started a wave of scepticism which today is not justified. But he's totally unapologetic. Back then, he had a job to do for the conservative US political movement with its deep connections to energy companies. He did it, and he did it well. People are still repeating it today! The guy, and the politicians he advised in the day, are absolute master manipulators. They did an excellent job, although it's slowly becoming more obvious that they were totally wrong (as he essentially concedes here) and the scientists were right all along. It doesn't matter though - some people have picked up his flag and continue to run with it.

 

 

[Spooks]

Here's my problem with global warming... I can't find a denier who will bet with me.Here's the bet: Every day warmer than the long term average, they give me $99. For every day colder I give them $100.

 

If the climate hasn't warmed they will get ahead $1 every second day on average. This will add up over the year.

 

So far, no takers. I wonder why not?

 

On renewables Spooks, I would like for you to be right, but so far it just aint so. The real thing missing is cheap storage.

 

To work my wife's fridge for just one day on battery power would need $7000 worth of batteries.

I look at nuclear as a renewable that works. Wind and solar have proven useless in Europe however they have huge support from the 'greens', but nuclear which is proven to work is still the bogey man amongst the environmentalist camp.

 

As I originally stated before my words were twisted to go on a rant about global warming belief/non-belief, the extremist environmentalists are anti-nuclear.

 

 

[Spooks]

I'd suggest you'd find those particular groups are a very small minority, and I'd suggest you'd find 99.9% of people who are concerned about the environment are appalled by their tactics. The way you phrase it makes it sound like it is the norm for an environmentally (or climate change) concerned or aware person to be an eco-terrorist, rather than the exception. It is clearly not the norm.

Yet they're still extremists which is what you questioned. The majority of Muslims/Catholics are peaceful but there are still extremist groups amongst them.

 

 

[bull]

Yet they're still extremists which is what you questioned. The majority of Muslims/Catholics are peaceful but there are still extremist groups amongst them.

And I personally would say that there is quite a'lot more ËXTREMISTS in the Muslim world than the catholic world,,,please be real and open about the truth here....

 

 

[willedoo]

I think we have different definitions of "extremist".

If you went around detonating car bombs outside nuclear power stations or setting fire to their front offices, or assaulting nuclear workers, that would be extremist. Perhaps chaining yourself to a gate would, at a push, fall into the category too (though I'd define that as "pointless" and "a bit emo" rather than "extremist").

There seems to be a very broad definition of extremist these days. If you believe half the excrement dished up to us by the press and politicians, an extremist is anyone with an opinion outside that of the mainstream, status quo, whether left or right of centre.

 

The rules these days are why debate when you can denigrate.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Spooks, you started it all off by saying this:

 

Ironically, the extremists pushing the global warming agenda are also the ones who push the scare tactics on nuclear.

And then you stated this:

 

As I originally stated before my words were twisted to go on a rant about global warming belief/non-belief,

Do you see any conflict in what you've stated here?

 

You're calling it an "agenda". It's not an agenda. It's just a scientific fact mate. You are the one using the language suggesting that it's

 

a) an agenda (implying some sort of malfeasance by the way you use that word)

 

b) the ones who "push it" are extremists.

 

c) anyone "pushing it" (whatever that actually means) is also an anti-nuclear extremist by default.

 

Then you quote references on eco-terrorism!

 

I'm just quoting back what you said and now you get all upset about it. By the way, it's no more a matter of "belief" than a "belief" that the earth revolves around the sun. It's an empirically observed fact.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

No country can avoid the possible consequences of adopting nuclear power, the shutdown of Japan's nuclear generators has had a massive impact on their manufacturing sector. One victim was the HKS ultralight engine, which went of production post Fukushima.

 

After Five Years, What Is The Cost Of Fukushima?

 

 

[Spooks]

Spooks, you started it all off by saying this:

And then you stated this:

 

Do you see any conflict in what you've stated here?

 

You're calling it an "agenda". It's not an agenda. It's just a scientific fact mate. You are the one using the language suggesting that it's

 

a) an agenda (implying some sort of malfeasance by the way you use that word)

 

b) the ones who "push it" are extremists.

 

c) anyone "pushing it" (whatever that actually means) is also an anti-nuclear extremist by default.

 

Then you quote references on eco-terrorism!

 

I'm just quoting back what you said and now you get all upset about it. By the way, it's no more a matter of "belief" than a "belief" that the earth revolves around the sun. It's an empirically observed fact.

You denied that some of those pushing the global warming agenda use extremist methods. I provided evidence they did. At no point did I suggest all of those supporting MMGW are Eco-terrorists so please don't suggest I did as it doesn't benefit you either.

 

My initial post stated that the extremists (not all) involved in pushing global warming are anti-nuclear.

 

For example in a non-global warming/extremist setting that might help you understand the wording

 

1. 'The hooligans who support Carlton football club love to assault opposition fans'

 

Does that suggest that all Carlton fans enjoy fights or just the hooligans?

 

2. "The White supremacists in New Zealand chanted racist slogans"

 

Does that suggest that all white people in New Zealand chanted racist slogans or just the supremacists?

 

Hope that makes it clearer.

 

If you're so offended by the word 'agenda', I suggest you contact these these people too

 

http://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/inventory/idb05.pdf

 

Global Climate Change and Health: Developing a Research Agenda for the NIH

 

G20 makes progress on climate change

 

I always saw the word 'agenda' as a to-do list in a formal setting e.g the massive government meetings that take place regarding impact/solutions to climate change/global warming (G8/20 summits) rather than a nefarious New World Order. Perhaps the word agenda has been hijacked slightly by the conspiracy theorists? Obviously it is quite clear that those believing in global warming are pushing the agenda.

 

I hope that has cleared things up for you as you seem to have seen the words 'global warming', 'agenda' & 'extremist' and gone off on a rant.

 

 

[old man emu]

 

OME

 

 

[Spooks]

OME

I want it to stop but Dutchroll is manipulating the evidence to suit his incorrect theory

 

 

[Marty_d]

I'll get back to topic. I was extremely amused to see the Libs being turned on a spit over their superannuation policy by their own paymasters. If the IPA and the LNP's regular donors are stridently denouncing a policy, you can be sure it's a good one.

 

Just goes to show who the real backers of the LNP are (as if we didn't already know). For the life of me though I can't understand why anyone who isn't rich or running a multinational company would vote for them.

 

 

[M61A1]

Using the Pat Condell logic, they're worth voting for because voting for them is voting against the others. Billy and the Greens have got some pretty wild ideas about what they're going to do with your money, your kid's money and their kid's money.