"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
. au...

I've long wondered about both peak oil and climate change and whether
there is a difference in attitudes to both of those things between country
and city dwellers and I've finally come down on the side of a distinct
difference. City dwellers tend to witter on about it and say all the
right things, but don't seem to understand how it applies to them and
their profligate ways. I suspect that only when the water stops flowing
out of thier taps or they can't get fuel for their fourbies that they
might eventually realise what it really means. (rant mode off)

hm, sort of. but sort of not. i do think that dislocation from the natural
world does not help people to see things clearly & the relationships between
them, but i'm also mindful that i completely changed teh way i live whilst
still a city dweller - many city dwellers have, and do. just as they have no
real idea what we are doing, we don't necessarily keep in touch with what
they are doing either.

plus, i'm sure we both know rural dwellers whose behaviour is as bizarre,
wasteful, and counter-intuitive as the behaviour of a cubbie living in a
mcmansion in kellyville. (unfortunately).

in many ways issues like these don't really have a country/city divide,
because there are people in both situations who just aren't seeing or
accepting or caring about things that are going on. i'm not sure the mindset
is locality-based.

i'd also say, however, that as far as i'm aware (& happy to be corrected if
i've got it wrong) that the proportion of rural-dwelling outright deniers is
far larger, even though you would expect the reverse!! i offer you the
national party as but one example - i've never voted national because i
completely disapprove of their unholy alliance, but used to feel they played
an important role. lately, they've degenerated into a pack of troglodyte
rabble who should be entirely ashamed of letting their constituents down so
relentlessly and for so long. even in 2009, the barnaby joyces are saying
"you shouldn't plant trees on arable land - they just use all the water &
stop the grass from growing" which is the biggest crock of shit
imaginable!!!! i find this simply unbelievable when it's been shown
repeatedly that the right kind of tree, & enough of them, will not only help
counter wind and erosion, but also spread fertility, break up monoculture,
and keep the surrounding grass green & their zone more fertile. i can
accept the nats might not have much brains, but have they no eyes either?
farming is of necessity going through some big changes, i don't think that
living in 1956 is going to help anyone, particularly their own constituents.
my own rant mode off ;-)

i saw ian plimer on the telly the other week. it was one of those
interviews that was just so embarrassing to watch

God wasn't it appalling! And to think that Abbott is quoting him as a
credible scientist on the subject of climate change! No wonder Abbott got
shot down in flames for giving out the wrong information about the Hadley
Institute's findings if he was relying on Plimer.

abbott has himself in a bit of a bind, though; and not only abbott but alby
schultz (whose missive in the goulburn paper yesterday was similarly
embarrassing) and a whole clot of others in the party - the bind being that
on the one hand they are coming up with every reason that current climate
change is not anthropogenic, but _also_ claiming that their climate change
policies will be better than labor's. clearly, if it's not anthropogenic, no
need to do anything as there is nothing we could do. if it is, we need to do
things! but walking on both sides of the fence is clearly not tenable, and
cannot possibly make for any sort of proper policy. i think kevin rudd's a
lame control freak who rarely actually _does_ anything, but at least he's
not promoting a mixed message.

i can't imagine i'm the only person who views the libs' bizarre mixed
message with one eyebrow raised. it's my position their party is likely to
split completely over this.

I read the revues of Plimer's book after that interview and one scientist
who knows him well because he's at the same uni, made the comment at the
end that Plimer's book was like the Von Danikan books.

i want to know what the denier's prize actually is -

Follow the money is usually the first way of finding out the 'prize'.

Plimer is a Director of a number of mining companies. I wonder if any of
those Directorships would involve coal mining companies?

because best i can work
out they don't have one. it seems counterintuitive to argue & fight
against an idea that's well-established, to tire and humiliate oneself,
to lose the respect of others, and so forth, in a fight where one side
does not seem to have a prize in mind, and if there is a prize it would
seem to be one they simply can't win. if some huffy & self-serving
notion, such as "pride" is the prize they're fighting for, should they
not demonstrate slightly more now in order to have enough left to have
proven, later, that they "won"?

Bugger 'pride'. I'd lay pounds to peanuts that money is involved in one
way or another. That could be direct employment in a position of some
sort which atracts remuneration or, in the case of politicians,
contributions to campaign fundings or a multiplicity of other ways to
grease palms.

you would think so, but deniers say the massive worldwide "conspiracy" is
all about money, so... um.... actually it's far more likely the famous
deniers are about money - but what of the obscure, suburban deniers? (just
living on easter island in their minds, is my guess).

the other thing i want to know is where all these people were 25 years
ago when the subject was first brought up for debate in the public
domain. denialism only got groovy this year, but the horse had already
bolted years ago. does one fight harder & more desperately if one knows
the fight is effectively already over & has been for years?? _that's_
counterintuitive _too_. intriguing, it is, viewed from any angle.

if there is an exodus from teh sock drawer overnight & matching influx to
this group, is it our fault for feeding the troll?

Well he's already done at least one addy amendment because he's escaped
from my killfile to post in the last couple of days. I'll be surprised if
there aren't more add socks.

it's the weather for thongs, that's what i say :-)
kylie