On Jul 9, 2:25 pm, "George W. Frost" wrote:
Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks to
connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"


Maybe, there is no limit to what the bureaucratic mind can find to
charge a fee for.


It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not supplying
water as needed.

I find nothing odd about this at all, the two have little in common.
Should the Water Board be held responsible for it not raining?

We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means you
cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.

But you still only pay for what you get.

Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.


So you are blaming the Council or the Water Board for El Nino?

You cannot blame "climate change"

Eastern Australia has been having El Nino events for a very long time,
we seem to be just starting to come out of a particularly nasty one.
This is the major factor in the drought overall and your water
restrictions in particular, not climate change. However consider that
climate scientists think that if present trends continue the frequency
and severity of El Nino is likely to get worse. This _would_ be a
consequence of climate change.


this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians

Why would they make it up? How come the great majority of
climatologists world wide say it is happening? Are they part of the
same vast global conspiracy? Who is bribing them and why?

No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years


The climate has been changing for millions of years without help from
mankind. But now WE are having an effect as well as all the natural
forces.

Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and seas
leaving deserts?

No way, because man wasn't invented then


No because this is a straw man argument. No climatolost says mankind
was responsible for all those things back millions of years. That
these things happened in the past is quite within the climate models,
what we need to consider is why some things are changing now. Have a
look at the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting now ask
yourself what is the cause.

It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.

It is measurably and demonstrably not the same. The growth of the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years has no
explanation other than from human activity.


Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and its
environs


I haven't heard this explanation before. Please tell me where you got
it from and how this has increased the CO2 in the air in the last 100
years.

We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
tides, seasons etc

No we cannot control those things but we can control how much carbon
dioxide etc we put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.

so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change that
may or may not come along


It does not follow.


David

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 9, 2:25 pm, "George W. Frost" wrote:
Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks
to
connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
planned for the future.
They will legislate and announce a "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"


Maybe, there is no limit to what the bureaucratic mind can find to
charge a fee for.


True statement


It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars for not
supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not
supplying
water as needed.

I find nothing odd about this at all, the two have little in common.
Should the Water Board be held responsible for it not raining?

I am not sayuing that they are to blame, if you read my comment about
Connex, then that relates to the water board as well, Connex have a system
in place but do not supply thte amount of scheduled trains they promise, if
they don't, they get a hefty fine from the Government,
The water board have a system in place, admittedly there is no water for
them to supply, but they are still charging cunsumers the full amount as
when there is plenty of water, they are still upgrading their new cars,
upgrading their buildings as if there is no tomorrow and treating the
consumers with contempt.
Do you think that the Government would let Connex charge train travellers
for travel on trains which are not there?


We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means
you
cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
supply of goods which we are not allowed to have.

But you still only pay for what you get.

When there is the water to have, then you get charged a water usage fee for
what you have used,
but another poster has claimed they were on level 5 going to level 6,
How much water can you use on stage 6?
Bet he will still be charged the full amount for supply of water he wont be
able to use


Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.


So you are blaming the Council or the Water Board for El Nino?


Who mentioned anything about El Nino?


You cannot blame "climate change"

Eastern Australia has been having El Nino events for a very long time,
we seem to be just starting to come out of a particularly nasty one.
This is the major factor in the drought overall and your water
restrictions in particular, not climate change. However consider that
climate scientists think that if present trends continue the frequency
and severity of El Nino is likely to get worse. This _would_ be a
consequence of climate change.


El Nino's effects are usually only around for abour 7 - 8 months



this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians

Why would they make it up? How come the great majority of
climatologists world wide say it is happening? Are they part of the
same vast global conspiracy? Who is bribing them and why?


Who said anything about bribery?

No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years


The climate has been changing for millions of years without help from
mankind.

You have just answered my argument

But now WE are having an effect as well as all the natural
forces.

Not really, nature is doing it well by itself.


Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and
seas
leaving deserts?

No way, because man wasn't invented then


No because this is a straw man argument. No climatolost says mankind
was responsible for all those things back millions of years. That
these things happened in the past is quite within the climate models,
what we need to consider is why some things are changing now. Have a
look at the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting now ask
yourself what is the cause.


read the next sentence again.

It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.



It is measurably and demonstrably not the same. The growth of the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years has no
explanation other than from human activity.


Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and
its
environs


I haven't heard this explanation before. Please tell me where you got
it from and how this has increased the CO2 in the air in the last 100
years.


You know nothing about atomic reaction?
if not, then your argument is baseless.
You know something about physical reaction.
You know something about mental reaction.
then you should know something about atomic reaction, seeing that everything
on this planet is created from atoms
a mixture of particular atoms create a reaction, even to the atoms in your
body.

We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
tides, seasons etc

No we cannot control those things but we can control how much carbon
dioxide etc we put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.


This is also my argument and I agree with you on this,but on a different
agenda

so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change
that
may or may not come along


It does not follow.


Every day, the volcano in Hawaii spews more than 2,500 tons of sulfur
dioxide into the atmosphere, enough noxious gas to fill 100 Goodyear blimps.
a natural occurance from one volcano which no-one would be able to contain
or control.

cheers

frosty


David

On Jul 10, 9:01 pm, "George W. Frost" wrote:

You cannot blame "climate change"

Eastern Australia has been having El Nino events for a very long time,
we seem to be just starting to come out of a particularly nasty one.
This is the major factor in the drought overall and your water
restrictions in particular, not climate change. However consider that
climate scientists think that if present trends continue the frequency
and severity of El Nino is likely to get worse. This _would_ be a
consequence of climate change.

El Nino's effects are usually only around for abour 7 - 8 months



But this time several years. If it isn't EL Nino causing the drought
what is it? Climate change?


this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians

Why would they make it up? How come the great majority of
climatologists world wide say it is happening? Are they part of the
same vast global conspiracy? Who is bribing them and why?

Who said anything about bribery?


OK why do greenies and poltician use a made up word? Why do most
climatologists say it is real and not made up?

No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
years

The climate has been changing for millions of years without help from
mankind.

You have just answered my argument

Not at all. Just because climate change has had natural causes in the
past does not mean that there can be no changes caused by humans now
or in the future.


But now WE are having an effect as well as all the natural
forces.

Not really, nature is doing it well by itself.


What evidence do you have for this other than that you say so?

Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and
seas
leaving deserts?

No way, because man wasn't invented then

No because this is a straw man argument. No climatolost says mankind
was responsible for all those things back millions of years. That
these things happened in the past is quite within the climate models,
what we need to consider is why some things are changing now. Have a
look at the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting now ask
yourself what is the cause.

read the next sentence again.

It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.


Once again you are making bald assertions with no evidence supplied.

It is measurably and demonstrably not the same. The growth of the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years has no
explanation other than from human activity.

Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and
its
environs

I haven't heard this explanation before. Please tell me where you got
it from and how this has increased the CO2 in the air in the last 100
years.

You know nothing about atomic reaction?
if not, then your argument is baseless.

This is no explanaton of your position. What exactly is the way that
atomic reactions are affecting climate? Where are these atomic
reactions happening? What are they doing to the atmosphere? I need
enough detail to follow your argument, what you have said doesn't tell
me anything.

You know something about physical reaction.
You know something about mental reaction.
then you should know something about atomic reaction, seeing that everything
on this planet is created from atoms
a mixture of particular atoms create a reaction, even to the atoms in your
body.

This is no explanation either. If you don't have the words yourself
then give a reference to somebody who is making this case. As it is
you aren't saying anything.


We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
tides, seasons etc

No we cannot control those things but we can control how much carbon
dioxide etc we put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.

This is also my argument and I agree with you on this,but on a different
agenda

What agenda is that? If you agree that humans are responsible for the
extra CO2 in the air then explain why this is not causing climate
change.


so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change
that
may or may not come along

It does not follow.

Every day, the volcano in Hawaii spews more than 2,500 tons of sulfur
dioxide into the atmosphere, enough noxious gas to fill 100 Goodyear blimps.
a natural occurance from one volcano which no-one would be able to contain
or control.


I will accept your figures for the point of discusion for now. What
effect do you think that 2500 tons a day of sulphur dioxide has on
global climate change? If you say it is a significant effect on
global climate then you need to show me the climate modeling or other
scientific work (or a reference to it) that supports the case.

David