"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

REGARDLESS of GW or no GW we have to do it. Oil is going to run out.
Before it does it is going to become prohibitively expensive as demand
continues to grow, supply shrinks and the cost of extracting less
accessible reserves increases.

Did you recently see the show on the ABC which I think was called, "The
Story of Money" - I may have got the title wrong but it was made by an Irish
chap who covered much more than just money - there was also a huge
environmental element to the show? The last show of the 3 part series was
titled 'Peak Everything'.

I keep thinking of this show given that we've just recently had news of food
having gone up 40% in 10 years, the ETS and the most recent news that
Australia is now building the biggest houses in the world.

FarmI wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

REGARDLESS of GW or no GW we have to do it. Oil is going to run out.
Before it does it is going to become prohibitively expensive as
demand continues to grow, supply shrinks and the cost of extracting
less accessible reserves increases.

Did you recently see the show on the ABC which I think was called,
"The Story of Money" - I may have got the title wrong but it was made
by an Irish chap who covered much more than just money - there was
also a huge environmental element to the show? The last show of the
3 part series was titled 'Peak Everything'.

I keep thinking of this show given that we've just recently had news
of food having gone up 40% in 10 years, the ETS and the most recent
news that Australia is now building the biggest houses in the world.

No I didn't see it, I will have a look at the ABC web site and see what i
can find..

D

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

REGARDLESS of GW or no GW we have to do it. Oil is going to run out.
Before it does it is going to become prohibitively expensive as
demand continues to grow, supply shrinks and the cost of extracting
less accessible reserves increases.

Did you recently see the show on the ABC which I think was called,
"The Story of Money" - I may have got the title wrong but it was made
by an Irish chap who covered much more than just money - there was
also a huge environmental element to the show? The last show of the
3 part series was titled 'Peak Everything'.

I keep thinking of this show given that we've just recently had news
of food having gone up 40% in 10 years, the ETS and the most recent
news that Australia is now building the biggest houses in the world.

No I didn't see it, I will have a look at the ABC web site and see what i
can find..

Sorry David, I gave you a bum steer. The show was actually called "Addicted
to Money". (I hunted through the old newspaper pile to find an old TVGuide)

This site gives a reasonable overview of the "Peak Everything" episode but
it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the (quite astonishing
given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that china is making on
environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

FarmI wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

REGARDLESS of GW or no GW we have to do it. Oil is going to run
out. Before it does it is going to become prohibitively expensive
as demand continues to grow, supply shrinks and the cost of
extracting less accessible reserves increases.

Did you recently see the show on the ABC which I think was called,
"The Story of Money" - I may have got the title wrong but it was
made by an Irish chap who covered much more than just money - there
was also a huge environmental element to the show? The last show
of the 3 part series was titled 'Peak Everything'.

I keep thinking of this show given that we've just recently had news
of food having gone up 40% in 10 years, the ETS and the most recent
news that Australia is now building the biggest houses in the world.

No I didn't see it, I will have a look at the ABC web site and see
what i can find..

Sorry David, I gave you a bum steer. The show was actually called
"Addicted to Money". (I hunted through the old newspaper pile to
find an old TVGuide)
This site gives a reasonable overview of the "Peak Everything"
episode but it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the
(quite astonishing given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that
china is making on environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

I found it and watched it online. Overall quite reasonable given that they
were working from the financial crisis as a starting point rather than the
main focus being on the limits to natural resources. I was disappointed in
that a number of issues, including the big one of overpopulation, were
skimmed over and others that are likely to come up (like peak phosphorus to
get more on topic) were not mentioned. The editing was crap with too many
flashy composite and tessellated images.

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
FarmI wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

REGARDLESS of GW or no GW we have to do it. Oil is going to run
out. Before it does it is going to become prohibitively expensive
as demand continues to grow, supply shrinks and the cost of
extracting less accessible reserves increases.

Did you recently see the show on the ABC which I think was called,
"The Story of Money" - I may have got the title wrong but it was
made by an Irish chap who covered much more than just money - there
was also a huge environmental element to the show? The last show
of the 3 part series was titled 'Peak Everything'.

I keep thinking of this show given that we've just recently had news
of food having gone up 40% in 10 years, the ETS and the most recent
news that Australia is now building the biggest houses in the world.

No I didn't see it, I will have a look at the ABC web site and see
what i can find..

Sorry David, I gave you a bum steer. The show was actually called
"Addicted to Money". (I hunted through the old newspaper pile to
find an old TVGuide)
This site gives a reasonable overview of the "Peak Everything"
episode but it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the
(quite astonishing given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that
china is making on environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

I found it and watched it online. Overall quite reasonable given that
they were working from the financial crisis as a starting point rather
than the main focus being on the limits to natural resources. I was
disappointed in that a number of issues, including the big one of
overpopulation, were skimmed over and others that are likely to come up
(like peak phosphorus to get more on topic) were not mentioned. The
editing was crap with too many flashy composite and tessellated images.

LOL. Just how much coverage do you want in an hour's show? I thought there
was enough covered to raise the issues of "Peak Everything" quite well. I
know that since I watched it, it's certainly caused me to pull in my horns
more and now (for some things) the first place I think of shopping (and
usually find what I need) is in the 2nd hand places.

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

it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the (quite astonishing
given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that china is making on
environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

just wanted to say that i would guess totalitarian states always have an
easier time creating change - because they're totalitarian :-) so perhaps
it is not astonishing at all. the chinese govt wouldn't give a wazoo if
everyone was screeching "but it will cost me an extra dollar a week!!! i'm
going to ring up alan jones!!!!"

tee hee. having said that, i saw nicholas stern on lateline last night. he
said environmental issues are the Really Big Worry for people in china
(unlike australians, who'd probably choose something mindless, like house
prices). i speculate that this is because china's environmental problems are
not only pressing, but they're also incredibly _visible_, & that makes a
huge difference to what people care about. everyone in china can literally
see with their own eyes things that are going wrong. therefore, they care
more & are more prepared to do something about it.
kylie

On 2/12/2009 5:04 PM, 0tterbot wrote:
"FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message
. au...

it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the (quite astonishing
given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that china is making on
environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

just wanted to say that i would guess totalitarian states always have an
easier time creating change - because they're totalitarian :-) so perhaps
it is not astonishing at all. the chinese govt wouldn't give a wazoo if
everyone was screeching "but it will cost me an extra dollar a week!!! i'm
going to ring up alan jones!!!!"

tee hee. having said that, i saw nicholas stern on lateline last night. he
said environmental issues are the Really Big Worry for people in china
(unlike australians, who'd probably choose something mindless, like house
prices).
Yeah we should all be renting...
Owning a home in australia is a gamble, unless you have stable
government employement or are in a trade. Banks really know how to rip
the heart out of workers, and mindless? Only because its made so
heartless by these rip off merchants.
i speculate that this is because china's environmental problems are
not only pressing, but they're also incredibly _visible_,& that makes a
huge difference to what people care about. everyone in china can literally
see with their own eyes things that are going wrong. therefore, they care
more& are more prepared to do something about it.
Especially if they can screw competing countries economies.
This appears to be why America wont do anything at the moment until all
options are checked. China is wagging the dog.
Their senate enquiry re this is ongoing.
kylie

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:


Yeah we should all be renting...

If superannuation is to work, then yes.

Owning a home in australia is a gamble, unless you have stable
government employement or are in a trade.

It really helps if you buy within your means from the beginning. This
includes leaving room for interest rate increases. Naturally, have two
incomes reduces the risk.

On 3/12/2009 3:06 AM, terryc wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:


Yeah we should all be renting...

If superannuation is to work, then yes.
Superannuation is like a horse race with only a percentage of punters
actually being able to get a full employment payout.
The unfortunate unstable employment ranks are ripped of all the way
through, by "administration costs" to support those with stable
government jobs to support their super.
Owning a home in australia is a gamble, unless you have stable
government employement or are in a trade.

It really helps if you buy within your means from the beginning. This
includes leaving room for interest rate increases. Naturally, have two
incomes reduces the risk.
Having an income and preventing people with two jobs, allows others to
work.
It would also make housing affordable by lowering housing costs.
The next problem is rip of banks who will through the life of a loan
charge two to three time's the cost of the home in "interest". I'd be
interested too.

"0tterbot" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the (quite
astonishing given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that china is
making on environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

just wanted to say that i would guess totalitarian states always have an
easier time creating change - because they're totalitarian :-) so perhaps
it is not astonishing at all. the chinese govt wouldn't give a wazoo if
everyone was screeching "but it will cost me an extra dollar a week!!! i'm
going to ring up alan jones!!!!"

LOL. Quite right of course. I wasn't very clear. What I really meant by
my comment was that a totalitarian state wouldn't do anything if it wasn't
convinced of a pressing need to do so. China must be convinced that there
is a huge need to do so given the amount of money they've invested over a
very short period of time. China doesn't give a rat's arse about the health
or well being of their citizens unlike supposedly 'caring' western states so
thye must be concerned about something other than their people.

tee hee. having said that, i saw nicholas stern on lateline last night. he
said environmental issues are the Really Big Worry for people in china
(unlike australians, who'd probably choose something mindless, like house
prices). i speculate that this is because china's environmental problems
are not only pressing, but they're also incredibly _visible_, & that makes
a huge difference to what people care about. everyone in china can
literally see with their own eyes things that are going wrong. therefore,
they care more & are more prepared to do something about it.

Yes I saw him too and he said that Aus is at more risk from climate change
than other places. I'd agree with that just based on observation.

On 3/12/2009 3:52 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
"FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message
it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the (quite
astonishing given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that china is
making on environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

just wanted to say that i would guess totalitarian states always have an
easier time creating change - because they're totalitarian :-) so perhaps
it is not astonishing at all. the chinese govt wouldn't give a wazoo if
everyone was screeching "but it will cost me an extra dollar a week!!! i'm
going to ring up alan jones!!!!"

LOL. Quite right of course. I wasn't very clear. What I really meant by
my comment was that a totalitarian state wouldn't do anything if it wasn't
convinced of a pressing need to do so. China must be convinced that there
is a huge need to do so given the amount of money they've invested over a
very short period of time. China doesn't give a rat's arse about the health
or well being of their citizens unlike supposedly 'caring' western states so
thye must be concerned about something other than their people.

tee hee. having said that, i saw nicholas stern on lateline last night. he
said environmental issues are the Really Big Worry for people in china
(unlike australians, who'd probably choose something mindless, like house
prices). i speculate that this is because china's environmental problems
are not only pressing, but they're also incredibly _visible_,& that makes
a huge difference to what people care about. everyone in china can
literally see with their own eyes things that are going wrong. therefore,
they care more& are more prepared to do something about it.

Yes I saw him too and he said that Aus is at more risk from climate change
than other places. I'd agree with that just based on observation.


Yes, as I thought. No sense of humor or sense.

The real question on Copenhagen is: not that the weather isnt changing, as
it has for many millions of years, but can we do much to repair it, and
whether we are just lining someone elses pockets with patchy repairs that
arent going to do anything to the climate, except to make these epople more
influential?. Also watch China and India as they come online with their huge
potential economies. Will they, can they toe the line?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-world.html

Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary
scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree
in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this
astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable
part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound
and fury of "Climategate" - the emails leaked from the Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked
by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands
of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now
seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted
the world to see.

To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first
necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate
to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU,
his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, the US computer modeller Dr Michael Mann, of
"hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have
been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we
shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the
largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to
many trillions of dollars.

It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which
these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been
working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today
than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to
eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for
entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm
Period).

The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph
produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the
IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian
statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick,
showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced
"hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly
unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western
USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval
Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to
unprecedented levels.

Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two
expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists
at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely
influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and
Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the
"hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa
was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007,
which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.

At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree
rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least
because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct
them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer
the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago
Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had
been after.

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series
of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies
were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave
those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on
similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than
today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a
"hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary
reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most
influential tree in the world".

But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked
documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted
remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that
he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to
"Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been
quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what
they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree,
the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century
but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the
"hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data
after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted - without explanation -
with a line based on the quite different data of measured global
temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.

A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert
contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She
has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of
Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at
all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)

In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of
evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global
warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as
definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet
it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500
politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be
gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require
us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything
up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.

Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our
mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the
mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was
Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor
whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful
suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little
boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at
all.

I will only add two footnotes to this real-life new version of the old
story. One is that, as we can see from the CRU's website, the largest single
source of funding for all its projects has been the European Union, which at
Copenhagen will be more insistent than anyone that the world should sign up
to what amounts to the most costly economic suicide note in history.

The other is that the ugly, drum-like concrete building at the University of
East Anglia which houses the CRU is named after its founder, the late Hubert
Lamb, the doyen of historical climate experts. It was Professor Lamb whose
most famous contribution to climatology was his documenting and naming of
what he called the Medieval Warm Epoch, that glaring contradiction of modern
global warming theory which his successors have devoted untold efforts to
demolishing. If only they had looked at the evidence of those Siberian trees
in the spirit of true science, they might have told us that all their
efforts to show otherwise were in vain, and that their very much more
distinguished predecessor was right after all.