And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

A speech a part of which is shown here.
You dont have to like what I or he says at times but its real enough.

__________________________________________________ _____________________

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Trood)—Senator Fielding, I think
you know the rules about the use of props.

Senator FIELDING—It is in Hansard. That is a chart that the Australian
public want to see. It is a chart that clearly the Rudd government does
not want people to see. It shows that carbon dioxide emissions have
skyrocketed, yet global temperatures have not increased the way the IPCC
predicted. To help people with the chart, imagine the black line is CPI
and the red line is your salary. You are going backwards. Quite clearly
you would be very unhappy if that was your salary. The government wants
to make you believe that the science is conclusive. I think we still
need to have this chart further debated. It is based on 15 years of
records. The global temperature chart may be an inconvenient fact to
those that refuse to have an open mind on climate change, but to many
Australians this global temperature chart is helpful and it allows them
to engage in a technical debate. For those people watching who find
charts hard to understand, as I said, think of the red line as if it was
your salary and the black line as if it was CPI.

Even if you put aside the science, the Rudd government does not seem to
acknowledge that its CPRS is a multibillion-dollar carbon tax. It is
economically reckless to agree to any CPRS before the Copenhagen climate
change conference, where the rest of the world will make up its mind on
how to deal with climate change. There are some estimates that the
government’s carbon reduction tax would be the equivalent of raising the
GST by 2½ per cent. But wait—it gets worse. Not only will we be paying
more tax; there will be more people without jobs. Frontier Economics
predicts 68,000 Australians will not be employed in rural and regional
Australia if the government’s plan goes through.

Who knows what the proposed amendments will do? According to the
government’s own numbers this new tax amounts to more than $12 billion
per year for industry. This is a cost which will be passed on to
ordinary Australians. It was reported in the Business Spectator recently
that the current legislation would have an $8 billion adverse impact on
four Latrobe Valley power generators which is offset by $2 billion in
current credits— a net enterprise value reduction of $6 billion. State
governments too will face a massive hole in their budgets as a result of
the scheme and will be $5.5 billion worse off by 2020. That means less
money for schools, less money for hospitals and less money for the
social services which so many Australians rely on.
Australian families will also be hard hit under the Rudd government’s
proposal. Electricity prices are still forecast—as I heard this morning
in Victoria—to double in Victoria. What will that do to households and
small businesses in Victoria? Council rates will also be affected and
will go up under the current plan. The Rudd government’s ETS has the
potential to cripple our economy and send families with their backs
already against the wall tipping over the edge. It is the sheer
arrogance of the Rudd government that is driving this debate at the
moment; it is not sensible public policy.

The Rudd government is playing politics with the lives of millions of
Australians by voting again on this issue now and trying maybe to force
an early election. Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that there
are no prizes for going first on implementing an emissions trading
scheme—only losers! We are not playing a game here. We are talking about
a multibillion-dollar tax that will impact on real people’s lives and
jobs. There is a lot more at stake than the government seems to realise.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

I don't want you to shut up, quite the reverse, all Australians should be
having this debate. I want you to stop posting anti global warming
propaganda uncritically. I want you to think instead of reacting to the
potential pain in your hip pocket nerve.


Jonthe Fly wrote:
A speech a part of which is shown here.
You dont have to like what I or he says at times but its real enough.

__________________________________________________ _____________________

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Trood)—Senator Fielding, I think
you know the rules about the use of props.

Senator FIELDING—It is in Hansard. That is a chart that the Australian
public want to see. It is a chart that clearly the Rudd government
does not want people to see. It shows that carbon dioxide emissions
have skyrocketed, yet global temperatures have not increased the way
the IPCC predicted. To help people with the chart, imagine the black
line is CPI and the red line is your salary. You are going backwards.
Quite clearly you would be very unhappy if that was your salary. The
government wants to make you believe that the science is conclusive.
I think we still need to have this chart further debated. It is based
on 15 years of records. The global temperature chart may be an
inconvenient fact to those that refuse to have an open mind on
climate change, but to many Australians this global temperature chart
is helpful and it allows them to engage in a technical debate. For
those people watching who find charts hard to understand, as I said,
think of the red line as if it was your salary and the black line as
if it was CPI.

What does Fielding know about climate science? Who says that the graph of
CO2 level against time must be followed by the same shaped graph of
temperature against time? It isn't the climate scientists. This is another
strawman argument.

Of course he is carefully ignoring the fact that a number of ice sheets are
melting much _faster_ than the IPCC predicted. If it aint waming up why are
they melting?


Even if you put aside the science, the Rudd government does not seem
to acknowledge that its CPRS is a multibillion-dollar carbon tax. It
is economically reckless to agree to any CPRS before the Copenhagen
climate change conference, where the rest of the world will make up
its mind on how to deal with climate change. There are some estimates
that the government’s carbon reduction tax would be the equivalent of
raising the GST by 2½ per cent. But wait—it gets worse. Not only will
we be paying more tax; there will be more people without jobs.
Frontier Economics predicts 68,000 Australians will not be employed
in rural and regional Australia if the government’s plan goes through.

Who knows what the proposed amendments will do? According to the
government’s own numbers this new tax amounts to more than $12 billion
per year for industry. This is a cost which will be passed on to
ordinary Australians. It was reported in the Business Spectator
recently that the current legislation would have an $8 billion
adverse impact on four Latrobe Valley power generators which is
offset by $2 billion in current credits— a net enterprise value
reduction of $6 billion. State governments too will face a massive
hole in their budgets as a result of the scheme and will be $5.5
billion worse off by 2020. That means less money for schools, less
money for hospitals and less money for the social services which so
many Australians rely on. Australian families will also be hard hit under
the Rudd government’s
proposal. Electricity prices are still forecast—as I heard this
morning in Victoria—to double in Victoria. What will that do to
households and small businesses in Victoria? Council rates will also
be affected and will go up under the current plan. The Rudd
government’s ETS has the potential to cripple our economy and send
families with their backs already against the wall tipping over the
edge. It is the sheer arrogance of the Rudd government that is
driving this debate at the moment; it is not sensible public policy.

And this is not science but more politics about taxation. A different
matter. Changing the energy basis of the economy was never going to be
painless.

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.


The Rudd government is playing politics with the lives of millions of
Australians by voting again on this issue now and trying maybe to
force an early election. Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister
that there are no prizes for going first on implementing an emissions
trading scheme—only losers! We are not playing a game here. We are
talking about a multibillion-dollar tax that will impact on real
people’s lives and jobs. There is a lot more at stake than the
government seems to realise.

I find this insane. The anti global warming crew saying there is more at
stake than we realise. What planet is this bloke on. What more could there
be aside from gambling with the future of the human race.

David

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

On 30/11/2009 6:13 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
I don't want you to shut up, quite the reverse, all Australians should
be having this debate. I want you to stop posting anti global warming
propaganda uncritically. I want you to think instead of reacting to the
potential pain in your hip pocket nerve.


Do you really think it will affect my "hip pocket nerve"?
It may not affect it at all, but it could, and achieve nothing.
I am on a pension.
I may not like Steve Fielding, but again, I've never met the man.
Someone once wrote, how can you hate someone who you have never met?
If you read what he said at this speech, you may understand a little
about what I am about in this matter. There is very little I disagree
about there.
Joe Hockey may not get up due to this issue.
Turnbull needed to have let an open vote on this.
He would have still been likly to stay in power.
It may also result in Tony Abbott being elected.
I dont like him either, but again I havent met him.
But he seems to have changed since JH lost power.
The issue on the table, is the ETS bill, and he knows it.

My opinion is, that this gardening area has become too complicated for
this issue.
I would suggest we find another forum....What do you suggest?
Its fast becoming off topic....



Jonthe Fly wrote:
A speech a part of which is shown here.
You dont have to like what I or he says at times but its real enough.

__________________________________________________ _____________________

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Trood)—Senator Fielding, I think
you know the rules about the use of props.

Senator FIELDING—It is in Hansard. That is a chart that the Australian
public want to see. It is a chart that clearly the Rudd government
does not want people to see. It shows that carbon dioxide emissions
have skyrocketed, yet global temperatures have not increased the way
the IPCC predicted. To help people with the chart, imagine the black
line is CPI and the red line is your salary. You are going backwards.
Quite clearly you would be very unhappy if that was your salary. The
government wants to make you believe that the science is conclusive.
I think we still need to have this chart further debated. It is based
on 15 years of records. The global temperature chart may be an
inconvenient fact to those that refuse to have an open mind on
climate change, but to many Australians this global temperature chart
is helpful and it allows them to engage in a technical debate. For
those people watching who find charts hard to understand, as I said,
think of the red line as if it was your salary and the black line as
if it was CPI.

What does Fielding know about climate science? Who says that the graph
of CO2 level against time must be followed by the same shaped graph of
temperature against time? It isn't the climate scientists. This is
another strawman argument.

Of course he is carefully ignoring the fact that a number of ice sheets
are melting much _faster_ than the IPCC predicted. If it aint waming up
why are they melting?


Even if you put aside the science, the Rudd government does not seem
to acknowledge that its CPRS is a multibillion-dollar carbon tax. It
is economically reckless to agree to any CPRS before the Copenhagen
climate change conference, where the rest of the world will make up
its mind on how to deal with climate change. There are some estimates
that the government’s carbon reduction tax would be the equivalent of
raising the GST by 2½ per cent. But wait—it gets worse. Not only will
we be paying more tax; there will be more people without jobs.
Frontier Economics predicts 68,000 Australians will not be employed
in rural and regional Australia if the government’s plan goes through.

Who knows what the proposed amendments will do? According to the
government’s own numbers this new tax amounts to more than $12 billion
per year for industry. This is a cost which will be passed on to
ordinary Australians. It was reported in the Business Spectator
recently that the current legislation would have an $8 billion
adverse impact on four Latrobe Valley power generators which is
offset by $2 billion in current credits— a net enterprise value
reduction of $6 billion. State governments too will face a massive
hole in their budgets as a result of the scheme and will be $5.5
billion worse off by 2020. That means less money for schools, less
money for hospitals and less money for the social services which so
many Australians rely on. Australian families will also be hard hit
under the Rudd government’s
proposal. Electricity prices are still forecast—as I heard this
morning in Victoria—to double in Victoria. What will that do to
households and small businesses in Victoria? Council rates will also
be affected and will go up under the current plan. The Rudd
government’s ETS has the potential to cripple our economy and send
families with their backs already against the wall tipping over the
edge. It is the sheer arrogance of the Rudd government that is
driving this debate at the moment; it is not sensible public policy.

And this is not science but more politics about taxation. A different
matter. Changing the energy basis of the economy was never going to be
painless.

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.


The Rudd government is playing politics with the lives of millions of
Australians by voting again on this issue now and trying maybe to
force an early election. Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister
that there are no prizes for going first on implementing an emissions
trading scheme—only losers! We are not playing a game here. We are
talking about a multibillion-dollar tax that will impact on real
people’s lives and jobs. There is a lot more at stake than the
government seems to realise.

I find this insane. The anti global warming crew saying there is more at
stake than we realise. What planet is this bloke on. What more could
there be aside from gambling with the future of the human race.

David

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

Jonthe Fly wrote:


My opinion is, that this gardening area has become too complicated for
this issue.
I would suggest we find another forum....What do you suggest?
Its fast becoming off topic....



Jonthe Fly wrote:

I am happy to drop it.

D

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

On 1/12/2009 8:15 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonthe Fly wrote:


My opinion is, that this gardening area has become too complicated for
this issue.
I would suggest we find another forum....What do you suggest?
Its fast becoming off topic....



Jonthe Fly wrote:

I am happy to drop it.

D
Not surprising.
As I expected. The issue with politics is intertwined with ETS.
Abbott did get up, by a very tiny margin.
Its enough for people to doubt and support him.
Its not even a green issue if you think about it.
It becomes one when it can be actually seen to do some good.
This one doesnt.
It allows a minor amount of man made gases (which dont appear to be
significant in the scheme of things) to be removed.
Where are the other amounts coming from? Stop those, and perhaps then
wel'l be doing something useful.

End of topic............................................. ......
Thanks for trying to argue the point.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

Jonthe Fly wrote:
On 1/12/2009 8:15 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonthe Fly wrote:


My opinion is, that this gardening area has become too complicated
for this issue.
I would suggest we find another forum....What do you suggest?
Its fast becoming off topic....



Jonthe Fly wrote:

I am happy to drop it.

D
Not surprising.
As I expected. The issue with politics is intertwined with ETS.
Abbott did get up, by a very tiny margin.
Its enough for people to doubt and support him.
Its not even a green issue if you think about it.
It becomes one when it can be actually seen to do some good.
This one doesnt.
It allows a minor amount of man made gases (which dont appear to be
significant in the scheme of things) to be removed.
Where are the other amounts coming from? Stop those, and perhaps then
wel'l be doing something useful.

End of topic............................................. ......
Thanks for trying to argue the point.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/opinion/australian-scrawl/

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

On 1/12/2009 2:39 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonthe Fly wrote:
On 1/12/2009 8:15 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonthe Fly wrote:


My opinion is, that this gardening area has become too complicated
for this issue.
I would suggest we find another forum....What do you suggest?
Its fast becoming off topic....



Jonthe Fly wrote:

I am happy to drop it.

D
Not surprising.
As I expected. The issue with politics is intertwined with ETS.
Abbott did get up, by a very tiny margin.
Its enough for people to doubt and support him.
Its not even a green issue if you think about it.
It becomes one when it can be actually seen to do some good.
This one doesnt.
It allows a minor amount of man made gases (which dont appear to be
significant in the scheme of things) to be removed.
Where are the other amounts coming from? Stop those, and perhaps then
wel'l be doing something useful.

End of topic............................................. ......
Thanks for trying to argue the point.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/opinion/australian-scrawl/

Nice pictures.
I dont like any of them.
Libs Labs or hard nosed terriers.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

"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.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

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

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

"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

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

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

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

"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.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

"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

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

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

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

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.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

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.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:51:23 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:

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.

That is how the existing schemes work, the peeps at the top rort clean it
off and the plebs get very little.

The fundamental problem with superannuation is that unless it is invested
in something that is actually producing concrete goods, it is just
another bubble waiting to burst. Aus

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.

Join an industry fund where you do not pay commissions to brokers.

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


It would also make housing affordable by lowering housing costs.

Never, ever going to happen. Finite land, ballooning population and more
and more competition is going to come from "superannuation funds" buying
properties for the rental income.

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.

The trick is to buy a cheaper car, do not take os holidays, smaller Tv,
no bigpond/foxtwel and pay a little extra off the home loan each month.
BTDT twice.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

"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.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

On 3/12/2009 1:25 PM, terryc wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:51:23 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:

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.

That is how the existing schemes work, the peeps at the top rort clean it
off and the plebs get very little.

The fundamental problem with superannuation is that unless it is invested
in something that is actually producing concrete goods, it is just
another bubble waiting to burst. Aus

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.

Join an industry fund where you do not pay commissions to brokers.

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


It would also make housing affordable by lowering housing costs.

Never, ever going to happen. Finite land, ballooning population and more
and more competition is going to come from "superannuation funds" buying
properties for the rental income.

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.

The trick is to buy a cheaper car, do not take os holidays, smaller Tv,
no bigpond/foxtwel and pay a little extra off the home loan each month.
BTDT twice.

Already realised this years ago. Small car. small TV
Actaully I have small every thing. (probably explains Sex life. It aint
too good either.)
I aint no Tiger Woods.
Cant take it with me so I'm renting.
Stopped swearing, staying out of the hot sun, live in shopping centers,
dont shout a beer or smoke. Cant be a pollie as I cant buy mates.
Easing up on food intake and moved out of the big smoke.
Grow my own vegies. I should be up for some government grant of some
sort, for showing a good example.
Any other hints?
Trying to influence those less informed so we dont waste money on flunky
climate schemes

Oh by the way This is interesting

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225793355139

Science dont lie and politics dont want you to find out.

And you want ME to shut up. See how it will affect you!
 

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 most extraordinary scientific detective story.
 

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.

The most extraordinary scientific detective story.
 

ArSee wrote:


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


Once again you refer to a most dubious source of information on your quest
for climate change denial. Perhaps once or twice you could check these
people out before uncritically posting their fluff.

From wikipedia:

quote
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed
that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is
"chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to
human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that
inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that
there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the
theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case
on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
unquote

One of the reasons that Booker makes such absurd claims could be that he is
not climate scientist, in fact not a scientist at all. The asbestos-talcum
powder confusion shows an appalling lack of even basic knowledge of
chemistry, not to mention denying the many studies showing the ill effects
of white asbestos. He joins Miloy in holding the peculiar duo of ideas of
climate change denial and second-hand smoke denial. He also joins Miloy in
making a living through journalism and books "debunking" science. As for
Intelligent Design there is no more thoroughly discredited and ludicrous
so-called theory. ID is a religious scam so unrelated to actual science
that it is not even wrong.

It would not have taken you very long to find numerous articles debunking
Booker's stupidity but you don't bother looking.

David

The most extraordinary scientific detective story.
 

On 6/12/2009 11:55 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
ArSee wrote:


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



Once again you refer to a most dubious source of information on your
quest for climate change denial. Perhaps once or twice you could check
these people out before uncritically posting their fluff.

From wikipedia:

quote
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has
claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white
asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a
"non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to
support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer
simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD
in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design,
maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind
faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
unquote

One of the reasons that Booker makes such absurd claims could be that he
is not climate scientist, in fact not a scientist at all. The
asbestos-talcum powder confusion shows an appalling lack of even basic
knowledge of chemistry, not to mention denying the many studies showing
the ill effects of white asbestos. He joins Miloy in holding the
peculiar duo of ideas of climate change denial and second-hand smoke
denial. He also joins Miloy in making a living through journalism and
books "debunking" science. As for Intelligent Design there is no more
thoroughly discredited and ludicrous so-called theory. ID is a religious
scam so unrelated to actual science that it is not even wrong.

It would not have taken you very long to find numerous articles
debunking Booker's stupidity but you don't bother looking.

David
Well as I said youre a hard man to convince.
What about this.


In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently
assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present
concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous
oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride,
trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane
exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for
serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And,
since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and
water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the
"greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon,
unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and
calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the
atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km,
and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at
78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now
that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra
for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen
aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse
gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC
reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a
"gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best
comments we've read on this subject:

"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is
that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse
gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about
the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global
warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the
greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated
by water vapor and clouds."
There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Also: Those who think they know everything, upset those who do.
Taken from this, (shortly be discredited by ***) website
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

The most extraordinary scientific detective story.
 

Jonthe Fly wrote:
"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know
is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main
greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and
removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove'
that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems
have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect,
which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."
There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Also: Those who think they know everything, upset those who do.
Taken from this, (shortly be discredited by ***) website
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

The role of water vapour in the issue *is* considered by climate scientists
and this simplistic view that there is a great deal of it and it is natural
therefore there is no anthropogenic climate change is wrong. As I have been
saying for some time you blokes should do your own research, it is not hard
to find the rebuttal for this. You are not going to find climate scientists
red-faced saying "duh we never thought of that".

I don't have time to participate in an endless game of ninepins where you
two (or three or howmany) set 'em up I knock 'em down. The pattern is
getting too boring and the point has been made. As somebody observed
already this is fairly off topic for aus.gardens although one would hope the
residents are interested. If you still want to debate this with somebody
try some of the climate change blogs.

I have a possible explanation for why you will not research both sides of
the issues. An opinion firmly held that was acquired by non-rational means
cannot be changed by rational means.

Now I have to get out and work before it gets too hot.

David

The most extraordinary scientific detective story.
 

"ArSee" wrote in message
...

I would suggest before you mention BER you make sure of your facts.
BER is when flowers actually rot.

blossom end rot is when the blossom-end of the fruit rots. the flower is
usually long gone by then & presence or absence of the flower is irrelevent.
it's called that to distinguish it from situations where the stalk-end of
the fruit rots.

have you noticed yet that david is observably intelligent? and when you do,
will you stop?
kylie