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.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

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

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

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

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.

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/

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.

"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.